Correspondence with Dave

To: dave

I was looking for Creation Science links when I found your page. I am a Creationist. I would like to point out that your reasoning, or "common sense," about the changes in biological organisms has, as I see it, one main flaw. I don't believe that biological organisms are indefinitely variable. There is a point at which further changes in our genetic code results in sterility or death. That's the main reason that Evolution cannot give rise to new species. (I define a species as a group of indefinitely- reproductive individuals.) My theory is experimentally demonstrated, as I'm sure you are aware.

Sincerely,

From: dave

To: Pooua@aol.com

You clearly have no understanding of genetics or biology.

dave

To: dave

An easy dismissal on your part.

From: dave

To: Pooua@aol.com

Of course it was, but given the simplicity of your argument, I saw no reason to delve. What reason do you have for supposing that organisms don't have enough variation, or can't generate enough variation to change drastically over very long periods of time?

dave

To: dave

In a message dated 97-05-27 22:38:08 EDT, you write:

<< What reason do you have for supposing that organisms don't have enough variation, or can't generate enough variation to change drastically over very long periods of time? >>

Perhaps the first observation I might make is that in our observable time frame, we see this is true. We can produce species that have quite different characteristics (such as the wide variety of dogs, cows, horses, etc.), but we never produce an indefinitely-fertile new line. The combination of horse and ass produces a hybrid that is similar, yet different, but also usually sterile.

There was some excitement generated a few years ago (about 5, I think), when a hybrid of bird was discovered that remained fertile for 3 generations past the point of hybridization. This was seen as a support for evolution. (It was covered in Science News, produced by the American Association for the Advancement of Science). The article made the point that 3 generations was a record for fertility of a new species. Evolution needs a little more than that, though.

I suppose that at this point you would protest that man's domestication of animals over the last 10,000 years cannot replicate evolution's billion-years lead. I would disagree, on the grounds that an intelligent attempt by humans, an attempt made with the most likely course of success chosen, shortcuts many millions of years at a time. Enough people have been doing breeding experiments long enough that humanity should have a pretty good feel for what is possible and what is not in terms of genetic drift. It is possible to produce new varieties. It is not possible to produce new lines, not by simple breeding processes, anyway.

Perhaps when we learn more of the genetic code, we will produce new creatures that are indefinitely-fertile. That would require us to actually construct the pieces that permit this function, pieces that aren't working when animals simply breed across species.

I would like to mention on a tangent here that natural selection is a filtering process, not a creating process. It takes the pool of individuals and removes the worst fit, and advances the best fit. It only selects the best fit trait. Something else must create the trait! I'm also concerned that we don't ever predict what the best-fit trait is. Our after-the-fact pronouncement that, for example, "this bird was a success because its coloration made it the fittest," proves nothing. So, the idea that natural selection is the dominant or predominant force in determining which traits continue makes vague sense, but is unproven. When I consider all the millions of traits for which a person might be selected, and all the millions of environmental factors that might select traits, and the effects of just plain dumb luck, I begin to wonder how significant natural selection could be. It is a shame we don't have it quantitized.

Since something else must be producing the new traits, I might wonder how efficient it is in producing the traits that will survive. Mutations aren't too effective (in fact, I don't know of any useful mutations). I've seen other producers mentioned, too, though most might be catagorize under mutation. I might exclude mechanisms that transfer useful genes from one species to another, such as viri might be. Virus transfer still begs the question of the origin of the gene, though.

I have seen a list of supposed, "transitional" fossils. I also recognized that some of the names on the list are those of members whose place in evolution is in dispute by evolutionists, never mind by creationists. Archeopteryx, for example, either is or is not the predecessor of modern birds, depending on which evolutionist one believes. Creationists point out that Archeopteryx was more bird-like than evolutionists do, and seem to consider A. as a type of bird (I'm a little hazy on how they catagorize it). [Contrary to what I wrote here, it is pointed out in Creationist literature that Archeopteryx is a reptilian creature in all six of the fossils known. Someone tampered with two of the fossils, by putting a fine layer of cement over the top and impressing feathers, or by implanting a "wishbone" in the fossil.]

Besides the question of an animal's place in an evolutionary line, I would question the idea that similarity means genetic link. I noticed that in the explanations of transitional fossils that a particular structure was indicated, and the existence of the structure in two species showed that one came from the other. I don't see that I must accept that as valid logic. I would expect a transitional fossil to have other characteristics that show it is truly transitional, such as, for example, a body that is practically the same as the predecessor, but slightly modified. One problem is (as creationists point out) that a fin that is transforming into a leg will become a bad fin long before it becomes a good leg.

(The very idea that our Universe would have directed the development of a good fin into a good leg is outrageous! It would require, according to the scenario, the net sum of environmental pressures for millions and millions of years to encourage that outcome. How could something like that produce a symmetrical result? Why should it produce any result except disaster? Why aren't we all a bunch of cripples with oddly-shaped appendages? Survival of the fittest doesn't require grace. It only requires advantage. Grace would take a lot more refining than producing the structure would, but we see grace all the way back to the simplest of organisms.)

So, I don't believe that enough variation exists to permit evolution to produce new species because the process doesn't work that way, and we have never seen it work that way, and we've been artificially running genetic alterations long enough to know it can't work that way. In fact, we have seen it work to the contrary. Only the believers in the process claim otherwise. I am annoyed at the dogmatic manner that some evolutionists use to proclaim that evolution is much more proven than it really is (and archeopteryx is a good example of that!).

From: dave

To: Pooua@aol.com

Well, I read your whole message, and I'm tempted to revert to my earlier question. How much biology do you really know? You seem pretty ignorant of the basic facts. First, there is no debate about whether or not new species can arise from others--they clearly have. The evidence is in the fossil record, in the chemicals that make up our bodies, and in our overall morphology. It speaks of a common origin of all life, of our relatedness to chimps, gorillas, and you can work backwards in time if you want.

The debates now between people who are doing research in biology and paleontology are not about whether or not, but how. Let me reiterate that the fact of evolution has been accepted by the major body of scientists as a "fact" for more than 100 years. The fact of evolution should always be distinguished from the "theory" of evolution. The theory is the body of hypothesis that is trying to explain the patterns in the life forms that are now on earth. It is called a fact because all the evidence tells a story that is so plain that you have to be an idiot to interpret it any other way. In its simplest form, the evidence is 1) nested hierarchical relationships in a) morphological b) genetic c) immunological (where relevant) d) embryological and other independent threads of similarity that its 2) supported in every instance by the fossil record where a fossil record is available. When you find that two things look alike (chimps and humans), then you look at their genes, their blood, their immune systems, and so on, you find that chimps and humans are more like each other than they are like apes. The apes look more like each other than the other simian primates, and these look more like each other than the pro-simian primates, and so on. These relationships are copied in the fossil record in some amazing consistency. If you look back a million, 10 million, or 20 million years in the fossil record, you stop getting humans and you get something more and more like the insectivorous ancestor that begat all of us.

So as far as I'm concerned, Creationists are just like the Flat Earth society, and now that the Pope has accepted that the evidence speaks unmistakably in favor of evolution, that similarity has been reinforced.

So why not give up your picayune biological tourism and learn some real biology?

But I have a question for you. Why in the world do you insist on interpreting Genesis in such a narrow sense? I've never yet heard anyone argue that the Bible has to be interpreted in the stupid way that creationists interpret it.

What exactly is Genesis? A vision received by Moses? A Parable told in King David's court? A quick, figurative retelling of the legends of the Jews? Why don't you try to answer those questions, and then we can argue about whether it is sensible to base an entire enterprise on a literal reading of a few lines of the bible.

dave

To: dave

In a message dated 97-05-29 02:59:52 EDT, you write:

>Well, I read your whole message, and I'm tempted to revert to my earlier question. How much >biology do you really know?

Just some basic knowledge. I don't have a degree in biology. I took Biology in high school (Rio Grande High School in Albuquerque, NM). I took the more advanced class offered. I've read a lot (ranging from pop science mags to tech journals and encyclopedias -- I am sitting in front of my copy of Encyclopædia Britannica). I've also had several discussions on this matter with evolutionists. I think I do pretty good, considering that I make a living in other fields. If my education is beneath your dignity, I will understand.

>You seem pretty ignorant of the basic facts.

Just because I disagree with your world view does not mean I am ignorant.

>First, there is no debate about whether or not new species can arise from others-- they clearly >have.

I am debating that, and so are many other people (I have met lead scientists from our national research labs who also debate against evolution.) I disagree that all species (or any species, for that matter) came from earlier, simpler species (and so on, until the primordial soup, or whatever). It remains up to you to defend your position with relevant arguments.

>The evidence is in the fossil record, in the chemicals that make up our bodies, and in our overall >morphology.

So you have been taught, by the propaganda machine run by humanists. I've found that the data is not so black-and-white as evolutionists insist. Keep in mind who has been funding these research programs for the last century or so. It's rather like having tobacco companies funding studies on smoking. Data can be interpreted in many ways.

>The debates now between people who are doing research in biology and paleontology are not >about whether or not, but how.

Hmm.... I found some researchers on the Internet who are Creationists. Of course, you probably discount their credentials. Oddly enough, some of the Creationists I know personally are respected scientists in state-run labs. Some are even biology researchers. They say they have to be careful about what they say and to whom, because there is so much bigotry against Creationists. It's a matter of who holds the money, not who holds the majority. Because I have nothing to lose, I'm not worried about what I say, or to whom.

>Let me reiterate that the fact of evolution has been accepted by the major body of scientists as a >"fact" for more than 100 years. The fact of evolution should always be distinguished from the >"theory" of evolution. The theory is the body of hypothesis that is trying to explain the patterns >in the life forms that are now on earth. It is called a fact because all the evidence tells a story that >is so plain that you have to be an idiot to interpret it any other way.

Since when did the scientific method depend on insults?

Yes, I've read the material in the "Skeptics Dictionary." He claims that Creationism is not scientific because there is no experiment that could persuade a Creationist that Creationism is an incorrect model. I made the point in a message I sent him over a year ago that the same could be said of evolution. The "fact" of evolution is undeniable to these people, and no experiment will ever take away that fact from them. Only the method in which evolution came about is in question.

There are theories of Creationism as well as theories of Evolution. There is the fact of Creationism, just as the fact of Evolution. We must all make an assumption on which to base our world view, and then we work and interpret data from there.

>In its simplest form, the evidence is

Evidence is not proof. Evidence is an indication to someone that there is some resemblance between some data and a world view. Even a 100% match is still not proof.

Actually, science proves very few things. Most everything is taken as likelihood. That's why it is possible to upset a theory tomorrow that is standard today.

>1) nested heirarchical relationships in a) morphological b) genetic c) immunological (where >relevant) d) embryological and other independent threads of similarity that its 2) supported in >every instance by the fossil record where a fossil reccord is available. When you find that two >things look alike (chimps and humans), then you look at their genes, their blood, their immune >systems, and so on, you find that chimps and humans are more like each other than they are like >apes. The apes look more like each other than the other simian primates, and these look more like >each other than the pro-simian primates, and so on.

Again I say, similarity does not prove that one came from the other. A more convincing argument in your favor would be a demonstration of natural processes that lead from one to another. As I said in my last email, natural selection and mutation are inadequate (and would not offer enough detail into the mechanism, anyway). There is no particular reason to believe that there was a transition, only that there are similarities.

>These relationships are copied in the fossil record in some amazing consistency. If you look back >a million, 10 million, or 20 million years in the fossil record, you stop getting humans and you get >something more and more like the insectivorous ancestor that begat all of us.

So long as you discount any human fossils or signs that you find in the same region.

>So as far as I'm concerned, Creationists are just like the Flat Earth society, and now that the Pope >has accepted that the evidence speaks unmistakably in favor of evolution, that similarity has been >reinforced.

If no one had seen Earth for millions of years, there might be some similarity. If you wish to think of us that way, such is life. I've learned not to worry too much about convincing people of anything, since people usually believe what they intend to believe.

My world view says that the Pope is not the last bastion of truth. He might be somewhere on the outskirts, facing the wrong way. I believe that his "holiness'" cautious acceptance of Evolution is just a step towards claiming that he is the only literal God in the Universe. I can just see a future Pope claiming that man evolved, but it is the teachings of the Roman Catholic group that gives a person life and soul. The doctrine of the RC has long held that the Pope is God on Earth. Eventually, this could justify another extermination campaign on unassociated denominations.

>So why not give up your picayune biological tourism and learn some real biology?

I am happy enough chanting, "guanine, cytosine, adenine, thymine; GC, GC, AT, AT." I suppose that if I wish to refute biological evolution in detail, I shall have to learn more. The truth is, I've seen enough, and I've seen a lot more than most people do. I don't need to let some humanistic professor tell me how to think. I also don't need to feel that my understanding of biology is deficient because I don't accept Evolution.

>But I have a question for you. Why in the world do you insist on interpreting Genesis in such a >narrow sense? I've never yet heard anyone argue that the Bible has to be interpreted in the stupid >way that creationists interpret it.

It used to be this was the dominant understanding of Genesis in religious circles. That changed when German Rationalism and humanistic beliefs invaded the mainline denominations. One reaction against this coup was the formation of Christian fundamentalism, and associated groups. Another result was the formation of several derivative humanistic groups, including Communism and Nazism (the modern forms of both coming from Germans). Not surprisingly, both of these humanistic systems heavily advocated Evolution, even when they permitted some exercise of religion. Both also denigrated religion ... "The opiate of the people." The Holocaust was partly justified on Evolutionary grounds.

I found the lecture delivered by Stephen Jay Gould, on the subject of the support that evolution has given to racism, to be interesting and supportive of my prior instruction.

I accept a literal understanding of Genesis because that is the most straightforward interpretation of the text. It is an adequate understanding. It is consistent with the rest of the Bible. It is no more fantastic than the idea that the dead will someday live again for eternity in a perfect body with God, or in the flames of Hell with Satan. If there is no life after this one, there also is very little for which to live, except personal gain. When society lives for personal gain, civilization dies. Therefore, I offer hope, while you offer death.

>What exactly is Genesis? A vision received by Moses? A Parable told in King David's court? A >quick, figurative retelling of the legends of the Jews? Why don't you try to answer those >questions, and then we can argue about whether it is sensible to base an entire enterprise on a >literal reading of a few lines of the bible.

Genesis was written by Moses, as God inspired him. It shows the origins of pretty much everything that exists (hence the name).

Genesis is not the only biblical source for Creationism.

er, just how much of the Bible do you know?

Sincerely,

From: dave

To: Pooua@aol.com

>Genesis was written by Moses, as God inspired him. It shows the origins of pretty much >everything that exists (hence the name).

>Genesis is not the only biblical source for Creationism.

>er, just how much of the Bible do you know?

Enough to know that you don't know [censored] about the bible, either. BTW, what religion do you belong to? Mormonism? Sound like it from your discussion of the bible. In any case, where does it say that Moses wrote Genesis as God inspired him? In the bible? Are there independent lines of evidence that Moses is the author? Is it possible that these things were attributed to Moses by a later author?

On other topics, your claims are fantastic and unsupported. For example, the communists did not believe in evolution or promote it--or at least, to say so, in my opinion is a silly and simplistic statment of facts. The communist's interpretation of evolution was much more complex than you have stated--and the general feeling that I have from their history is that they rejected it. Your belief in a grand conspiracy theory of the "humanists" puts you in a category of people that I don't believe it is possible to have an intelligent conversation with. I would refute your arguments point by point, but I don't see a way to have an intelligent conversation.

So I leave you with a question, unless you decide to engage it (in which case, I might get really interested in your ideas and possibly consider this worthwhile). What explains the patterns in the fossil record and the nested patterns of similarity in living organisms that tell such a plain story of evolution by descent with modification? Conspiracy? I've heard your creationist spokespeople speak, and I've read their books, and not one of them has shown a sufficient understanding of biology to know that there is a pattern to be explained. Obviously, you also lack a sufficient knowledge of biology to know that the relevant questions are. So, Mr. Creationist, tell me why humans and chimps look so much alike (in a detailed, technical sense), have such similar behavior, have virtually identical hemoglogin, and have very similar genomes. Tell me why there is an excellent fossil record showing a shift in dentition, the evolution of legs to walk upright, the increase in the size of the braincase, and other traits. Tell me why there are clear links between humans and chimps, only one of a very large number of patterns that we could discuss. After discussing humans, chimps, and the radiation of the great apes, we could discuss lots of other, well-documented examples. (And please don't give me the tired old line about a paucity of fossils--the fossils exist in very large number and I've seen many of them in person.) By the way, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty details, when I say that chimps and humans look alike, I mean relative to other living organisms. The nested patterns in overall morphology were noted in a very systematic way by Linnaeus, who preceded Darwin by a century. Start with all the living things on earth--group them by likeness. Do the same things with lots and lots of traits (pick 20 or so traits). Now, why is it that al the fossils that we have happen to lie in strata, ordered by time, such that the further back in time, the things that look alike (defining likeness relative to other living organisms, with lots of traits) for which fossils exist have apparent "ancestors," that these fossils have a consistent geographical distribution.

What organized those fossils? Floods? Maybe a series of floods? (hell, as long as we're free to make up stuff that's not in the bible, why not just reinterpret Genesis?)

What is the creationist's explanation?

some interesting points--if 135,000 articles that were submitted to scientific journals had only 18 that offered support for creationism, is it a conspiracy? Or is it just that the creationists don't know enough biology to write and submit to scientific journals? BTW, all 18 were rejected on the grounds of insufficient scholarship.

dave

To: dave

>>Genesis was written by Moses, as God inspired him. It shows the origins of pretty much >>everything that exists (hence the name).

>>Genesis is not the only biblical source for Creationism.

>>er, just how much of the Bible do you know?

>Enough to know that you don't know ... about the bible, either.

That's foolish talk on your part, especially with the vulgar language I clipped.

>BTW, what religion do you belong to?

My religion is Christian. I don't have a denominational affiliation.

>Mormonism? Sound like it from your discussion of the bible.

It might be amusing to see how you came about that guess.

>In any case, where does it say that Moses wrote Genesis as God inspired him? In the bible? Are >there independent lines of evidence that Moses is the author? Is it possible that these things were >attributed to Moses by a later author?

Peter tells us in the New Testament that God inspired holy men to give us God's word, 2 Peter 1:21, "For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost." So, whoever gave us Genesis (the first book included as sacred scripture) was inspired by God. The question, then, is who the author was.

It is inevitable that Liberals would "question" (read, "deny") the author and date of Genesis; after all, they "question" everything else about the Bible. They have expended a lot of effort to offer alternative explanations for the book, but the predominant view remains that Moses is the author.

From my Zodhiates' Hebrew-Greek Key Study Bible, "Genesis alone fully informs us of the events which predated Moses. Surely Moses wrote it, using some ancient sources under God's direction. Jesus referred to Moses in Lk. 16:31; 24:44; and Jn. 5:46,47."

From my Matthew Poole's Commentary on the Holy Bible, "The Book is called GENESIS, i.e. generation, or birth, giving an account of passages during 2300 years and upwards, viz. from the creation of all things, to the death of Joseph. In which history Moses, by Divine inspiration, treats of the creation of the world, with all the parts and uses in it, and of it ..."

From my Barnes' Notes,

Whether these primary documents were originally composed by Moses, or came into his hands from earlier sacred writers, and were by him revised and combined into his great work, we are not informed. ...

Genesis is purely a historical work. It serves as the narrative preamble to the legislation of Moses. It possesses, however, a much higher and broader interest than this. It is the first volume of the history of man in relation with God.

Finally, my Jamison, Fausset, Brown commentary has several pages of discussion of this topic, of which I offer only a brief excerpt:

It follows, then, that the charge which Rationalistic writers have laboured to fasten upon the Pentateuch, of abounding in legendary tales, or being a mere collection of popular traditions, is destitute of any foundation -- is groundless imputation; and as we have shown that neither in the age immediately subsequent to the return from the captivity, nor at any intermediate period between that advanced point in Jewish history and the settlement of Israel in Canaan, could the Pentateuch have been palmed upon the nation by the ingenuity of a literary forger, or introduced, even in a natural way, as the embodiment of ancient traditions that had long been floating in the minds of the people, the only remaining conclusion is, that it must have been composed in the time and under the superintendence of Moses....

Direct evidence is furnished by -- 1. The statements of the book itself. Frequent mention occurs of records being made by Moses in obedience to Divine injunction ...

2. By frequent references in the subsequent books of Scripture. Joshua, on entering on his duties after the death of the legislator, was instructed 'to do according to all which the law of Moses commanded;' and it was added, 'This book of the law should not depart out of his mouth ...

3. The testimonies borne in the New Testament. Our Lord said to the Jewish cavillers on one occasion, 'Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuseth you, even Moses, in whom ye trust. For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me; for he wrote of me ...

JFB continues for a few more pages discussing indirect evidence and internal evidence. The authors devote 32 pages to this one subject.

I don't think I could add much to what I've written here, but it is sufficient for me that the Pentateuch has been called the Books or Law of Moses throughout Jewish history. Furthermore, the constant attacks by Liberals on the Bible and Christianity makes me indifferent to their claims -- they have cried "wolf" too often. Nothing that exists in conservative Christianity pleases Liberals, and they have the arrogance to suppose they can set everything right by following their own humanistic thoughts.

>On other topics, your claims are fantastic and unsupported. For example, the communists did not >believe in evolution or promote it--or at least, to say so, in my opinion is a silly and simplistic >statement of facts.

Why do you speak of Communists in past tense? There are still over a billion Communists walking on this Planet.

>The communist's interpretation of evolution was much more complex than you have stated--and >the general feeling that I have from their history is that they rejected it.

Next you will tell me they were God-fearing Puritans. Do you expect me to believe that for a century the Communists had no accepted explanation for the origin of man and the Universe? I can see little Ivan in school:

Ivan - Teacher, where did people come from?

Teacher - God made us.

Ivan - Where did Socialism come from?

Teacher - Satan made it.

Ivan - I guess that's why Haralan Popov is being Tortured for his Faith!

What do you suppose they teach the children in China?

No, the only thing fantastic here is your attitude.

>Your belief in a grand conspiracy theory of the "humanists" puts you in a category of people that >I don't believe it is possible to have an intelligent conversation with. I would refute your >arguments point by point, but I don't see a way to have an intelligent conversation.

Oh, have faith in yourself. Maybe you could take lessons?

>What explains the patterns in the fossil record and the nested patterns of similarity in living >organisms that tell such a plain story of evolution by descent with modification? Conspiracy?

At least partly, there is an unwarranted attack against Creationism by Evolutionists (suppression of evidence, denial of facts, censorship of ideas). For some of these people, it amounts to conspiracy (still working on your star, comrade?). For the most part, it need be nothing more than a mindset that refuses to admit there is a God, and all people are accountable to Him.

>I've heard your creationist spokespeople speak, and I've read their books, and not one of them has >shown a sufficient understanding of biology to know that there is a pattern to be explained.

I'm sure that Ken Ham knows that people and apes physically resemble each other more than people and elephants do. I'll bet he could even tell me which genomes humans and other creatures share.

>So, Mr. Creationist, tell me why humans and chimps look so much alike (in a detailed, technical >sense),

God made them that way (same basic body pattern). Similar appearances do not demand genealogical connection.

>have such similar behavior,

Been a while since I used a stick to eat ants, but I guess I could figure out how to do it if I wanted.

>have virtually identical hemoglogin,

The danger in using both fossil evidence and genetic evidence to indicate evolutionary divergence is that the two produce different answers. Maybe that's because similar appearances don't demand genealogical connection.

>and have very similar genomes.

Similar body design.

>Tell me why there is an excellent fossil record showing a shift in dentition,

Off the top of my head, I can't say much about dentition. I could look up an answer for you, but I doubt you would be interested.

>the evolution of legs to walk upright,

The fossil record might show differences between the pelvic structures of lower creatures and man, but we already see that without a fossil record. You merely assume that one such fossil was ancestor to another.

>the increase in the size of the braincase,

ditto above. FYI, the changes in the size of the braincase was used several times by various people to prove the Negros or Jews are inferior to Whites or Arians. Am I impressed by your argument?

>Tell me why there are clear links between humans and chimps, only one of a very large number >of patterns that we could discuss. After discussing humans, chimps, and the radiation of the great >apes, we could discuss lots of other, well-documented examples.

Probably all amounting to the same thing; you assume that similar-but-different fossils are in an ancestor-descendent relationship. If you had been listening to me the first time, you would have answered my basic objection, instead of trying to swamp me with more of the same.

So, which line of simian descent do you claim? There is more than one accepted by modern Evolutionists, you know. If the evidence were so clear as you imagine, you guys should at least be able to come up with the same lineage (I'm sure you will, eventually. And the guy who manages to tie it all together for you will win a Nobel Prize. And then a Creationist will point out its flaws and you will ignore him, because a Creationist just can't be correct.)

>(And please don't give me the tired old line about a paucity of fossils

Wasn't going to. Why do you bring it up?

>--the fossils exist in very large number and I've seen many of them in person.)

The physical mass of all the proto-human fossils collected could be gently placed inside a single human coffin. There are fossils that are mostly or completely intact for other creatures, but there are no complete fossils of Early Man. Far from it, most early man fossils are just fragments, bits of bone or some teeth. And, there is good reason to believe that some of those pre-human fossils are actually from a boneyard in which humans ate different animals (and humans) and left all the bones together.

Hmm... I remember reading an archeologist warning other archeologists to be careful about how seriously they take these arrangements of debris. He wasn't referring to paleontology, but it would apply.

>By the way, if you want to get into the nitty-gritty details, when I say that chimps and humans >look alike, I mean relative to other living organisms.

I would think so.

>The nested patterns in overall morphology were noted in a very systematic way by Linnaeus, who >preceded Darwin by a century.

Notably, Linnaeus was NOT an evolutionist. He believed that God created all life forms with basically the same appearances they have in our day (that is, he was a Creationist, before such a term was needed). His system does NOT expound evolution, as indicated in my Encyclopædia Britannica, " Although artificial, as Linnaeus himself recognized, such a system had the supreme merit of enabling students rapidly to place a plant in a named category."

Superficial similarities do not demand genealogical connection.

Paste the above line of text to your mirror, and repeat it every day.

FYI, my Britannica says of Linnaeus, "An inveterate classifier, he not only systematized the plant and animal kingdoms but even classified the mineral kingdom ..." Hmm... I hadn't heard any Evolutionary theories for the Rise of Rocks (to go with their Origin of Species, of course).

>Start with all the living things on earth--group them by likeness. Do the same things with lots and >lots of traits (pick 20 or so traits). Now, why is it that al the fossils that we have happen to lie in >strata, ordered by time, such that the further back in time, the things that look alike (defining >likeness relative to other living organisms, with lots of traits) for which fossils exist have apparent >"ancestors," that these fossils have a consistent geographical distribution.

>What organized those fossils? Floods? Maybe a series of floods?

The Great Flood of Noah would cause some of the patterns found.

>([censored] as long as we're free to make up stuff that's not in the bible, why not just reinterpret >Genesis?)

My Bible still has Genesis 6 to 8. When did yours expunge it?

>What is the creationist's explanation?

You'll have to ask a Creationist with a Ph.D. There are only a few thousand around, so you should be able to find one.

>some interesting points--if 135,000 articles that were submitted to scientific journals had only 18 >that offered support for creationism, is it a conspiracy?

Interesting statistic. Made it yourself?

>Or is it just that the creationists don't know enough biology to write and submit to scientific >journals?

That would seem unlikely, considering that some of these Creationists have had their papers published in scientific journals. One man I met had a couple of papers published in Scientific American. Then, he sent them something that showed favor to Creationism. The magazine did not publish anything else from him after that, claiming that his scholarship was faulty. I wonder why they didn't notice that before he submitted his article including Creationism? Couldn't be a conspiracy -- scientists are impartial, unbiased, impervious to irrational feelings, etc.

I have met a few dozen professional scientists who have earned advanced degrees from accredited colleges. Consider for a moment the obvious fact that these men and women must know how to do serious research, and report their results. Consider that, for whatever reason, the traditional scientific journals never publish articles that directly favor Creationism. Now, if you were in the position of the Creationist, would you spend a lot of time trying to get your paper published in a journal that does not publish such things?

Unlike conspiracy nuts, I have met my subject matter -- there are many real scientists doing real science who are Creationists. My results are reproducible; you, too, can meet these people. Yet, you are not able to comprehend such a thing, so you think as though such people don't exist. How is it possible for a person (much less many people) to earn an advanced degree in science from a state university and still remain a Creationist? How is it possible for so many people to hold this belief and also operate public research labs? Could it be that they see Creationism is superior to Evolution? Could that be it? Maybe an intelligent, educated, informed, scientifically-functional person can believe in Creationism? <Gasp!> There might be some merit to Creationism!

>BTW, all 18 were rejected on the grounds of insufficient scholarship.

Scarcely surprising. Just like the 50 Americans, prisoners of the Nazis, who were "shot while trying to escape." (Actually, the Americans were hauled out to the country and executed in retaliation for The Great Escape.)

This discussion is becoming less and less about evolution and more and more about your ego. Clearly, you have no real interest in any answer I might offer you, and you certainly spend no time considering certain basic points (physical similarity does not demand genealogical connection).

I want you to know something. Your interaction with me may only be through the electronic medium, but I am a real flesh-and-blood human. I expect to be addressed politely. You may disagree with me, but I will not engage in a dysfunctional relationship with you. If you wish to continue correspondence with me, you will have to refrain from using abusive language.

Sincerely,

From: dave

To: Pooua@aol.com

I'm amused. And I repeat, learn some biology. Goodbye.

dave

From: dave

To: Pooua@aol.com

OK, Richard, I'll play a little longer.

On Tue, 3 Jun 1997 Pooua@aol.com wrote:

>It is inevitable that Liberals would "question" (read, "deny") the author and date of Genesis; after >all, they "question" everything else about the Bible. They have expended a lot of effort to offer >alternative explanations for the book, but the predominant view remains that Moses is the author.

Who, exactly, are the "Liberals," and where is their office building? But seriously, most of the people who are not completely dogmatic about repeating a set of interpretations about the bible are interested in the origins of the text. I happen to think it is an interesting question--and I think it deserves a lot of attention. The "predominant" view that Moses is the author is reserved for people who read the bible for religious reasons. There are other reasons to read the bible.

>Why do you speak of Communists in past tense? There are still over a billion Communists >walking on this Planet.

>Next you will tell me they were God-fearing Puritans. Do you expect me to believe that for a >century the Communists had no accepted explanation for the origin of man and the Universe? I >can see little Ivan in school:

> Ivan - Teacher, where did people come from?

> Teacher - God made us.

> Ivan - Where did Socialism come from?

> Teacher - Satan made it.

> Ivan - I guess that's why Haralan Popov is being Tortured for his Faith!

> What do you suppose they teach the children in China?

And I suppose that you believe that the US has never tortured its own citizens, or wrongfully imprisoned them. You have a nice cold war mentality.

> No, the only thing fantastic here is your attitude.

Actually, what is fantastic is your ability to absorb stupid arguments without any critical thought.

>At least partly, there is an unwarranted attack against Creationism by Evolutionists (suppression >of evidence, denial of facts, censorship of ideas). For some of these people, it amounts to >conspiracy (still working on your star, comrade?). For the most part, it need be nothing more >than a mindset that refuses to admit there is a God, and all people are accountable to Him.

Actually, that is a ridiculous point of view. The attack is by Creationists against the "theory of evolution." I'm one of the few biologists I know who is willing to discuss the topic with creationists. Most of the time, we're interested in real biology--a topic that is unknown to creationists.

Censorship of ideas, denial of facts, and suppression of evidence are all pretty hard charges, especially given the facts. Here are the facts. Henry Morris, one of the leading creationists, continues to make an argument against evolution based on a notion of entropy. His argument is flawed because the assumption that the earth is a closed system (ie, no flux of energy into the system) is violated. Yet he still makes this argument. Its called intellectual dishonesty. A fabricated human footprint in Jurassic (I think) strata has been floating around your literature for years, even though it was clearly shown to be a hoax. The misinterpretations in biology? Detected and corrected by biologists.

If you are charging the entire body of scientists as being intellectually dishonest, then you are leveling a pretty heavy charge. All of the research scientists that I know personally are interested in the truth--and they are careful in using and interpreting data. I haven't seen any of that level of care in any of the creationists writings that I've read. If there is a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy to learn the truth about the world, inasmuch as that is possible.

>I'm sure that Ken Ham knows that people and apes physically resemble each other more than >people and elephants do. I'll bet he could even tell me which genomes humans and other >creatures share.

I don't know Ken Ham, but feed him to me, if you want.

>God made them that way (same basic body pattern). Similar appearances do not demand >genealogical connection.

>>have such similar behavior,

>Been a while since I used a stick to eat ants, but I guess I could figure out how to do it if I >wanted.

Oh, the depths of your ignorance.

>>have virtually identical hemoglogin,

>The danger in using both fossil evidence and genetic evidence to indicate evolutionary >divergence is that the two produce different answers. Maybe that's because similar appearances >don't demand genealogical connection.

>>and have very similar genomes.

>Similar body design.

Why does a similar body design require the same genome? Much of the genome is useless, and yet the same random patterns are repeated in humans and chimps. Your God is a pretty devilish fellow.

>>Tell me why there is an excellent fossil record showing a shift in dentition,

>Off the top of my head, I can't say much about dentition. I could look up an answer for you, but >I doubt you would be interested.

You mean, make up an answer for me.

>>the evolution of legs to walk upright,

>The fossil record might show differences between the pelvic structures of lower creatures and >man, but we already see that without a fossil record. You merely assume that one such fossil was >ancestor to another.

We see a nice transition in successive layers of strata. If common descent doesn't explain it, what does? A flood? Pretty convenient flood.

>>the increase in the size of the braincase,

>ditto above. FYI, the changes in the size of the braincase was used several times by various >people to prove the Negros or Jews are inferior to Whites or Arians. Am I impressed by your >argument?

No, obviously not. I'm not impressed with those arguments, either, but the misuse of biology has always happened, in spite of the best efforts of good biologists.

>>Tell me why there are clear links between humans and chimps, only one of a

>very large number of patterns that we could discuss. After discussing humans, chimps, and the >radiation of the great apes, we could discuss lots of other, well-documented examples.

>Probably all amounting to the same thing; you assume that similar-but-different fossils are in an >ancestor-descendent relationship. If you had been listening to me the first time, you would have >answered my basic objection, instead of trying to swamp me with more of the same.

No, I don't assume it, I conclude it from an overwhelming pattern. I wouldn't swamp you with more of the same if you weren't so ignorant of biology. The fossils are not arranged at random in the vertical column, they are arranged in definite patterns--and the deeper you go into the strata, the more these fossils are different from modern taxa, and when fossils are available, they give data that are consistent with common descent.

This sort of evidence is not a little bit, it is pervasive through all of the data we have. Your answer to this is to deny that the evidence exists--not a very convincing argument. The evidence exists in overwhelming abundance and tells the clear story of the fact of evolution. We can argue about the theory, but there is very little point of arguing about the theory to disprove the fact. Common descent is as plain as day, and it is the pattern that biologists must explain.

>So, which line of simian descent do you claim? There is more than one accepted by modern >Evolutionists, you know. If the evidence were so clear as you imagine, you guys should at least >be able to come up with the same lineage (I'm sure you will, eventually. And the guy who >manages to tie it all together for you will win a Nobel Prize. And then a Creationist will point out >its flaws and you will ignore him, because a Creationist just can't be correct.)

Not lately. Humans are most closely related to chimps. Next closest relative, the gorillas. Humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than either one is to gorillas. Do you want to go back and claim that there are gaps in the fossil record? Legitimate questions about the exact branching pattern that led to the current one? Great--I'm interested. Do these gaps and disagreements constitute a disproof of evolution? Not to a logical person. Do they weaken my argument that the story of the origin of species by descent with modification is plain in the fossil record? Not in the least. Just because there are some disagreements about specific descent now does not mean that the evidence for descent along some line is not as clear as day.

>>(And please don't give me the tired old line about a paucity of fossils

> Wasn't going to. Why do you bring it up?

>>--the fossils exist in very large number and I've seen many of them in person.)

>The physical mass of all the proto-human fossils collected could be gently placed inside a single >human coffin. There are fossils that are mostly or completely intact for other creatures, but there >are no complete fossils of Early Man. Far from it, most early man fossils are just fragments, bits >of bone or some teeth. And, there is good reason to believe that some of those pre-human fossils >are actually from a boneyard in which humans ate different animals (and humans) and left all the >bones together.

you just did bring it up, and you're a little wrong. Yes, some of the evidence is from masses of bones--but there is really no point in arguing how large the box is that these fossils would fit into. The fossil evidence exists in sufficient abundance to tell us that humans never lived outside of Africa before a few million years ago, then they spread in a form called Homo erectus rapidly.

>>The nested patterns in overall morphology were noted in a very systematic way by Linnaeus, >>who preceded Darwin by a century.

>Notably, Linnaeus was NOT an evolutionist. He believed that God created all life forms with >basically the same appearences they have in our day (that is, he was a Creationist, before such a >term was needed). His system does NOT expound evolution, as indicated in my Encyclopaedia >Britannica, " Although artificial, as Linnaeus himself recognized, such a system had the supreme >merit of enabling students rapidly to place a plant in a named category."

Linnaeus did not believe in evolution--probably not. But I don't know why that is a significant argument. Euclid didn't believe in alternative geometries, either.

>Superficial similarities do not demand genealogical connection.

> Paste the above line of text to your mirror, and repeat it every day.

The similarities are hardly superficial. They constitute a clear pattern that must be explained somehow. An overwhelming and pervasive pattern that requires some explanation--any at all. Now, your choices are to deny the pattern (which exists, if you ever pause to learn some biology), or to explain the pattern. Take your pick. Oh, let me guess. You deny the pattern. How convenient.

If you want your own mantra, how about, "Just because your paranoid, don't mean their not after you."

>FYI, my Britannica says of Linnaeus, "An inveterate classifier, he not only systematized the plant >and animal kingdoms but even classified the mineral kingdom ..." Hmm... I hadn't heard any >Evolutionary theories for the Rise of Rocks (to go with their Origin of Species, of course).

The classifications in minerals have a very different cause--and a good case in point. The minerals are distributed in the same geological column, but notably do not show the sort of pattern that would lead to evolution by descent with modification.

>>What organized those fossils? Floods? Maybe a series of floods?

>The Great Flood of Noah would cause some of the patterns found.

I'm sorry, friend, but if you believe this, you are either deluded or ignorant of the patterns. In fact, why I began to mock your creationists for inventing several floods, I was quoting Henry Morris, I believe, who, as a hyrdrologist, recognizes that no single flood could have made all of the trilobites disappear after the 350 million year level in the strata. So, he invented the multiple floods theory--problem is that the bible only talks of one flood.

>>([censored] as long as we're free to make up stuff that's not in the bible, why not just reinterpret >>Genesis?)

> My Bible still has Genesis 6 to 8. When did yours expunge it?

Your bible has one flood. A single flood would never create the pattern in the fossil record.

>You'll have to ask a Creationist with a Ph.D. There are only a few thousand around, so you >should be able to find one.

Yes, let's see. Duane Gish, PhD in what? Henry Morris, PhD in engineering? Show me one with a PhD in biology.

>>some interesting points--if 135,000 articles that were submitted to scientific journals had only 18 >>that offered support for creationism, is it a conspiracy?

> Interesting statistic. Made it yourself?

The reference is on my web page. Its an article from the Quarterly Review of Biology around 1984 +- 2 years. Look it up, if you want. You've been claiming that there is a conspiracy, and to my knowledge, this is the only paper that has ever examined evidence that might support your claim.

>>Or is it just that the creationists don't know enough biology to write and submit to scientific >>journals?

>That would seem unlikely, considering that some of these Creationists have had their papers >published in scientific journals. One man I met had a couple of papers published in Scientific >American. Then, he sent them something that showed favor to Creationism. The magazine did >not publish anything else from him after that, claiming that his scholarship was faulty. I wonder >why they didn't notice that before he submitted his article including Creationism?

If the man is published, he must have a name. Or is this a bit of evidence that you are making up? Please send me his name and the year (at least) that he was published in Scientific American. By the way, Scientific American is a popular science magazine, not a peer reviewed journal.

>Couldn't be a conspiracy -- scientists are impartial, unbiased, impervious to irrational feelings, etc.

I've never claimed that they were, but we are all trained to be so as much as possible. If the evidence supported creationism, we'd accept it. But could you tell me what such evidence would look like? No, because creationism makes no useful predictions about the world.

>I have met a few dozen professional scientists who have earned advanced degrees from >accredited colleges. Consider for a moment the obvious fact that these men and women must >know how to do serious research, and report their results. Consider that, for whatever reason, the >traditional scientific journals never publish articles that directly favor Creationism. Now, if you >were in the position of the Creationist, would you spend a lot of time trying to get your paper >published in a journal that does not publish such things?

>Unlike conspiracy nuts, I have met my subject matter -- there are many real scientists doing real >science who are Creationists. My results are reproducible; you, too, can meet these people. Yet, >you are not able to comprehend such a thing, so you think as though such people don't exist.

Where are these people? I know literally thousands of academics, and I don't know one who falls into this category--at least, not personally. I will believe that they exist when you produce something stronger than a claim.

>How is it possible for a person (much less many people) to earn an advanced degree in science >from a state university and still remain a Creationist? How is it possible for so many people to >hold this belief and also operate public research labs? Could it be that they see Creationism is >superior to Evolution? Could that be it? Maybe an intelligent, educated, informed, >scientifically-functional person can believe in Creationism? <Gasp!> There might be some merit >to Creationism!

How is it possible that people still believe the earth is flat? That aliens landed in the desert in 1952 and that the human government has been hiding the remains in area 51 in the desert of Nevada? How is it possible for so many people to believe in numerology, astrology, that Elvis is still alive? Why are there so many Christians who believe in the Bible but still believe in evolution?

If you want to talk about the merits of Creationism, I challenge you to show me one shred of positive evidence for Creationism, to show me one useful prediction made by Creationists about biology, to show me one Creationist belief that sheds light on a biological problem? I challenge you to give me your best argument for the age of the earth, or to give me your best argument against evolution (unless denial is your best argument), and then we can discuss the arguments.

Creationists are a parasite on evolutionary biology--producing no useful information of their own, only discussing our data in a vacuum of understanding.

>>BTW, all 18 were rejected on the grounds of insufficient scholarship

>Scarcely surprising. Just like the 50 Americans, prisoners of the Nazis, who were "shot while >trying to escape." (Actually, the Americans were hauled out to the country and executed in >retaliation for The Great Escape.)

Why only 18 out of 135,000?

>This discussion is becoming less and less about evolution and more and more about your ego. >Clearly, you have no real interest in any answer I might offer you, and you certainly spend no >time considering certain basic points (physical similarity does not demand genealogical >connection).

You have not argued for anything other than conspiracy--a denial of the facts. Where to you live? Can you make it to the American Museum of Natural History in New York, or the Smithsonian in Washington DC? Go see their displayed fossil collections. Behind the displays are countless fossils, all carefully documented--the age of the strata, the location. If I'm repeating myself, it is because this is precisely the area where you are completely ignorant of anything I've been telling you. The genealogical connection is not a conclusion we have to stretch to arrive at, it is a simple, obvious conclusion given the data.

>I want you to know something. Your interaction with me may only be through the electronic >medium, but I am a real flesh-and-blood human. I expect to be addressed politely. You may >disagree with me, but I will not engage in a dysfunctional relationship with you. If you wish to >continue correspondence with me, you will have to refrain from using abusive language.

Let's see, Richard. You are claiming that the entire enterprise of biology where I've decided to make my living is full of frauds and fakes engaged in a great conspiracy to deceive the world. You have made these claims without present a shred of evidence, and I've insulted you by calling you ignorant? Well, bud, you're ignorant. I don't consider it abusive, I consider it descriptive.

dave

To: dave

I had to cut out half of this letter because I reached the maximum length that an e-mail can have (64 k, I think). I have mercilessly cut short many references supporting my position.

>But seriously, most of the people who are not completely dogmatic about repeating a set of >interpretations about the bible are interested in the origins of the text.

It's interesting that these people rule out the supernatural in their search for origins. That means that if the Bible is what it claims to be, if the religions (Judaism, Christianity, among others -- maybe 2 billion people) founded upon various portions of it have any basis for their existence, if there is a supernatural at all, then Liberal scholarship has no chance of reaching the truth in its search. The truth, I believe, is that God inspired some men to produce an anthology that shows man's relationship to God.

>The "predominant" view that Moses is the author is reserved for people who read the bible for >religious reasons. There are other reasons to read the bible.

There are, but that misses most of its meaning or reason for existence.

>And I suppose that you believe that the US has never tortured its own citizens, or wrongfully >imprisoned them. You have a nice cold war mentality.

It would be absurd to equate the treatment of US citizens with the treatment of Soviet or Communist citizens. Stalin intentionally exterminated 60 million of his own people. There is nothing equal to The Gulag Archipelago in American history -- not the Trail of Tears, not the internment of Japanese citizens. Nothing in America compares to Stalin's sealing off the Ukraine in his successful effort to exterminate entire regions. The closest we have to these evils is our fetal abortion program (which program operates thanks to humanists).

However, that is beside the point of that discussion. The Soviets believed in evolution, and the reason they believed in it is because evolution is a key part of humanistic doctrine. It may seem odd to call the Soviets "humanists," but that is what they were. They believed in a man-centered, non-supernatural theology. Perhaps the more proper (or, at least, an early) name for them is Rationalist. They believe they can discover all truth, morality, history, etc. by natural, logical investigations and rationalizations. They believe they can leave God and absolute, objective morality out of their equations and thereby more ably find the true nature of the Universe.

The reality is, humanists only destroy what they take over. Since man writes the codes of morality as he desires, there is nothing to stop him from any extreme except his will. You know how evil man's will can be. Man needs God. The God that man needs is much greater than anything man can ever be.

>>At least partly, there is an unwarranted attack against Creationism by Evolutionists

>that is a ridiculous point of view. The attack is by Creationists against the "theory of evolution."

I've experienced enough evolutionist argument to know better. Instead of admitting the weaknesses of their own arguments, the strengths of their opponent's arguments and the various data that Evolutionists have excluded, they usually throw witty insults at Creationists. This has been picked up by the popular media, for example in the movie, "The Lost World."

>I'm one of the few biologists I know who is willing to discuss the topic with creationists. Most of >the time, we're interested in real biology--a topic that is unknown to creationists.

I do not say this to belittle you, but your manner of thinking seems naive for a scientist. I don't mean your beliefs -- I mean the way you present your arguments are more like those of a 19 or 20 year-old man. You would argue the same way no matter what you believed, and I would notice it even if you agreed perfectly with my views. You argue without much sophistication or cleverness, blindly throwing attacks at your opponent. You use too much insulting or exaggerating language. I pointed out above that you wandered from the topic under consideration in your attack of my point. You make absurd leaps in some of your speculations. You keep trying to bluff me (I think you might notice a spark of excited, reckless glee when you do this), but your bluffs are rash, poorly thought-out. This is the way that a male in his teens or twenties thinks.

>Henry Morris, one of the leading creationists, continues to make an argument against evolution >based on a notion of entropy. His argument is flawed because the assumption that the earth is a >closed system (ie, no flux of energy into the system) is violated.

Actually, Creationists frequently point out that we routinely use thermodynamic laws to understand the physics of open systems. One example is the automobile. Another is the jet engine. The fact remains; systems (open or closed) do not tend to higher patterns of order without outside intelligence. Even if a part of a system might momentarily reach a state of higher order at random, the system will return to its mean.

The formation of amino acids from supposed early Earth elements is hailed as proof that life could arise spontaneously by natural processes. However, the famous experiment in which this was performed also had a trap for the product, because the process that formed the amino acids also would break the amino acids into simpler parts. The trap removed the amino acids from the system -- and also killed the possibility of the acids forming into more complex molecules. The system cannot continue becoming increasingly complex. It must reach a mean that represents the entire system.

There is no physical process known that permits a bunch of simple amino acids to assemble themselves into DNA or RNA apart from outside intelligence (generally that means a living cell must synthesize them, although highly-intelligent creatures can assemble them, too). This is one of the most profound obstacles to Evolutionary Theory. There is nothing known that can explain the spontaneous rise of life from non-life.

>Yet he still makes this argument. Its called intellectual dishonesty.

It would be intellectual dishonesty if he knew that his arguments are invalid and continued to use them to advance his argument. However, as a hydrologist, he has some advanced familiarity with thermodynamics, and still believes his arguments are valid. He (and other Creationists) address the issue of thermodynamics in open and closed systems. Therefore, he is not intellectually dishonest on this point.

On the other hand, my high school biology teachers spent a class session "showing" that Creationism is absurd in light of the fact that there are vestigial organs. The instructors said that human tonsils and appendixes show the folly of Creationism. The class, which mostly accepted the validity of evolution (I may have been the only one who did not), howled with laughter as the instructors led them on.

After class, I pointed out to one instructor that tonsils are not vestigial. They perform important functions in the human body (part of our immune system). To my surprise, the instructor said that he knew that. He continued, saying that our appendix is not vestigial, either, since it provides useful hormones. I asked him why he still taught that these organs are vestigial when he knew better. He replied that they had to teach what was in their books. The books said the organs were vestigial, so that is what they had to teach the students. I didn't ask if the books also made fun of Creationism on the basis of things the authors knew were untrue.

I would say that my instructors, like many Evolutionists, were intellectually dishonest, at least when it came to Creationism.

FYI, a century ago, Evolutionists had identified thousands of vestigial organs in the human body, offering the strongest proof (at the time) that we evolved. It's pretty amazing how all of the vestigial organs were replaced by useful organs over the last century. Now Evolutionists say that vestigial organs aren't important to the Theory, anyway.

>A fabricated human footprint in Jurassic (I think) strata has been floating around your literature >for years, even though it was clearly shown to be a hoax. The misinterpretations in biology? >Detected and corrected by biologists.

There is more than one human footprint from the era of dinosaurs known. There is more than one set known. Discovery of these footprints in various areas of the world continues. I recall a photograph of one that had a trilobite fossil in the heel. I can't recall if that was from the set found in a Texas river, or if that was from a different set.

There is a cave (Sandia Cave) in New Mexico (outside Albuquerque) that has a human footprint in the roof of the cave. The New Mexico Museum of Natural History has recreated the cave in detail in their Museum, except they have excluded the footprint. Furthermore, that section of the real cave is off-limits to visitors. The reason, according to Creation geologists, is that this footprint proves that man existed at a time when these "millions of years old" rock were still mud. The Museum denies the footprint exists, and refuses to allow photographs of the area in question to be made. However, before the Museum gained the power to do these things, people unassociated with the Museum saw the footprint. There are still a few eye-witnesses alive (old people, now).

Let me quote a little from the book, In the Beginning, by Walter T. Brown, Jr. (C) 1989. There are 39 articles in the section titled, "THE THEORY OF ORGANIC EVOLUTION IS INVALID." I'm quoting from number 24.

24. Out-of-Place Fossils

The vertical sequencing of fossils is frequently not in the assumed evolutionary order.[a - e] For example, in the Soviet Union, 86 hoof prints of horses were found in rocks dating back to the dinosaurs.[e] Dinosaur and human-like footprints have also been found together in the Soviet Union.[f] Frequently, land animals, flying animals, and marine animals are fossilized side by side in the same rock.[g - i] In the Grand Canyon, spores of ferns and pollen from flowering plants are found in rocks that were deposited before life supposedly evolved.[j] A leading authority on the Grand Canyon has even photographed horse-like prints that are visible in rocks that, according to the theory of evolution, predate horses and other quadrupeds by a hundred million years.[k]

[a] Walter E. Lammerts has published eight lists documenting 198 wrong-order formations in the United States alone. See "Recorded Instances of Wrong-Order Formations or Presumed Overthrusts in the United States: Parts I - VIII," "Creation Research Society Quarterly"; September 1984, p. 88; December 1984, p. 150; March 1985, p. 200; December 1985, p. 127; March 1986, p. 188; June 1986, p. 38; December 1986, p. 133; and June 1987, p. 46.

[b] A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, pp. 796 - 797.

[c] A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, "Spores and Tracheids from the Cambrian of Kashmir," "Nature," Vol. 169, 21 June 1952, pp. 1056 - 1057.

[d] J. Coates et al., pp. 266 - 267.

[e] Yu. Kruzhilin and V. Ovcharov, "A Horse from the Dinosaur Epoch?", [Moskovskaya Pravda] (Moscow Truth), 5 February 1984.

[f] Alexander Romashko, "Tracking Dinosaurs," "Moscow News," No. 24, p. 10, 1983.

[g] Andrew Snelling, "Fossil Bluff," "Ex Nihilo," Vol. 7, No. 3, March 1985, p. 8.

[h] Carol Armstrong, "Florida Fossils Puzzle the Experts," "Creation Research Society Quarterly," Vol. 21, March 1985, pp. 198 - 199.

[i] Pat Shpman, "Dumping on Science," "Discover," December 1987, p. 64.

[j] George F. Howe et al., " A Pollen Analysis of Hakatai Shale and Other Grand Canyon Rocks," "Creation Research Society Quarterly," Vol. 24, March 1988, pp. 173 - 182.

[k] Edwin D. McKee, "The Supai Group of Grand Canyon," Geological Survey Professional Paper 1173 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1982), pp. 93 - 96, 100.

>If you are charging the entire body of scientists as being intellectually dishonest, then you are >leveling a pretty heavy charge.

Yes, these people play dirty.

>If there is a conspiracy, it is a conspiracy to learn the truth about the world, inasmuch as that is >possible.

My experience with people indicates otherwise.

>>>have virtually identical hemoglogin,

>>The danger in using both fossil evidence and genetic evidence to indicate evolutionary >>divergence is that the two produce different answers. Maybe that's because similar appearances >>don't demand genealogical connection.

I think you should address this issue. Why does Mitochondrial Eve differ from the fossil record?

>Much of the genome is useless,

So far as we know at the moment.

>and yet the same random patterns are repeated in humans and chimps. Your God is a pretty >devilish fellow.

Hmm... wonder why He did that?

>The fossils are not arranged at random in the vertical column, they are arranged in definite >patterns--and the deeper you go into the strata, the more these fossils are different from modern >taxa, and when fossils are available, they give data that are consistent with common descent.

>This sort of evidence is not a little bit, it is pervasive through all of the data we have. Your >answer to this is to deny that the evidence exists--not a very convincing argument.

I understand there are strata. There are also fossils that tend to populate one strata more than others. I usually don't argue with raw data. I argue with interpretations of that data.

It is useless and illogical to ask, "If the data doesn't mean what I think it means, then what *does* it mean?" At best this amounts to a taunt. It proves nothing.

As I understand it, the natural results of a great flood would be stratified layers of sediment. Different dead creatures would tend to deposit at different rates.

From the book, In the Beginning,

21. Parallel Strata

The earth's sedimentary layers typically lie parallel to adjacent layers.... Had these parallel layers been deposited slowly over thousands of years, erosion would have cut many channels in the topmost layers. Their subsequent burial by other sediments would produce nonparallel patterns. Since parallel layers are the general rule and earth's surface erodes rapidly, one can conclude that almost all sedimentary layers were deposited rapidly relative to the local erosion rate -- not over long periods of time.

>Do you want to go back and claim that there are gaps in the fossil record?

In the Beginning,

22. Fossil Gaps

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps and discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record. [a - p] Many fossil links are missing between numerous plants, [q, r] between single - celled forms of life and invertebrates .... [s, t] between fish and amphibians, [u] .... [v] ... [w, x] ... [y, z] The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled. [aa, bb]

[a] Darwin "Origin, p. 163.

Ibid., p. 323. [I clipped the quoted material]

[b] Dr. Colin Patterson, a senior paleontologist at the British Museum (Natural History), was asked by Luther D. Sunderland why no evolutionary transitions were included in Dr. Patterson's recent book entitled "Evolution." In a personal letter dated 10 April 1979, Patterson said:

I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be asked to visualize such transformations, but where would he get the information from? .... Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say that there are no transitional fossils. .... You say that I should at least 'show a photo of the fossil from which each type organism was derived.'' I will lay it on the line -- there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.

[c] "But the curious thing is that there is a consistency about the fossil gaps: the fossils go missing in all the important places. when you look for links between major groups of animals, they simply aren't there; at least, not in enough numbers to put their status beyond doubt.... [emphasis in original] Hitching, p. 19.

[d] "There is no more conclusive refutation of Darwinism than that furnished by paleontology. Simple probability indicates that fossil hoards can only be test samples. Each sample, then, should represent a different stage of evolution, and there ought to be merely 'transitional' types, no definition and no species. Instead of this we find perfectly stable and unaltered forms persevering through long ages, forms that have not developed themselves on the fitness principle, but appear suddenly and at once in their definitive shape ; that do not thereafter evolve towards better adaptation, but become rarer and finally disappear, while quite different forms crop up again.... [emphasis in original] Oswald Spengler, "The Decline of the West," Vol. 2 (NY: Alfred A. Knopf, 1966), p. 32.

[e] "This regular absence of transitional forms is not confined to mammals, but is an almost universal phenomenon" .... George Gaylord Simpson, "Tempo and Mode in Evolution (NY: Columbia University Press, 1944), p. 107.

[f] The Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago has one of the largest collections of fossils in the world. Consequently, its Dean, Dr. David Raup, was eminently qualified to summarize the situation regarding the transitions that should be observed in the fossil record.

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 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.

David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin, Vol. 50, No. 1, January 1979, p. 25.

[g] "... 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.... Ibid., p. 23.

[h] "Surely the lack of gradualism -- the lack of intermediates -- is a major problem." Dr. David Raup, as taken from page 16 of an approved and verified transcript of a taped interview conducted by Luther D. Sunderland on 27 July 1979.

[i] "... there are about 25 major living subdivisions (phyla) of the animal kingdom alone, all with gaps between them that are not bridged by known intermediates." Francisco J. Ayala and James W. Valentine, "Evolving, The Theory and Processes of Organic Evolution" (Menlo Park, California: The Benjamin Cummings Publishing Co., 1979), p. 258.

[j] "All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen Jay Gould, "The Return of Hopeful Monsters," "Natural History," Vol. 86, June - July 1977, p. 23.

[k] "The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.... We fancy ourselves as the only true students of life's history, yet to preserve our favored account of evolution by natural selection we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study." Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," "Natural History," Vol. 5, May 1977, p. 14.

New species almost always appeared suddenly in the fossil record with no intermediate links to ancestors in older rocks of the same region." Ibid., p. 12.

[l] The following was based on an interview with Dr. Niles Eldredge, an invertebrate paleontologist at the American Museum of Natural History.

But the smooth transition from one form of life to another which is implied in the theory is ... not borne out by the facts. The search for 'missing links' between various living creatures, like humans and apes, is probably fruitless.... because they probably never existed as distinct transitional types... But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found. In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them. If it is not the fossil record which is incomplete then it must be the theory.

"Manchester Guardian" (The Washington Post Weekly), "Missing, Believed Nonexistent," Vol. 119, No. 22, 26 November 1978, p. 1.

Gould and Eldredge believe that transitional fossils are missing because relatively rapid evolutionary jumps occurred over these gaps. They call their theory "punctuated equilibria." They do not explain how this could happen.

Many geneticists are shocked by the proposal of Gould and Eldredge. Since both are intelligent men, one should not conclude that their understanding of genetics is weak. Instead, one must realize just how contradictory the fossil record is to gradual evolution. To some, the desperation of Gould and Eldredge is justified.

[m] "... the gradual morphological transitions between presumed ancestors and descendants, anticipated by most biologists, are missing." David E. Schindel (Curator of Invertebrate Fossils, Peabody Museum of Natural History), "The Gaps in the Fossil Record," "Nature," Vol. 297, 27 May 1982, p. 282.

[n] "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between speicies and paleontology does not provide them." David B. Kitts (School of Geology and Geophysics, University of Oklahoma), "Paleontology and Evolutionary Theory," "Evolution," Vol. 28, September 1974, p. 467.

[o] "In spite of the immense amount of the paleontological material and the existence of long series of intact stratigraphic sequences with perfect records for the lower categories, transitions between the higher categories are missing." Goldschmidt, p. 98.

[p] "There is no fossil record establishing historical continuity of structure for most characters that might be used to assess relationships between phyla." Katherine G. Field et al., "Molecular Phylogeny of the Animal Kingdom," "Science," Vol. 239, 12 February 1988, p. 748.

[q] "It has long been hoped that extinct plants will ultimately reveal some of the stages through which existing groups have passed during the course of their development, but it must be freely admitted that this aspiration has been fulfilled to a very slight extent, even though paleobotanical research has been in progress for more than one hundred years. As yet we have not been able to trace the phylogenetic history of a single group of modern plants from its beginning to the present." Chester A. Arnold, "An Introduction to Paleobotany" (NY: McGraw-Hill, 1947), p. 7.

[r] "... to the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favour of special creation. If, however, another explanation could be found for this hierarchy, it would be the knell of the theory of evolution. Can you imagine how an orchid, a duckweed, and a palm have come from the same ancestry, and have we any evidence for this assumption? The evolutionist must be prepared with an answer, but I think that most would break down before an inquisition. Textbooks hoodwink." E. J. H. Corner, "Evolution," "Contemporary Botanical Thought," editors Anna M MacLeod and L. S. Cobley (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1961), p. 97.

[s] Speaking of the lack of transitional fossils between the invertebrates and vertebrates, Smith admits:

"As our present information stands, however, the gap remains unbridged, and the best place to start the evolution of the vertebrates is in the imagination." Homer W. Smith, "From Fish to Philosopher" (Boston: Littls, Brown, and Co., 1953), p. 26.

[t] "How this earliest chordate stock evolved, what stages of development it went through to eventually give rise to truly fishlike creatures we do not know. Between the Cambrian when it probably originated, and the Ordovician when the first fossils of animals with really fishlike characteristics appeared, there is a gap of perhaps 100 million years which we will probably never be able to fill." Francis Downes Ommanney, "The Fishes," Life Nature Library (NY: Time Inc, 1963), p. 60.

[u] "... there are no intermediate forms between finned and limbed creatures in the fossil collections of the world." Taylor, p. 60.

[v] Evolutionists believe that amphibians evolved into reptiles, with either Diadectes or Symouria as the claimed transition. Actually, by the evolutionist's own time scale, theis "transition" occurs 35 million years after the earliest reptile, Hylonomus (a cotylosaur). A parent cannot appear 35 million years after its child! The scattered locations of these fossils also present problems for the evolutionist.

See Steven M. Stanley, "Earth and Life Through Time" (NY: W.H. Freeman and Co., 1986), pp. 411 - 415. See also Robert H. Dott, Jr. and Roger L. Batten, "Evolution of the Earth," 2nd edition (NY: McGraw - Hill, 1976), p. 311.

It is true that the skeletal features of some amphibians and some reptiles are similar. However, huge differences exist in their soft internal organs, such as their circulatory and reproductive systems. For example, no evolutionary scheme has ever been given for the development of the many unique innovations of the reptile's egg. (See Denton, pp. 218 - 219 and Pitman, pp. 199 - 200.)

[w] "The [evolutionary] 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, "The Origin of Birds," in "Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds," editor A. J. Marshall (NY: Academic Press, 1960), Vol. 1, Chapter 1, p. 1.

[x] Some people claim that Archaeopteryx is a transition between the reptiles and birds. Of the relatively few claimed transitional fossils, this is probably the most frequently cited. Recently however, several very prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with feathers are forgeries. Only two of these fossils have clearly visible feathers. Allegedly, a thin layer of cement was spread on two reptile fossils, and bird feathers were imprinted into the wet cement. For the many other details and charges, see:

[x1] Moshe Trop, "Is the Archaeopteryx a Fake?", "Creation Research Society Quarterly," Vol. 20, No. 2, September 1983, pp. 121- 122.

[x2] R. S. Watkins, F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L. M. Spetner, "Archaeopteryx: A Photographic Study," "The British Journal of Photography," Vol. 132, 8 March 1985, pp. 264 - 266.

[x3] R. S. Watkins, F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L. M. Spetner, "Archaeopteryx: A Further Comment," "The British Journal of Photography," Vol. 132, 28 March 1985, pp. 358ff.

[x4] R. S. Watkins, F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, J. Watkins, R. Rabilizirov, and L. M. Spetner, "Archaeopteryx: Further Evidence," "The British Journal of Photography," Vol. 132, 26 April 1985, pp. 468 - 470.

[x5] F. Hoyle, N. C. Wickramasinghe, and R. S. Watkins, "Archaeopteryx," "The British Journal of Photography," Vol. 132, 21 June 1985, pp. 493 - 703.

Even if Archaeopteryx is not a forgery, it cannot be ancestral to modern birds since the fossils of two modern birds have been found in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx. For details see: Tim Beardsley, "Fossil Bird Shakes Evolutionary Hypotheses," "Nature," Vol. 322, 21 August 1986, p. 677.

[I note that a few years later, evolutionists produced a fossil that was a candidate for replacing Archaeopteryx. Sorry, I don't recall the name. I'm sure your professors could help you find it. Even so, Archaeopteryx remains the proto-bird of choice among most young Evolutionists.]

[y] "When and where the first Primates made their appearance is also conjectural ... It is clear, therefore, that the earliest Primates are not yet known ...." William Charles Osman Hill, "Primates" (NY: Interscience Publisher, Inc., 1953), Vol. 1, pp. 25 - 26.

[z] "Modern apes, for instance, seem to have sprung out of nowhere. They have no yesterday, no fossil record. And the true origin of modern humans -- of upright, naked, toolmaking, big-brained beings -- is, if we are to be honest with ourselves, an equally mysterious matter." Lyall Watson, "The Water People," "Science Digest," May 1982, p. 44.

[aa] "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." Nilsson, p. 1212.

[bb] "... 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." Norman D. Newell (former Curator of Historical Geology at the American Museum of Natural History), "The Nature of the Fossil Record," "Adventures in Earth History," editor Preston Cloud (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1970), pp. 644 - 645.

>Legitimate questions about the exact branching pattern that led to the current one?

In the Beginning,

23. Missing Trunk

The evolutionary tree has no trunk. In the earliest part of the fossil record (generally the Cambrian), life appears suddenly, full-blown, complex, and diversified. [a - c] Complex species, such as fish, [d, e] worms, corals, trilobites, jellyfish, [f] sponges ... appear suddenly, with no known sign anywhere on earth of gradual development from simpler forms. These layers contain representatives of all plant and animal phyla, including flowering plants, [g - j] vascular plants, [k] and vertebrates (animals with back bones). [l] Insects, a class comprising four-fifths of all known animals (living and extinct), have no evolutionary ancestors. [m, n] the fossil record does not support evolution. [o]

[a] Darwin, "Origin," p. 348.

Ibid., p. 344.

Ibid., p. 350

Ibid., p. 351 [I excluded the quoted material]

[b] "One of the major unsolved problems of geology and evolution is the occurrence of diversified multicellular marine invertebrates in Lower Cambrian rocks on all the continents and their absence in rocks of greater age." Daniel I. Axelrod, "Early Cambrian Marine Fauna," "Science," Vol. 128, 4 July 1958, p. 7.

[c] T. Neville George (Professor of Geology in the University of Glasgow), "Fossils in Evolutionary Perspective," "Science Progress," Vol. 48, No. 189, January 1960, p. 5.

[d] "But whatever ideas authorities may have on the subject, the lung-fishes, like every other major group of fishes that I know, have their origins firmly based in *nothing,* a matter of hot dispute among the experts, each of whom is firmly convinced that everyone else is wrong.... I have often thought of how little I should like to have to prove organic evolution in a court of law." (emphasis in original] Errol White, "A Little on Lung-fishes," "Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London," Vol. 177, Presidential Address, January 1966, p. 8.

[e] "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the origin of the fishes...." J. R. Norman, "A History of Fishes," 3rd edition (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975), p. 343.

[f] Cloud and Glaessner, pp. 783 - 792.

[g] A. K. Ghosh and A. Bose, "Occurence of Microflora in the Salt Pseudomorph Beds, Salt Range, Punjab," "Nature," Vol. 160, 6 December 1947, pp. 796 - 797.

[h] A. K. Ghosh, J. Sen, and A. Bose, "Evidence Bearing on the Age of the Saline Series in the Salt Range of the Punjab," "Geological Magazine," Vol. 88, March - April 1951, pp. 129 - 133.

[i] J. Coates et al., "Age of the Saline Series in the Punjab Salt Range," "Nature," Vol. 155, 3 March 1945, pp. 266 - 267.

[j] "... it is well known that the fossil record tells us nothing about the evolution of flowering plants." Corner, p. 100.

Clifford Burdick, as he was doing his doctoral research at the University of Arizona in 1964, made discoveries similar to those cited in the four preceding references. However, since Burdick was a creationist and his discoveries conflicted with the accepted evolutionary doctrine, the University of Arizona refused to give him his doctor's degree. See: Clifford Burdick, "Microflora of the Grand Canyon," "Creation Research Society Quarterly," Vol. 3, No. 1, May 1966, pp. 38 - 50.

[k] S. Leclercq, "Evidence of Vascular Plants in the Cambrian," "Evolution," Vol. 10, No. 2, June 1956, pp. 109 - 114.

[l] John E. Repetski, "A Fish from the Upper Cambrian of North America," "Science," Vol. 200, 5 May 1978, pp. 529 - 531.

[m] Peter Farb, "The Insects," Life Nature Library (NY: Time Incorporated, 1962), pp. 14 - 15.

[n] "There is, however, no fossil evidence bearing on the question of insect origin; the oldest insects known show no transition to other arthropods." Frank M. Carpenter, "Fossil Insects," "The Yearbook of Agriculture: Insects" (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1952), p. 18.

[o] "If there has been evolution of life, the absence of the requisite fossils in the rocks older than the Cambrian is puzzling." Marshall Kay and Edwin H. Colbert, "Stratigraphy and Life History" (NY: John Wiley and Sons, 1965), p. 103.

>Great--I'm interested. Do these gaps and disagreements constitute a disproof of evolution? Not >to a logical person. Do they weaken my argument that the story of the origin of species by >descent with modification is plain in the fossil record? Not in the least. Just because there are >some disagreements about specific descent now does not mean that the evidence for descent >along some line is not as clear as day.

If Evolution happened, there were no gaps from one species to another. Your proof that this happened is the fossil record. If you fail to establish a complete series of transitions in any species, based on fossil evidence, you fail to establish the evolution of the species. There is no species for which anyone has a complete series of transition. Bottom line: you have failed to establish evolution. You just have a bunch of fossils, arranged as you see fit.

At least I took a class in Logic and Critical Thinking (Albuquerque T-VI, I made an "A"). Have you?

>you just did bring it up, and you're a little wrong. Yes, some of the evidence is from masses of >bones--but there is really no point in arguing how large the box is that these fossils would fit into.

It's amazing how detailed a record Evolutionists wish us to believe we have, all based on a few splinters of bones and teeth! And then *you* come along and say there is no point in arguing about how much there is! Evolution is mostly imagination.

>Yes, let's see. Duane Gish, PhD in what? Henry Morris, PhD in engineering? Show me one >with a PhD in biology.

Dr. Linda Walkup is a biologist and a Creationist. I believe she is currently employed by the University of New Mexico. There are others. Indeed, my mother worked as a lab tech for a Creationist in the Department of Medicine. Believe me, UNM is not trying to encourage Creationism. There happen to be a lot of Creationists in Albuquerque because there are a lot of scientific labs around Albuquerque, and there are a lot of Creation-believing Christians employed in the field of Science.

>If the man is published, he must have a name. Or is this a bit of evidence that you are making up? >Please send me his name and the year (at least) that he was published in Scientific American.

I met this man at a Creation Science Fellowship meeting 4 or 5 years ago, but I don't recall his name. However, a friend of mine says that Forrest Mims, former editor of SA's home scientist page, was fired for his Creationist beliefs. He was published for several years.

>Let's see, Richard. You are claiming that the entire enterprise of biology where I've decided to >make my living is full of frauds and fakes engaged in a great conspiracy to deceive the world. >You have made these >claims without present a shred of evidence, and I've insulted you by >calling you ignorant? Well, bud, you're ignorant. I don't consider it abusive, I consider it >descriptive.

It does little good to show a hot-shot Evolutionist that evolution is a fraud. I could send you many pages of evidence to support what I say. I can tell when I've hit home with someone because they suddenly stop talking when I'm around, and they get a dark, sullen look. They don't want to discuss Evolution or Creation anymore. Their world is up-side down. And they hate me for it.

Sincerely,

Richard Alexander

Return to Creation Science links

Return to Page of Links Contents

Return to Richard's Electronic Kingdom Home Page