Conference yukon::christian_v7

This is an abstract of the presentations on the creation/evolution issue that
follow:

As design demonstrates the existence of a designer, the inherent design in
life, the earth, and the universe implies the existence of its Designer.  The
best source of information regarding a design can be had by inquiring of the
designer.  A designer provides better and more authoritative information about
his design than the design does about itself.  In the case of life on earth,
the Designer has unmistakenly identified Himself and revealed specific
information about the some of the circumstances surrounding creation.  [.2] 

Chance does not cause anything.  In fact, within the laws of probabilities 
and statistics we should not expect order and selection to be the result
of "random" processes.  Order and selection are the result of directed, 
non-random causes.  [.3]

Living matter does not and could not have been spontaneously generated from 
non-living matter.  The laws of biochemistry, and probability and statistics
are against it.  It has never been demonstrated in the laboratory.  [.4]

Effects caused by random genetic mutations are almost always bad, once in a
while produce some interesting benign abnormalities, and have never been shown
to be beneficial.  They don't and shouldn't be expected to produce anything
useful.  [.5] 

Genetics disproves evolution.  Animals vary based on coded genetic information
that is already there.  This is the principle of micro-evolution, which has
been verified by the scientific method.  [.6] 

The animals don't have ancestral dates attached to them.  Evolutionary
taxonomy is an effort based purely upon speculation and prior acceptance of 
the evolution model.  [.7] 

The fossil record of life forms does not support evolution.  The animals now
fossilized were as complex back then as they are today, and seem to have
appeared abruptly.  The fossil record is consistent with creation according to
separate kinds.  The fossil record lacks evidence of mutant animals unfit to
survive.  "Hopeful monster" theories are without foundation and fallacious.
[.8] 

The fossils themselves don't have dates attached to them.  Furthermore, the
process of fossilization should not be expected to occur gradually, but better
fits within the model of a geological catastrophe.  [.9] 

The various stratified layers of rock do not have dates attached to them.  The
ordering of fossils within them are best modeled as a consequence of a 
geological catastrophe.  The ordering is too inconsistent to fit within the
evolutionary model.  [.10]

There is no geological evidence for more than one "ice age".  The polar
regions used to be tropical, then froze suddenly.  The evidence fits better
within the model of a global geological catastrophe.  [.11]

Current methods for dating rocks and organic material using radioisotopes
involve many assumptions about initial conditions and the environment that
are not known.  The dating results are inconsistent.  Things of known young
ages that have been dated using these methods have produced erroneous results.
These dating methods therefore cannot be considered reliable.  [.12]

Many dating methods are available which suggest that the earth is thousands,
not billions, of years old.  While these methods also involve many unverifiable
assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating methods that seem to
suggest an old age for the earth.  [.13]

There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypo-
thetical sub-human ancester to man.  As far as we know, there are, and have
always been a single species that was totally human since the beginning.  There
also exist and have existed various species of apes, some extinct, and some
still living.  [.14]

In conclusion, it may be stated that the overwhelming evidence points to
creation, and disproves evolution.  To believe evolution over creation, one
must ignore the overwhelming evidence, both scientific and historic.  For this
reason I classify creation as fact, and evolution as philosophical dogma.

A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research
organizations is provided for further reference.  [.15]

In the computer industry, we know that any computer system functions according
to a design and contains highly coded information.  Because of the complexity
of this design and the highly coded information, we attribute the origin of
design in such a machine to an intelligent designer and coder.  Computers
themselves can assist as tools in the process of designing other computers, but
ultimately the origin of the design can be attributed to careful planning and
intent apart from the machine and tools themselves. 

No one would suppose that something as complex as a computer happened together
by chance or by natural processes -- this would be considered an absurd
proposition.  So it is with life forms on earth.

Life on earth is far more complex than computer equipment.  The inherent design
in the life forms on earth and the coded information contained therein must be
attributed to a designer of vastly superior intelligence and ability than man. 

It is set forth here as a presupposition that design proves a designer and 
coded information demonstrates an author.  We simply conclude from consistent
life-experiences that when we stumble across something that has design, this
demonstrates the existence of a designer, and likewise that coded information
demonstrates the existence of a coder.  From consistent experience we also
know that a creator is not the creation, but that a creator exists outside his
creation.  The evidence in the world around us, by itself, is reason for us to
deduce the existence of a Creator, who exists outside of his creation.  (See
Rom 1:19-20, Heb 1:3) 

I am an engineer by trade.  If I want to find out how a particular piece
of computer equipment was designed, I can go about it in a couple of different
ways.  One thing I can do is examine the piece of equipment, taking it apart,
measuring it, etc., to try to come to a conclusion about what makes it tick. 
The other thing I can do is go find the designer and either talk to him or
consult the blueprints and other documentation associated with the device.
Of the two methods, the source of the most authoritative information is to
consult the designer. 

From the presupposition that the design in life forms today demonstrate the
existence of their creator, the surest way to resolve the creation/evolution
controversy is to see if that creator has revealed specific information about
how he went about doing it. 

Now, anyone can claim to be the creator, and anyone can fabricate information
as if it was from the creator.  One of the important things we must look for 
is evidence that a piece of spoken or written testimony really did come from
the creator. 

In accumulating information, we rely largely on indirect information about
what people have observed.  Even a scientist does this, and an evolutionist
does too.  An evolutionist cites most of his information from written or spoken
testimony by people who have observed things, and a minority of information
from personal experience.  Just like a creationist. 

As Creator, God has validated his testimony by causing things to happen in
his creation which are specifically intended for us to take note of his 
existence and his specific revelation to us.  

The information which the Creator has provided to men has always been 
accompanied by miraculous signs, wisdom, love, etc.  Examples are:  Parting the
Red Sea, allowing a virgin to conceive, saying that he will flood the whole
earth, then doing it; predicting events in the future with 100% accuracy;
incarnating himself as a man, allowing his body to be killed for our sake,
buried, then raising himself up from the dead after three days, etc.  Multiple
witnesses have seen these things happen and heard the Creator speak, and have
written them down as reliable written testimony which we can now refer back to.

Written testimony from the Creator includes things like:  "I am the only God
who ever existed or ever will -- there is no other god besides me." (see Isa
43:10); "I created the universe by myself.  There was no one else with me when 
I did it." (see Isa 44:24); "God created the heavens and the earth in six
days"; "God created each animal after its own kind".  "God created the first
man Adam from the dust of the ground, and the first woman Eve from the first
man's rib" (see Gen 1-2). 

We conclude that life on earth came about by a special creative act of God.  A
whole set of life forms, including man, was created at once.  This happened on
the order of several thousand years ago, and the process took less than a week.
We don't fully understand all the "hows" and the "whys" in every detail, but
we pursue further knowledge given those details that we are sure of, accepting
the authority of what the Creator has to say over the more limited information
we obtain by examining His creation.  The Creator is more knowledgable, and
none of us were there to observe life come about on earth, anyway. 

Hopefully this not only provides a defense for "creation", but also explains
why "creationists" are always appealing to the Creator (God) and testimony that
comes from Him (the Bible).  Because if you really want to know about how
something was designed, it's best to first consult the person who designed it. 

"Chance" does not *cause* anything.

If I flip a coin, you might say that there is a 50% chance that it will
come up heads, and a 50% chance that it will come up tails.  But this is
only an observation, not the cause for it to come up heads or tails.

Say I flip a coin, and it comes up heads.  What was the cause for it to come up
heads?  Consider:  We understand the laws of motion, statics and dynamics,
friction, etc.  If we could analyze each aspect of the position of the coin in
time and space, and take into account all the forces that act upon the coin, we
would conclude that the coin is doing just what it is supposed to do under the
circumstances.  In fact, if I could set up all the same conditions and flip the
coin again, it would, by necessity, come up heads each time.  It would take a
miracle for it not to. 

The fact of the matter is that I am too clumsy, and lack the skill and ability
to cause a coin that I flip into the air to come down in any particular order. 
So you say that there isn't enough intelligence and skill behind my coin flip
and consequently you expect a random distribution of results.  You say that my
lack of skill and ability will result in disorder and chaos.

Probabilities and statistics are mathematical observations of things.  For
things that seem to occur in a random way, we attempt to predict an outcome
using a mathematical model.  If the results don't fit the model, then we must
conclude that either we have done our math wrong or the thing just isn't
behaving in a random way.  In the case of a sequence of coin flips, you expect
chaos and disorder in the long-term -- a random sequence of heads and tails. 

Say I flip a coin, and it comes up heads.  You say, "Ok."  Say I flip it 
a second time, and it comes up heads again.  You say, "Ok."  Say I flip it
again, and it comes up heads again.  You say "Hmmm... ok."  Say I flip it
again, and it comes up heads a fourth time.  You say "Hmmm..."  Say I flip
it again, and it comes up heads a fifth time.  You say "Wait a minute, what's
going on here."  I flip it again, and it comes up heads a sixth time.  You say
"Stop, this isn't fair."  I say, "Why".  You say, "It isn't random.  You're
doing something to make that coin come up heads each time."  I flip it again,
and it comes up heads a seventh time.  I say, "Look, millions of people have
flipped coins throughout history.  This was bound to happen sooner or later."
I flip it again, and it comes up heads an eighth time.  You say "Come on,
what are you doing?".  I flip it again, and it comes up heads a ninth time.
I say, "Nothing.  Really!  I'm just flipping this coin and it keeps coming
up heads by chance."  I flip it again, and it comes up heads a tenth time.
You say, "You're a liar.  What do you take me for, some sort of fool?"

OK, if it is true that a million people have tossed coins throughout history
then maybe you should have waited until at least 20 throws (since 2**20 is a
million), before even considering crying "foul".  But most people, in fact,
won't.  Why did the observer in the above example not wait that long?  Because
after 10 tries, he concluded that he could call the coin-thrower a liar and
have only a 1/1000 chance of being wrong. 

Given the immensely lower probability of things happening in the evolutionary
scheme of things, one should conclude, if solely on the basis of sheer
probabilities (to be consistent), that evolution didn't happen.  That person
would have a 1/1000000000000..(fill in some number of zeros)...0 chance of
being wrong, solely on the basis of sheer probabilities.

In considering creation/evolution, we must keep in mind that "chance" does not
cause anything.  A person defending evolution often excludes an intelligent
creator as an explanation for the cause of things happening, and in the void
substitutes "chance".  But "chance" can be one of the evolutionist's worst
enemies. 

First of all, what evolutionist's "chance" creates (figuratively speaking), the
evolutionist's "chance" ought to destroy, in the long run.  Chance is equated
with randomness, and randomness is equated with disorder and chaos.  Life on
earth is an example of incredible order and complexity.  What, then, was the
cause for this order and complexity? 

The evolutionary concept of Spontaneous Biogenesis involves living matter
coming about from non-living material by chance.  For example, let us suppose
that in a hypothetical primordial sea, ammonia, water, methane and energy can
combine to form amino acids.  That this first step can happen is indisputable,
and has been verified through laboratory experiment (Miller, 1953).  However,
to proceed beyond this point to living matter by chance would involve a major
miracle of such great proportion that one would think it easier to just accept
the obvious (...that it didn't happen). 

Amino acids are molecules that have a three-dimensional geometry.  Any 
particular molecule can exist in either of two mirror-image structures that we
call left-handed and right-handed (in layman's terms).  Living matter consists
only of left-handed molecules.  Right-handed molecules are not useful to living
organisms, and are in fact often lethal.  There about 20 basic amino acids that
comprise the basic building blocks of life.  The random formation of amino
acids produces an equal proportion of left-handed and right-handed molecules. 
This has been confirmed by laboratory experiment, and is essentially what
Miller produced in his famous test-tube experiment (putting methane, ammonia,
and water in a solution and zapping them with electrical discharges.)

Life as we know it cannot consist of a mixture of left and right-handed
molecules.  It would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips (in which the coin
came up heads each time) to come up with proteins that could constitute living
matter.  Yet there is more...

...Continuing the sequence of events necessary for us (or rather, "nobody") to
produce the proteins that constitute living matter (and there are many
different types of proteins in even the simplest single-cell animal):  One
amino acid *can* combine with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to
produce a peptide and water.  One peptide *can* combine with another peptide in
a condensation reaction to produce a polypeptide and water.  And so goes a
sequence of chemical reactions that supposedly *can* produce the proteins that
are essential to living organisms that *can* reproduce.  Let's stop here, and
consider what has happened thus far.

Each condensation reaction described above is reversible.  That is, it can
occur just as easily in either the forward or the reverse direction.  That
means that "randomness" would be consistent with things breaking down as easily
as they are being put together.  But to top it off, the scenario involves
things happening in a primordial sea, implying an excess of water.  Since a
condensation reaction produces water, and there is already excess water in
the presence of the chemical reaction, there is much more opportunity for any
complex molecule to break down into the more simple ones.  Thus, a polypeptide
*should* combine with excess water to produce monopeptides, and a monopeptide
*should* combine with excess water to produce amino acids.  The initial
reagents of the supposed equations that are given as a pathway to life are
favored, in the presence of excess water.  

The above only considers the formation of a single protein, not to mention
that there are many different kinds of proteins necessary to form the simplest
single-cell organisms.  And we haven't even begun to address the formation of
the various nucleic acids and other chemical constituents of life, which must
be simultaneously present (...by chance).

The classic example given for the formation of some of the basic building
blocks of life by chance (spontaneous biogenesis) therefore lacks substance 
on a theoretical basis both according to the principles of chemistry and the
principles of probabilities and statistics.  

Without proper theoretical or experimental basis, a scientific hypothesis
cannot be supported.  The formation of living matter from non-living matter
by chance remains within the realm of speculation without foundation.

Most of us understand that the information that represents the data and 
instructions for a computer program has a particular pattern, designed
specifically by the software engineer.  What would we expect to happen
if, once the program was loaded and running, we zapped the binary 
image from which it was executing with a random change of some data bit?

In most cases, the program would probably crash, or seriously fail to 
accomplish anything useful.  In a very few cases, the program might 
exhibit some interesting aberrant behavior.  But in no cases would we expect
to get a more complex program, or a program of a totally different kind. 

So it is with random genetic mutations.  Life forms are more complex than 
any computer program that we have ever designed.  Random genetic mutations 
are bad.  When they have an observable effect, they are almost always to the
detriment of the organism, killing it, maiming it, making it sterile, etc. 
Sometimes, interesting aberrations are the result.  But never has anybody
observed such a mutation benefit an organism, much less create a more complex
or different kind of life form. 

Chance does not cause anything.  Things that are caused by processes that 
we observe to be "random", we associate with increasing disorder, not more
complex design.  It has been claimed that mutations are the result of random
causes, such as ionizing radiation.

Random genetic mutations are claimed to be a key mechanism by which simple 
life forms evolve to more complex ones.  A scientific hypothesis is tested 
through laboratory experiment/observation and theoretical analysis.  Regarding
random genetic mutations being a plausible vehicle for evolution to occur, we
may conclude the following: 

	- In a theoretical sense, the claim fails based on sheer probabilities
	  and statistics.  Randomness is associated with disorder, and 
	  disorder is not associated with selection.

	- In an empirical sense, the claim fails, since no one has 
	  demonstrated that random genetic mutations are ever to an organism's
	  benefit.  They have never been observed to create more complex
	  or functionally different kinds of life forms.
	  
If we really believe that random genetic mutations are beneficial in the long
run, then one would think we should be able to speed up the evolutionary
process, by doing things to the earth's atmosphere so as to increase the amount
of ionizing radiation coming from the sun. 

A hypothetical question:  Would those who truly believe in evolution stand in
front of X-ray machines all day, with a view towards improving our species for
our children's children's children's sake? 

Genetics disproves evolution.

Given that random genetic mutations are not a vehicle for one kind of animal to
change into a different or more complex kind of animal, then variations in
interbreeding animals are restricted to what is already in the gene pool.

One classic example given for evolution is the peppered moth.  In the mid-19th
century, 98% of peppered moths were light.  The light moths blended in well 
with the mottled gray lichen on the trees.  With the industrial age, pollution
killed the lichen on the trees, making them dark.  Birds selected the light
moths for their meal, and overlooked the dark moths.  By the mid-20th century,
98% of the moths were dark. 

Question:  What did the peppered moth evolve into?  Answer:  A peppered moth.

Each species of animals has a gene pool.  A gene pool is simply all the 
different genes that all the members of a species collectively has.  Already-
existing genetic information allows for variations to occur among members of
that species, as individuals within that species interbreed.  In the case of
the peppered moth, the genetic information already existed in the gene pool,
and one genetic trait became more common in the population as a result of the
changing environment and the fact that birds use their eyes to spot their meal.

Variations such as this demonstrate the concept of micro-evolution.  A
scientific hypothesis is verified through theoretical analysis and laboratory
experiment/observation.  Micro-evolution can be demonstrated in theory
(according to the rules of genetics), and in practice by observation. 

It should be noted that sometimes animals within one species form distinct
groups which no longer interbreed.  Since the word "species", by definition,
is a group of animals which interbreed, you might say that new "species" of
animals has been formed.  Does this demonstrate evolution? 

No it does not.  In fact, this also works to disproves evolution.  Evolution
requires that the gene pool be expanded, to allow for more variations to occur.
Instead, what has happened here is that the gene pool for each of the splinter
groups has gotten smaller.  Each new group has a smaller set of genetic traits
in its collective pool of genes, and so will now exhibit less variation over
future generations.  Since less variation means less of an ability for the new
species to collectively adapt to its environment, then we should expect a
greater likelihood of extinction (not evolution) to occur if this process of
speciation is taken to its limit. 

The important thing to remember in all of this is that the genetic information
was already there from the beginning.  And further advances in selective
breeding and genetic engineering will only further disprove evolution by
demonstrating that such selective changes in life forms require intelligence. 

Taxonomy involves classifying animals according to their physical or genetic 
characteristics.  There are countless species, and among them there are many
similarities, physically and genetically.

One who is an evolutionist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that
there must be common ancestries between various kinds of animals.

One who is a creationist tends to look at the similarities and conclude that
there must be a common designer for all the various kinds of animals.

In both cases, the conclusion is based on prior acceptance of either the
principle of evolution or creation.  

Correlation does not imply a cause-effect relationship.  If two life forms
"A" and "B" are similiar, this does not imply that "B" evolved from "A", any
more than it implies that "A" evolved from "B".  Evolutionary charts drawn up
to illustrate ancestral relationships between all the various life forms are
therefore entirely hypothetical and speculative to begin with.

The important point to keep in mind is that all the animals exist in the
present.  Fossils also exist in the present.  We weren't there to observe
either evolution or creation happen.  So similarities between species do
not demonstrate that either creation or evolution happened.

To believe in evolution, one must be able to explain away the fossil record of
life forms.

The fossils which are found in the lowest deposits are supposed to belong to 
the Cambrian era of approximately 800 million years ago.  In these rocks are
found the fossils of various shellfish and crustaceans, sponges, worms,
jellyfish, etc. 

If you were to go scuba diving today, explored the bottom of the ocean, and
then explored a hypothetical ocean full of the life forms that are now
represented by Cambrian fossils, you would probably not be able to tell the
difference, except that many species have now become extinct (e.g. trilobites).
In all, you would find fewer life forms today than you would in this "fossil
ocean".  This in itself would suggest the opposite of evolution. 

The animals represented by these supposedly "oldest" deposits are complex
invertebrate life forms.  There is no fossil record of all the supposed
transitional forms between micro-organisms and these Cambrian fossils. 

The fossil record contains scanty "evidence" of transitional forms between 
the other major evolutionary classes of animals, as well.  To make matters
worse, suppose we grant that genetic mutations are the proposed vehicle for
change.  No evolutionist would debate the fact that most genetic mutations are
bad.  If so, then the geologic column should be littered with all sorts of
mutant animals that were not fit to survive.  But we find that this is not the
case. 

If it can be said that silence proves nothing, then the fossil record certainly
doesn't prove evolution.  What we see in the fossil record is not a continuum
of evolved kinds according to common ancestry, but separate and distinct kinds,
which is perfectly consistent with the abrupt appearance of life on earth. 

Charles Darwin was the first to acknowledge the fossil evidence as being a
hostile witness to his theory, and he documented it as such in his famous
book "The Origin of the Species".  He said that the abrupt appearance of
life and lack of transitional forms was the most serious objection to his
theory.  An evolutionist, Darwin hoped that a suitable explanation could
be found to explain away the fossil record, but none has been found today.

It should be noted that the fossil record of life-forms does not prove either
evolution or creation, although it is most consistent with the latter.  The
fossils exist in the present.  We weren't there to observe either creation or
evolution happen.  Prior belief in either evolution or creation determines how
one interprets the data, whether it be eons of evolutionary history preserved
in gradual deposition, or catastrophic burial from a worldwide flood.

Today, more and more evolutionists are turning to other theories, such as the
"hopeful monster" theory, in which Ma and Pa X-o-saur simply give birth to a
Z-o-pus (without proposing the vehicle by which such a thing could happen, or
explaining where said Z-o-pus would get its mate).  Another proposal is the
"life seeded by aliens from outer space" theory, which also has no foundation
and just shifts the problem to some other planet anyway.  It all usually boils
down to the "I can't explain how it happened, but I'm still going to keep
saying that evolution *must* have happened". 

"But doesn't the existence of fossils demonstrate that life has been around
for hundreds of millions of years?"  No it doesn't.

When we talk about fossils, we usually refer to the petrified remains of
animals that died a long time ago.  It is often claimed that animals which have
died fall to the ground and are slowly buried by the accumulation of sediment
and fossilized in the process.  This is not a reasonable assumption, nor is it
supported by experimental observation. 

When an animal or plant dies, its remains are quickly eaten by scavengers
and decomposed by bacteria, etc.  Any remains are also affected by weather.
Fish in the sea that have died usually float to the surface and are soon eaten
(as opposed to sinking to the bottom of the sea to be slowly buried by 
sediment and fossilized.)  How then, should we expect a fossil to be formed? 

The most reasonable explanation involves a catastrophe.  To get such a fossil,
you would have to suddenly and quickly bury the animal under tons of sediment,
so that it would be isolated from scavengers, deprived of oxygen which bacteria
need, and excluded from the effects of weather.  Only then should you expect
the petrification process to work. 

Also, these fossils in and of themselves do not give any indication of the
age of the animals that they represent, for they are just impressions of
once-living organisms that have died. 

Scientists who are not set on ignoring the biblical record generally agree that
fossils are most likely the result of the worldwide flood that is described in
the Genesis record, with its cataclysmic geological implications.  

In many places in the world, you can find stratified layers of rock, in which
are embedded various fossils.  The fossils found in each layer make up an
approximately ordered sequence, with the fish in the lowest layers and the
land-dwelling mammals in the highest. 

The evolutionist and the creationist derive different stories from this
picture, depending on the prior acceptance of either evolution or creation.

The evolutionist pictures a gradual build-up of each stratum, or layer,
over hundreds of millions of years of the accumulation of sediment, gradually
fossilizing dead animals in the process.  The oldest evolved life forms that
arose out of the sea are logically to be found in the lowest layers.  The most
recently evolved life forms are to be found in the highest layers. 

The creationist pictures a global catastrophe (the flood), which over a very
short period of time causes the sudden upheaval and deposition of earth and
sediment in some geographical areas.  This upheaval buries animals in that
ecological niche, dumping layer upon layer of sediment on them amidst swirling
underwater currents.  The fish are logically to be found at the bottom because
they dwelt in the lowest elevations, in ponds, lakes, and rivers.  They were
the first to be buried, and the least able to escape the deluge.  The mammals
are logically to be found at the top, because they lived in the highest
elevations in the region, and also were the best equipped to escape the deluge,
resulting in them being the last to be buried. 

The problem with the evolutionary thinking is that fossils of various
"evolutionary periods" are not consistently found in the proper strata.  In
many places, fossils representing "more recent" life forms are found in strata
far below their supposed ancestors.  The classic picture that is now found in
textbooks was actually standardized in the first part of the 19th century based
on strata found in Scotland and England, and hasn't changed much since. 

The existence of polystratic fossils (fossil life forms that are found buried
vertically through several layers of strata, such as trees and long cone-shaped
mollusks) also disproves the hypothesis, since this would require that the
organic remains of such life forms remain intact and unfossilized for millions
of years, awaiting the deposition of successive layers of strata. 

For the evolutionist, the mere existence of polystrates and fossils of "recent"
life forms below the fossils of their "ancestors" disproves their hypothesis. 

However, the creationist acknowledges that the ordering would be approximate,
based on the chaotic nature of the flood, and that different strata models
would be found in different parts of the world, based upon the local ecosystem
and what animals dwelt in it.  And fossils buried through several layers of
strata would not obviously not be a problem.

The Ice AgeS seem to be a basic assumption in geography books and are spoken
of occuring in a time frame of at least hundreds of thousands of years.  This
is nothing more than an assumption. 

In the polar ice has been uncovered large coal deposits and the frozen remains
of animals and plants which used to live there.  The meat of some animals is so
well preserved that it has been fed to livestock.  Corals, which can only
survive at temperatures above 20 degrees Celsius, frozen fruit trees, and other
life forms give evidence that even the polar regions existed in a tropical
climate. 

The interesting thing is that fruit trees have been found frozen with the fruit
still on them, and woolly mammoths frozen with food still in their mouths.
Something happened so suddenly, that only a sudden cataclysmic event could
offer an explanation of why these animals froze so quickly. 

Scientists who accept creation have suggested a reasonable explanation of
what might have occurred.

The presence of a vapor canopy over the earth, similar to that found on
Venus and Saturn's moon, Titan, would create an incredible greenhouse
effect on the earth, making the climate tropical all over the globe.  
Genesis 1:7 says "And God made the firmament (expanse of the sky) and 
divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which 
were above the firmament."

At the beginning of the flood, the "floodgates of heaven" (Gen 7:11) were
opened.  After the flood, a rainbow provided as a sign of God's covenant
(Gen 9:13-14).  (Underneath a world-wide vapor canopy, a rainbow would not
be possible.)

What may be submitted as an alternative to the "gradual ice age" concept is
that at the time of the flood, there was an immense vapor canopy around the
earth which collapsed.  The polar regions and significantly beyond were
immediately frozen.  In time, the global environment and atmosphere stabilized,
and a good portion the ice extending down from the polar regions receded.  All
this happened orders of magnitude faster than what is now assumed, yielding a
single "ice age". 

One of the problems in the creation/evolution dilemma was that we weren't
there to observe either happen.  Can we determine how long ago an animal
lived, by examining its organic or petrified remains, or by examining
rocks found in the vicinity of the dead animal?

Several methods have been proposed for dating of animal remains and rocks,
by measuring the decay of radioactive isotopes.  The general public tends to
view them as high-tech "hocus-pocus", and so people often aren't prepared to
question their validity, and tend to assume that the measurements are valid.  
But are they?

The following are the major radiometric dating methods, and their associated
problems.

Carbon-14:
----------

Cosmic rays hit Nitrogen-14 in the earth's atmosphere, producing radioactive
Carbon-14.  Plants absorb the Carbon-14.  Animals eat the plants.  Animals
eat animals.  Eventually all living things are supposed to have the same amount
of Carbon-14 in them. 

When the animal or plant dies, it quits eating, and so takes in no more 
Carbon-14.  The Carbon-14 decays back to Nitrogen-14 over time.  Measuring the
amount of Carbon-14 left in the animal remains is supposed to tell you how long
it has been since the animal or plant died. 

It is universally accepted that Carbon-14 is only useful for dating the organic
remains of living tissue, and that it only works up to about 20, 30, maybe
60,000 years.  So Carbon-14 dating is irrelevant to the discussion of the
timeframe of macro-evolution, which is supposed to have occurred over a time
span of hundreds of millions of years. 

It is assumed that the level of atmospheric Carbon-14 has been constant for
tens of thousands of years, when it has only been measured since the early
part of this century.  This is a ratio of 1/1000 over the span of the proposed
measurement period.  (Tree-ring dating and other methods of historical dating
have provided some corroborating data for some samples, however.)

Things like the strength of the earth's magnetic field affect how much cosmic
radiation gets through to the atmosphere (which affects how much Carbon-14 is
produced.)  The strength of the earth's magnetic field has declined since it
was first measured in 1835.

It is assumed that the rate of radioactive decay of Carbon-14 has never 
changed.  However, in the laboratory, it has been demonstrated that the
rate of decay of Carbon-14 can be changed, by application of an electric
potential.

It is assumed that no exchange of Carbon-14 between the animal remains and
the environment has occurred since the animal died.

Successive Carbon-14 measurements of individual specimens have been shown
to produce conflicting results, the differences amounting to about a 1:2 ratio.

Dating of specimens of known age has produced erroneous results.  (For example,
a living mollusk at 2300 years, a seal skin at 1300 years.

Potassium-Argon
---------------

Potassium-40 decays into Argon-40.  When molten lava solidifies, it has some
Potassium-40 in it.  Potassium-40 trapped in the rock decays into Argon-40.
The amount of Argon-40 that has formed in a rock since it solidified is
supposed to tell you how long it has been since the rock was formed. 

Potassium-40 also decays into Calcium-40.  The rate of decay into Argon-40 vs. 
Calcium-40 is not accurately known.  Uranium dating methods (see below) are
used to "calibrate" the Potassium-Argon method.  So to begin with, Potassium-
Argon dating cannot be more accurate than Uranium isotope dating. 

It is assumed that no Argon was originally trapped in rock when it solidified.

It is assumed that there was no exchange of either Potassium or Argon between
the specimen or its environment since it solidified.

It is assumed that the rate of decay of Potassium-40 has not changed since 
the formation of the rock.  The strength of neutrino flux from cosmic 
radiation, which is affected by things like supernovas and the strength of
the earth's magnetic field, which is known to change, are known to affect
decay rates.

Successive measurements of individual specimens have produced different
results, representing inconsistencies on the order of hundreds of millions
or billions of years.  The difference can be on the order of a ratio of 1:10.

Measurements using Potassium-Argon have produced results inconsistent with
those obtained using other radioisotope methods.

Measurements of rocks of known age obtained from recent volcanoes using the
Potassium-Argon method have produced erroneous results.  Rocks known to be
less than a couple hundred years old have been dated at billions of years old.

Uranium-235
-----------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Uranium-235 decays into
Lead-207, and the amount of Lead-207 is supposed to tell you how old the
rock is.

The original content of Uranium-235 vs. Lead-207 is not known.  (It is simply
assumed that there was no Lead-207 to begin with.)

It is assumed that no Uranium-235 or Lead-207 is exchanged with the environment
over the life of the rock.  Laboratory experiments have leached Uranium out of
some specimens with a weak acid. 

It is assumed that the decay rates have always been constant.

Successive measurements of the same sample often produce different results.

Measurements by this method often disagree with measurements using other
methods. 

Uranium-238
-----------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Uranium-238 decays into
Lead-206.

Thorium-232
-----------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Thorium-232 decays into
Lead-208.

Lead-Lead
---------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Lead-207 decays into
Lead-206.

Rubidium-Strontium
-------------------

Similar principles and problems as shown above.  Rubidium-87 decays into
Strontium-87.  (It should be noted that the "Isochron" nature of this method
eliminates only some of the unsubstantiated assumptions.)

	----------------------------------------------------------------

The magnitude of the problem can be easily seen.  Many assumptions are
made about decay rates, initial conditions, environmental influences,
etc.  The results obtained are inconsistent with successive measurements
made using the same and different dating methods.  Measurements made of
specimens of known age produce erroneous results. 

Furthermore, the dating procedures are not testable under controlled,
laboratory conditions over the period of time they are supposed to measure.

It should be noted that dating of fossils is almost never done by measuring
the fossil itself, but by measuring rocks in the vicinity of the fossil.  It
is assumed that a rock in the vicinity of a fossil is the same age as the
fossil.

It can be concluded that radioisotope dating methods lack the theoretical
and experimental foundation needed to be considered reliable indicators of
the age of the specimens being dated.

It should be pointed out that the age of the earth or life on it cannot be
rigorously demonstrated through any dating method, because the method is not
testable over the range of time it is supposed to date.  There are always
critical assumptions made which are not verifiable, and a considerable amount
of extrapolation of the results over time. 

Some radioisotope dating methods appear to suggest that the earth is billions
of years old.  However, many dating methods of at least equal merit suggest
that the earth is only several thousand years old and/or at least contradict
the notion that the earth is billions of years old.  In all, I have seen a list
of about 70 different dating methods that would suggest that the earth is
anywhere from N00 to N00,000,000 years old.  Given any preconceived age of
the earth, there can be found a dating metric to support it. 

Honest scientific inquiry should involve an unbiased quest for data.  One of
the requirements for validation of a scientific hypothesis is that it be
subject to falsification.  In verifying a hypothesis, you must consider all
data, including that which may contradict your hypothesis.  If data is found 
which contradict the hypothesis, then this contradictory data must be accepted
and considered, along with the data that supports the hypothesis. 

A hypothesis made that isn't subject to falsification falls within the realm
of religious dogma, rather than scientific inquiry.  

The following are examples of some of the dating metrics contradicting the
hypothesis that the earth is N billion years old:

Population of the earth:
------------------------

Today the population grows at 2% per year.  If we set the population growth
rate at just 0.5% per year, then total population reduces to zero at about 4500
years ago.  If the first humans lived 1,000,000 years ago, then at this 0.5%
growth rate, we would have 10**2100 (ten with 2100 zeros following it) people
right now.  If the present population was a result of 1,000,000 years of
human history, then several trillion people would have lived and died since the
emergence of our species.  Where are all the bones?

Ancient civilizations:
----------------------

Written history and archaeological evidence of ancient civilizations dates back
to several thousand years.  Beyond that, all traces of civilization disappear.
This is not consistent with a species which is supposed to be at least hundreds
of thousands of years old. 

Decaying magnetic field of the earth
------------------------------------

We know that the earth's magnetic field has been decaying since the time it was
first measured in 1835.  Given the only plausible model of magnetism being
generated by circulating electric currents within the earth, and projecting the
numbers backwards, 10,000 years ago the earth would have a field as strong as a
magnetic star, which utilizes thermonuclear processes to maintain a field of
that strength. 

Comets are disintegrating:
--------------------------

Each time a comet swings around close to the sun, the sun causes part of the 
comet to disintegrate.  It is the tail that we see as a result.  Astronomers
have observed that the life of a short-term comet is on the order of 1,500 to
10,000 years.  There are an abundance of short-term comets.  Why aren't they
all gone by now?

Io, the still-volcanic moon of Jupiter
--------------------------------------

Small bodies like Io should have lost the heat and energy that it takes
to be volcanic a long time ago.  How can Io still be volcanic, after billions
of years?

The moon's craters
------------------

Even rocks have a viscosity and flow like a liquid if you give them enough
time.  The moon's rocks are basalt-like, and so the moon's craters should have
all smoothed out if the moon was not thousands but billions of years old. 

Four stars moving apart
-----------------------

Four stars in the Trapezium of the Orion nebula are moving away from each 
other.  Their paths can be traced back to a common point of origin 10,000
years ago.  

Volcanoes spewing out "juvenile" water
------------------------------------

As much as 20% of the erupted material in a volcano is water that was trapped
deep within the earth.  This water is called "juvenile" water, because it is
assumed to have never been on the surface of the earth before.  About a dozen
volcanoes erupt each year.  The amount of water spewed out from all these 
volcanoes is estimated to be about a cubic mile.  There are an estimated 340
million cubic miles of water in all the oceans, lakes, and streams on earth.
This would imply that there weren't any oceans 340 million years ago.  

Volcanoes spewing out lava
--------------------------

The amount of lava currently being spewed out by volcanoes (using a low
estimate of 0.8 cubic km/year) in 4.5 billion years roughly corresponds to the
volume of all the continents on the earth today (3.3 billion cubic km).  Where
did all the lava go?

Helium rising into the atmosphere
---------------------------------

One of the decay products of uranium and thorium is radioactive helium-4.
Given the estimated concentrations of Uranium and Thorium in the earth's
surface, current decay rates, and the estimated helium content of the
atmosphere, the implication would be that this could not have been going on
for N,000,000,000 years.  Based on the numbers used, the calculations I have
seen range from N,000 years to N0,000,000 years.

Substances washing into the sea
-------------------------------

Many substances are being eroded, dissolved, and/or otherwise flushed from the
land into the oceans, where they do not return to the their point of origin. 
Given the estimated rate of influx of each substance, and given the current
concentration of these dissolved minerals in the sea, and working backwards,
we get values ranging from N00 to N00,000,000 years. 

	-----------------------------------------------------------

Again, these are but a few examples of metrics which contradict the far fewer
metrics that suggest a billion-year-old earth.  Just the inconsistencies alone
mean that we have no good reason for accepting dating methods that yield old
dates over the dating methods that yield young dates.  This is the principle
of falsification which every scientific hypothesis must be subject to. 

Did there ever exist a species of animals that was half-ape and half-human,
or any evolutionary sub-human, non-ape species of animal -- the so-called
hominids?

The following is a list of the various "ape-men", who found them, what the
evidence consists of, etc.  The information should be current to about 1985. 


		======================================


Australopithicus africanus, Australopithicus robustus, Zinjanthropus bosei,
Australopithicus afarensis, "Lucy", Paranthropus, Plesianthropus, 
Telanthropus, "Skull 1470", Homo habilis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------

A juvenile skull was discovered in East Africa in 1924 by Raymond Dart.  Dart
projected that an adult would stand 4 feet tall and have the brain size of a
gorilla.  An adult was discovered in 1936 by Robert Broom.  Discoveries of
various bone fragments skeletal parts continued by several others.  "Lucy" was
a skeleton about 40% complete.  The work of Mary and Louis Leakey, and later
their son Richard, gained considerable publicity through the help of the
National Geographic Society.  They found tools in the vicinity of the bones,
and assumed that Australopithicus used them.  They found human footprints, and
assumed that they were not human.  Extensive analysis of the Australopithicene
bone structure has called into question whether the animals ever walked
upright.  They were long-armed, and short-legged, and were probably
knuckle-walkers, more closely resembling an orangutan.  These animals are no
longer considered by most anthropologists to be man's ancestor, but rather are
classified as apes. 


Homo erectus / Africa
---------------------

Along with the Australophithecenes, Louis Leakey found a skull cap, part of
a femur, and a hip bone, and attributed them to Homo erectus.  In 1975, Richard
Leakey found a relatively complete cranium and parts of the rest of a skull.
More finds continued.  In 1984, an almost complete skeleton was found.  Limited
information is available regarding these latter finds.  They appear to be
similar to Neanderthal man in some respects, and bear some resemblance also to
some skeletons dug up in the Kow Swamp area in Victoria, Australia, which have
been dated on the order of 10,000 years.  Based upon where the bones were dug
up in Africa, it must be concluded that Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, and
Homo Erectus lived contemporaneously.  Underneath all these bones has been dug
up the remains of a circular stone habitation hut which could only have been
attributed to Homo sapiens.  Thus, none of them could be man's ancestor,
evolutionarily speaking, and one evolutionist, Geoffrey Bourne, has gone so far
as to seriously suggest that apes evolved from men. 


Homo erectus / Java Man (Pithecanthropus erectus)
-------------------------------------------------

A Dutch physician by the name of Dubois found a skullcap (1891), a femur and
two teeth (1892), and a third tooth (1898) near Trinil, Java.  The leg bone
appeared human, while the skull resembled that of an ape.  These fossils were
found 45 feet apart at a level in the rock which also contained two human
skulls, which Dubois concealed for 30 years (until 1922).  Dubois announced at
the end of his life that the fossils did not belong to an ape-man, but that in
fact the skull belonged to a giant gibbon.  Further study by anthropologists
ascribed the first two teeth to an orang and the third tooth to a human. 


Homo erectus / Peking Man  (Sinanthropus pekinensis)
----------------------------------------------------

In 1921, Davidson Black found a couple of teeth and, on the basis of this
find, immediately declared that this established evidence for a hominid.  In
1928-1929, 30 skulls and 11 mandibles (lower jaws) and 147 teeth were found at
Choukoutien (near Peking, China).  The skulls were all bashed in at the rear,
evidence that they were all killed by hunters for food.  The question was, who
was the hunter?  All the bones mysteriously disappeared sometime during the
period of 1941-1945.  A major limestone quarrying industry existed in ancient
Choukoutien, and the skulls were all allegedly found in heaps of debris from a
collapsed limestone hill.  Without tangible evidence we are left with the
skeletal reconstructions and work of a man who would declare that he found a
hominid based on a couple of teeth.  It has been suggested that Sinanthropus
was either a large macaque or baboon, and that the workers at the quarry killed
them and ate their brains for food. 


Neanderthal Man  (Homo neanderthalensis)
----------------------------------------

In 1848, workmen at a quarry in Gibraltar found a fairly complete fossil
skull.  In 1856, another partial skeleton was found near the village of
Neander in Germany.  Professor Schlaafhausen reported the find in 1857 and
gave it the name Neanderthal.  Rudolf Virchow, a pathologist, studied the
fossil material and concluded that the Neanderthals had rickets, a disease
caused by Vitamin-D deficiency and resulting in bone deformities that would 
account for their awkward appearance.  In 1888, the Galley Hill skull, a very
modern-looking skull, was found in strata believed older than Neanderthal. 
More modern-looking discoveries were found in 1855 at Ipswich, and in 1863 at
Abbeville. In 1932, a modern human jaw was found in deposits "older" than
Neanderthal. In 1939, Professor Sergio Sergi demonstrated that Neanderthal
walked erect as we do.  In 1947, a Neanderthal was discovered to have lived in
a cave after a modern man had inhabited the cave (some have alleged that this 
was an "intrusive burial").  The brain capacity of Neanderthals are found to 
be on the average larger than the average size of modern man.  It is today
generally admitted that Neanderthal man was fully human. 


Nebraska Man  (Hesperopithecus faux pas)
----------------------------------------

A field geologist by the name of Harold Cook sent Henry Fairfield Osborn, the
director of the American Museum of Natural History a tooth.  Osborn sent the
tooth to be analyzed by specialists, and the consensus was that the tooth more
closely resembled the human tooth than of any known ape, and concluded that
this was the first evidence of an anthropoid ape in the western hemisphere.
A book was published claiming that this species, Nebraska Man, was halfway
between Java Man and Neanderthal Man.  A field expedition was launched to
find more remains of the creature.  It was found that Hesperopithecus was in
fact a wild pig.


Piltdown Man  (Eanthropus dawsoni)
----------------------------------

In 1912, William Dawson and A. S. Woodward reported the discovery of an ape-man
in Kent Plateau in England.  The skull was broken but the jaw resembled that of
an ape.  Mammal bones, stone tools, and an elephant bone ground to a point were
also found.  More expeditions at another location produced a two skull pieces
and a single tooth.  In 1953, Kenneth Oakley did chemical tests on the bone
fragments, and demonstrated that the skull and the jaw didn't belong together,
and that neither belonged to the animal bones.  The material had been
chemically treated with iron salts to make it look old, and the teeth had been
filed down to make them look worn.  How could anthropologists be fooled for 40
years? 


Ramapithecus
------------

A 1932 find in India by G. E. Lewis.  On the basis of a handful of teeth and
fragments of a jaw, it was claimed by Simons and Pilbeam in the 1960s that this
was an evolutionary ancestor to modern man.   Pilbeam admitted in 1984 that his
conclusions were based more on his preconceived ideas than actual data.  It 
should be noted that a baboon that lives in high altitudes in Ethiopia,
Theropithicus galada, has teeth and jaw characteristics very much like
Ramapithecus and Australopithicus.  Ramapithecus is now generally classified as
essentially the same animal as a fossil orangutan known by the name of
Sivapithecus. 

Cro-Magnon Man
--------------

There is nothing to differentiate these European finds from modern man.  If
anything, they have superior size and brain capacity than what is average for
modern man.


Orce Man
--------

In 1983, a skull fragment was found.  A year later, it was determined that
the fragment came from a four-month old donkey.


"Flipperpithecus"
-----------------

A man by the name of Noel Baez mistook a dolphin's rib for the shoulder bone
of a hominid, as reported in a 1983 edition of Science News.


	-------------------------------------------------------------


As can be seen, there just isn't enough substance to build a case for the
existence of evolutionary ape-men.  The above examples illustrate conclusions
based on preconceived notions, major extrapolations upon scanty finds, and 
some outright frauds.


	-------------------------------------------------------------


The Flintstones  ("Homo hannabarbaras")
---------------------------------------

In many ways, the cartoon character Fred Flintstone is a better representation
of what have become known as "cave-men" than what is taught today by modern
anthropology.  Fred Flintstone is depicted as having modern intelligence, able
to communicate, and lived alongside dinosaurs (as early man certainly did
before the dinosaurs became extinct).  Yabba-dabba-doo. 


Adam, Eve, and their descendants  (Homo sapiens)
------------------------------------------------

The Genesis account gives us reliable historical information about the first
men.  They were intelligent, able to communicate, organize societies, cultivate
the land, classify animals and domesticate them, make tools and weapons, etc. 
They are indistinguishable from modern man.  The first man was created from
out of the dust of the ground.  The first woman was created from the first
man's rib.  Every human on earth is descended from that first pair.  Estimates
based on genealogies in the bible and archaeological evidence of ancient
civilizations suggest that Homo sapiens appeared on earth on the order of
several thousand years ago.

The following is a resource list of some good (and not-so-good) books,
pamphlets, tracts, and videos that I know of which deal with various aspects of
the creation/evolution issue.  These are mostly secondary source information
(i.e. textbooks), but do reference the primary research sources to allow for
further in-depth study in specific areas. 


_The Creation Explanation_
Robert E. Kofahl, Kelly L. Segraves
Harold Shaw Publishers, 1975
Paperback, 255 pages, $4.95

This is an excellent treatment which covers evidence in design of life forms,
fossils, the geological strata, dating methods, age of the universe, age of
the earth.  Quite a bit of information on the latter topics.


_Evolution:  The Challenge of the Fossil Record_
Duane T. Gish
Creation-Life Publishers (Master Books Division), 1985, ...2nd=1986
Paperback, 278 pages, $8.95

An excellent treatment, concentrating on the fossil record, geologic column,
origin of man.  Lots of information on the subject of "ape-men".


_Evolution:  The Fossils say No!_
Duane T. Gish
Creation-Life Publishers, 1978
Paperback, 189 pages, $2.95

An earlier and shorter version of the above mentioned book by the same author.


_Scientific Creationism_
Henry Morris
Master Books, 1974, ...2nd=1985
Paperback, 281 pages, $8.95

An excellent treatment covering a wide range of topics.  Probably the best
place to start on examining the evidences.


_What Is Creation Science?_
Henry M. Morris, Gary E. Parker
Master Books, 1982, 1987
Paperback, 331 pages, $10.95

This book is an attempt at producing a school textbook on creationism, assumes
that the reader does not have a biblical world-view, and avoids direct 
scriptural references.  Provides a defense for creation as science and
criticism of evolution as science. 


_It's A Young World After All_
Paul D. Ackerman
Baker Book House, 1986
Paperback, 131 pages

A summary of the dating methods that suggest a young age for the earth.  Lots
of subjective commentary, very selective about which dating methods to present,
doesn't document the assumptions, but interesting and informative reading
anyway.


_Darwin's Enigma_
Luther D. Sunderland
Master Books, 1984
Paperback, 178 pages, $8.95

An OK treatment of fossils and transitional forms.  Secular approach.


_The Genesis Flood_
John C. Whitcomb and Henry M. Morris
Baker Book House, 1961, ...29th=1986
Paperback, 518 pages, $11.95

This is a very thorough treatment of the biblical record and scientific
implications of the Flood.  Most of the information is pertinent to the
creation/evolution controversy.  Considered a classic.


_The World That Perished_
John C. Whitcomb
Baker Book House, 1988, ...3rd=1990
Paperback, 178 pages, $9.95

This is a sequel to _The Genesis Flood_ (which is not a prerequisite), and
an introduction to biblical catastrophism.  Easy to read, and more up-to-date.


_The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution_
A. E. Wilder Smith
Master Books, 1981
Paperback, 166 pages, $7.95

An excellent treatment, specifically dealing with the biochemical implications
in detail (e.g. spontaneous generation of life from non-life), which is missing
from most other books.


_The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary Theory_
A. E. Wilder Smith
TWFT Publishers (PO Box 8000, Costa Mesa, CA, 92683), 1987
Paperback, 148 pages, $7.95

An excellent treatment, specifically dealing with information sources and
structures, showing that it is necessary to consider "know-how" or an external
source of information in developing a scientific theory on origins. 


_Science, Scripture, and the Young Earth_
Henry M. Morris, John D. Morris
Institute for Creation Research, 1989
Paperback, 95 pages, $4.95

Provides rebuttals to current arguments (especially Davis Young) against a
recent creation and the worldwide flood.  


_Flaws in the Theory of Evolution_
Evan Shute
Craig Press, 1961, ...7th=1976
Paperback, 286 pages, $3.50

An OK treatment, not easy reading, not as thorough, but some good information.


_How To Think About Evolution, And Other Bible/Science Controversies_
L. Duane Thurman
InterVarsity Press, 1977, 1978
Paperback, 144 pages, $5.95

This book deals specifically with what the title suggests.  It does not
provide much useful information about creation/evolution, and the viewpoints
are liberal.


_From Goo To You By Way of the Zoo_
Harold Hill
Power Books, 1976, 1985
Paperback, 223 pages, $5.95

If you like mud slinging, this book addresses the issues with all the tact and
maturity that the title suggests.  


_The Great Brain Robbery_
David C.C. Watson
Henry E. Walter, LTD., 26 Grafton Road, Worthing, Sussex, 1975-1977
Paperback, 108 pages, 95p.

A very short general treatment, very subjective, but interesting.  


_Here's Proof:  Evolution is a Lie_
Dennis Miller and Louis Watrous
El Camino Press, 1976
Paperback, 57 pages

Another very short general treatment, subjective, but interesting.


_Fallacies of Evolution_
Arlie J. Hoover
Baker Book House, 1977
Paperback, 85 pages, $2.50

This is a short book that provides a refutation of the arguments for teaching
only evolution in the public schools.


_Evolution and the Modern Christian_
Henry M. Morris
Presbyterian And Reformed Publishing Co., 1967
Paperback, 72 pages, $3.95

This is a very brief treatment of evolution, intended to be easy and quick
reading for a high school or college student, Sunday school class, etc.


_Unlocking the Mysteries of Creation_
Dennis R. Peterson
Master Books, 1987
Hardbound, 207 pages, $18.95

An excellent general treatment of a wide range of topics on creation/evolution,
including some information on ancient civilizations.  This is a children's 
book, but contains enough information and references to be valuable for anyone 
to read. 


_Fossils:  Key to the Present_
Richard Bliss, Gary E. Parker, Duane T. Gish
Creation Life Publishers, 1980, 1984
Paperback, 81 pages, $4.95

This is a children's book which discusses fossils.


_The Long War Against God_
Henry M. Morris
Baker Book House, 1989, 3rd=1990
Hardbound, 344 pages, $21.95

This covers the history and impact of the Creation/Evolution conflict.


_The Origin of Species Revisited_, Vol 1 and 2
W.R. Bird
Philosophical Library 1987, 1989
Hardbound, 1102 pages total, $50.

This is a thorough, high-level scientific/philosophical treatment written with
all the scientific jargon that scientists use.  Very difficult reading for the
lay person.  But if you are one of those intellectual scientist-types with a
very high reading comprehension level, I suppose this book is for you.


_The Genesis Record_
Henry M. Morris
Baker Book House, 1976, 1989
Hardbound, 716 pages

This is essentially a verse-by-verse commentary on the book of Genesis by a
creationist author. 


_Reasons Skeptics Should Consider Christianity_
Josh McDowell, Don Stewart
Here's Life Publishers, 1981
Paperback, 249 pages

A general christian apologetic, of which pages 82-218 contain an assortment
of question vs. answers on the ark and evolution.  Goes together with another
book by the same authors, entitled _Answers To Tough Questions Skeptics Ask
About the Christian Faith_, which contains a few points about the Flood. 
Quick, short summaries, ample references.  Classic McDowell treatment.


_The New Atheism and the Erosion of Freedom_
Robert A. Morey
Bethany House, 1986
Paperback, 176 pages

Not a creation/evolution title at all, but contains information very relevant
to understanding the evolutionist mindset.  Includes discussion of atheism,
agnosticism, materialism, logical fallacies, etc., debate transcripts and
excerpts, from the author's experience as a Christian apologist/lecturer/
debater.


_Evolution: Bone of Contention_
Silvia Baker
Evangelical Press (P.O. Box 29, Phillipsburg, NJ, 08865-0029, (201) 454-0505)
1976, ...1986, Paperback, 35 pages 

This is a short treatment that gets right to the point and is very convincing.
An excellent and inexpensive thing that looks like a magazine, and can be
passed around or distributed easily, read quickly.


_Creation or Evolution?_ (Parts I, II, III)
Winkey Pratney
Pretty Good Printing (Last Days Ministries, Box 40, Lindale, TX, 75771), 1982
Set of 3 Tracts, 12 pages total

These 3 tracts from Last Days Ministries (Keith/Melody Green's organization)
are an excellent treatment of the creation/evolution issue in a nutshell,
with references, a book list, and evangelically oriented.


_Understanding Genesis_
Ken Ham, Gary Parker
Creation Life Publishers, Box 983, El Cajon, CA, 92022 (1-800-999-3777), 1987
Ten 45-minute videotape lecture-presentations, VHS format, $200

This is an excellent series to have in a church library or for group study.  It
is authored by two knowledgeable and experienced lecturers on the subject,
packed with information, yet easy to understand.


_The Genesis Solution_
Ken Ham
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
45 minutes, VHS format

This is a good motivational film for creation evangelism, discussing the
foundation of Genesis and why the creation/evolution issue is important.


_The Great Dinosaur Mystery_
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
20 minutes, VHS format

This is a very subjective film, documenting sketchy "dragon" legends and
similiar stories, attempting to show that dinosaurs have been around in 
recent historical times. 


_Origins:  The Origin of the Universe_  (Episode 1)
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
30 minutes, VHS format, 1991

This is an excellent film discussing the origins of the universe, demonstrating
that the universe is young and not old.  Features A. E. Wilder-Smith.


_Origins:  The Earth, a Young Planet?_  (Episode 2)
Films for Christ, 2628 W.Birchwood Circle, Mesa, Arizona, 85202 (602-894-1300)
30 minutes, VHS format, 1991

This is an excellent film discussing dating methods, demonstrating that the
earth and life on it is young and not old.  Features A. E. Wilder-Smith.


_Genesis_
God-breathed
Various translations, ~4000 B.C. (?)
50 chapters

This book has been around for several thousand years, and is surely the
most authoritative book on the subject.  This is the only historical account
we have, originating from the only One who was there to witness it happen. 
Provides information on creation and the flood, genealogies, some early
civilizations.  Excellent reading -- a must!

	----------------------------------------------------

The following is a list of creation research periodicals that I know of:

_Creation Research Quarterly_
Creation Research Society
P.O. Box 14016, Terre Haute, IN, 47803
($17 for 4 issues/year)

_Creation Ex Nihilo_
Creation Magazine USA
P.O. Box 710039
Santee, CA, 92072
($22 for 12 issues/year)

_The Bible Science Newsletter_
The Bible-Science Association
P.O. Box 32457
Minneapolis, MN, 55432-9825
($22 for 12 issues/year)

_Acts & Facts_
Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667, El Cajon, CA, 92021
(free, 12 issues/year)

_The Ark_
The Genesis Institute
7232 Morgan Ave. S.
Richfield, MN, 55423
(free, 12 issues/year)

_Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith_
American Scientific Affiliation
55 Market St.
Ipswich, MA, 01938
($20 for 12 issues/year)

_It's About Time_
Chronology-History Research Institute
P.O. Box 3043
Spencer, IO, 51301

	----------------------------------------------------

The following are some organizations I know of which are involved specifically
in creation-oriented research and apologetics. 

Institute for Creation Research
P.O. Box 2667
El Cajon, CA, 92021
(619) 448-0900

Creation Research Society
P.O. Box 28473
Kansas City, Missouri, 64118

Creation Science Foundation
P.O. Box 302
Sunnybanks, Queensland
4109 Australia

Creation Resource Foundation
P.O. Box 16100
So. Lake Tahoe, CA, 95706
(916) 542-1509

Creation-Science Research Center
P.O. Box 23195
San Diego, CA, 92193
(619) 569-8673

Centre for Scientific Creation
5612 N. 20th Place
Phoenix, AZ, 85016

    Garth,
    
    Just wanted to thank you for posting this.  I've not read through it
    all, YET!!!  :-}
    
    Nancy

    Garth,
    
    Have you read the book _Origins and Destiny_ by Grange?  It takes an
    Information Theory approach towards a proof for a universe created by
    intelligence.  The argument goes something like this;
    
    -  all natural closed systems will move toward entropy (reduction of
    information) unless acted upon by a controlling intelligence; (the
    magnitude of information in the system is always declining).
    
    -  the universe is a closed system.
    
    -  therefore the universe must tend toward entropy.  The fact that it
    started from scratch with a huge amount of information implies that it
    was created by a system with much more information (i.e. a superior
    intelligence).
    
    
    The book had some interesting Information Theory analyses of certain
    objects in the universe.  An IT analysis shows the magnitude of
    information inherent in the description of the objects.
    
    One of the simplest objects was the Sun.  It is *very* easy to describe
    what is going on in it, and the volume of information required to build
    another one (assuming skills are available) is very small.
    
    One of the most complicated objects is a single celled life form.  The
    magnitude of information required to describe it is many times the
    magnitude of information required to describe a "simple" star.  This is
    because in describing it you have to be able to describe the fact that
    it can duplicate itself.
    
    The most complicated known object so far is a human.  The amount of
    information required to describe the shape, likely behaviour, future
    movements, and *all* the possible genetic results of combining humans
    would be by far the greatest "use" of information storage.
    
    James

Re: .17  (James)

No, I haven't read that book, but I recognize and understand the principles
you mention.  It sounds similiar to a book which I did read, and which I 
cited in .15:  _The Scientific Alternative to Neo-Darwinian Evolutionary 
Theory_, by A. E. Wilder Smith, which deals with information sources and
structures, showing that it is necessary to consider "know-how" or an external
source of information in developing a scientific theory on origins.

    W
    Would it not be more logical to assume that modern computers evolved
    from beach sand than to belive that man evolved from the amoebe?
    
    The more I learn about evolution the more skeptical I become as to
    it's veracity.
    
    Glenn
    

    Garth, I just finished reading your paper and must say you did an
    awesome job.  VERY thorough!  
    
    I was wondering if you had more information in regards to the Big Bang
    theory.  Your paper mainly attacked Earth and its life forms.  Some
    information I already know deals with Entropy and the 2nd Law of
    Thermodynamics.  It's obvious that a Big Bang type explosion would have
    to be the largest thermonuclear reaction in the history of the
    universe.  The vast heat would not cause the formation of the celestial
    bodies, but would expand particles even more.
    
    There are a few things your paper brought to my mind too:
    
    - DNA prevents breeds from becoming something else.  Their identity is
      locked in.  Having seen the new "Jurassic Park" film, it's
      interesting that it has a slight evolutionary slant, but presents
      ideas that defeat it.  First of all, DNA strands are so vast and
      complex that they couldn't be analyzed until the computer technology
      made it possible.  Secondly, the DNA strands they uncovered were
      incomplete and they used African frog DNA to substitute in the
      missing links.  Despite this, the dinosaurs were still dinosaurs. 
      There were some bizarre consequences though.  One was the dinosaurs
      changing gender to reproduce (the park was created with all the same
      gender species to prevent this).  I thought it was interesting...
    
    - Evolutionists claim that new species are forming while the truth is
      1,000 species become extinct per year.
    
    - It still takes more faith to believe evolution than creation. 
      Society today is so brainwashed, or don't believe in God, that it's
      tough to change the tide.  Society won't trust science if the theory
      is retracted and millions of textbooks reprinted.
    
    - Evolution falls back to the pagan practice of worshipping the
      creature instead of the Creator.
    
    Finally, this paper is too good not to share.  May I have your
    permission to share it with my church and my university professors?
    
    thanks,
    Mike

Mike,

Garth gets in here sporadically but has made blanket statements about 
permission to use his material.  I would give him the credit for formulating
the material and U S E  I T !

And for you Christians who have pretty much made up your minds about evolution
without reading this, perhap you have some unwashing to do.  ;-) 
Read it!

RE.20

> Your paper mainly attacked Earth and its life forms

	
	That must be a pretty powerful paper. Who won?

8*) 8*)

Re: .20  (Mike)
    
>    I was wondering if you had more information in regards to the Big Bang
>    theory.  

Hmmm... that might be a good topic to address.  I'll think about doing that.

By the way, did you hear the one about the bomb that blew up in the desert
in Iraq?  All the debris came showering down and produced a city with streets
and buildings and... [bad].  

Oh, oh, and did you hear the one about the golden calf?  Here's Aaron's story:

	"'So I told them "Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off."  Then
	they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this
	calf!'"  (Exodus 32:24)

Regarding "Jurassic Park", the irony is that DNA shouldn't be expected to 
remain intact after N00,000,000 years.  The scientists in the film should
have said, "Look, dinosaur DNA  -- in good condition!  There must have been
dinosaurs around within the last few thousand years!" 
    
>    - It still takes more faith to believe evolution than creation. 

I wish you folks would stop making statements like this.  Look up "faith" in
the dictionary, or in the bible (Hebrews 11:1).  You are misusing the word.
When you place your *faith* in evolution, you are doing so without a solid
foundation for that *faith*.  When you place your *faith* in creation, you are
doing so with a solid foundation for that *faith*.  Faith can be a good thing
or a bad thing, depending on the object of that faith and its foundation.

Faith:  "Confident trust, belief" (my American Heritage Dictionary), "being 
sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see" (my bible).

>    - Evolution falls back to the pagan practice of worshipping the
>      creature instead of the Creator.
    
This is a good point, worth noting.  With evolution, the credit is given the
creation for creating everything.  Rather, the credit should be given to the
Creator for creating everything. 

>    Finally, this paper is too good not to share.  May I have your
>    permission to share it with my church and my university professors?
    
You have my permission to share anything that I write in notes.  The only
caveat that I want you to be aware of is that my presentation has no
footnotes or references.  Obviously, it was intended for presentation in
an interactive forum such as this, where challenges could be made as needed
to back up any particular point of contention.  

>Hmmm... that might be a good topic to address.  I'll think about doing that.
    
    Well you did touch on some points about the complexity of the sun, the
    moon craters, and the stars moving in Orion.  I'm still looking for a
    source to read so that I can effectively question the garbage my
    astronomy profs spew forth.
    
>By the way, did you hear the one about the bomb that blew up in the desert
>in Iraq?  All the debris came showering down and produced a city with streets
>and buildings and... [bad].  
>
>Oh, oh, and did you hear the one about the golden calf?  Here's Aaron's story:
>
>	"'So I told them "Whoever has any gold jewelry, take it off."  Then
>	they gave me the gold, and I threw it into the fire, and out came this
>	calf!'"  (Exodus 32:24)
    
    ...or the explosion in the book factory yielding the Library of
    Congress.
    
    ...or a million monkeys typing on a million typewriters, one of them
    might eventually produce a Shakespearean play.  Assume a monkey typed
    24 hours a day at 100 words per minute on 40-key typewriters and each
    word was 4-letters long.  It would take 800 billion years for them to
    get the first 4 words of a Shakespearean play.  Imagine writing the
    first scene!
    
    Mike

There has been an active discussion in PEAR::SOAPBOX topic 383 on this topic.

KP7 to add Soapbox to your notebook.


Phil

    {cross-posted to the SOAPBOX title on "Age of Universe & Speed of Light"}
    
    I gathered some information that reconciles the age of the universe with 
    the creation story this weekend.  The explanation is so simple, yet
    profound, that I'm surprised it wasn't brought up yet.  The answer is
    in the book I keep encouraging everyone to read, "Genesis & The Big
    Bang" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.  It's on Bantam books, which is not a
    Christian publisher.
    
    The reconciliation deals with a proven theory of science: Einstein's
    theory of Relativistic time.  I don't have the time to type all the
    info now, but it deals with differences in time in our universe noticed
    from different reference frames and different levels of gravity. Proven 
    examples are found in mu-mesons and an experiment done by the U.S.
    Naval Observatory.
    
    The U.S. Naval Observatory discovered large gains in time by traveling
    around the world in Boeing 707s and Concordes equipped with cesium-beam
    clocks (Hafele & Keating, "Around-the-world atomic clocks: observed
    relativistic time gains," Science 117 (1972): 168).  If you want me to
    type in the experiement specifics, let me know and I'll try to get to
    it sometime this week.
    
    According to Dr. Schroeder, astronomers and literal creationists are
    actually in harmony with each other and unnecessarily agree.  He says,
    "According to Einstein's law of relativity, we now know it is
    impossible in an expanding universe to describe the elapsed time
    experienced during a sequence of events occuring in one part of the
    universe in a way that will be equal to the elapsed time for those same
    events when viewed from another part of the universe.  The differences
    in motions and gravatational forces among the various galaxies, or even
    among the stars of a single galaxy, make the absolute passage of time a
    very local affair.  Time differs from place to place."
    
    In essence, the 6 days of creation in the Earth's reference frame is
    equal to the universe's reference frame of ~15 billion years.  
    
    It is also interesting to note that both Weinberg's "The First 3 Minutes"
    and Nahamanide's "Commentary on Genesis" have discussed the events of
    the universe's creation in uncannily similar terms.  Nahamanide's is
    also known as Moses ben Nahman (or Ramban) and lived 1194-1270 AD in
    Spain and Israel.
    
    Mike

Re: .26  (Mike)

Although it is always interesting to contemplate the possibilities, I would 
hardly call the theory of relativity "proven science".  The original hypotheses
for special and general relativity are brainstorms that have no further
theoretical foundation to support them.  Empirically, all we have is some
atomic clocks which have lost some miniscule amount of time while being flown
around the earth, and we are making the assumption that this is due to the 
theory of relativity.  Although this demonstrates some consistency, it is a
far cry from establishing a causal relationship beyond doubt, such that we
can label relativity "proven science".

Before suggesting that any kind of "big bang" explosion can be reconciled with
the scriptures, keep in mind the following order of events, as documented in 
Genesis chapter 1:

	Day 1:  Earth, water, light created
	Day 2:  Water, sky, expanse between the waters above and below
	Day 3:  Water seperated from dry land, dry land produces vegetation
!! -->	Day 4:  Sun, moon, stars created
	Day 5:  Sea-dwelling creatures and birds created
	Day 6:  Land-dwelling creatures created

That sequence of events cannot be reconciled with either the "Big Bang" or
Neo/Darwinian evolution.

Last year, I noted a logical flaw in my presentation having to do with 
"transitional forms" (see Christian_V6, note 24.110, Biology 35.330).
I want to talk some more about this.

At one point, I had been saying:

"The fossil record does not give evidence of transitional forms between any of
the other major evolutionary classes of animals, either.  There are no animals
with half-fin-half-leg or half-gill-half-lung.  There are no animals with
half-scale-half-feathers.  There are no animals that are half-ape-half-human. 
The evolution of the plant kingdom remains a mystery."

My own objection to this was:

"But really, am I willing to accept *any* so-called transitional form in the
fossil record?  Given the logic of my prior essay, "What about taxonomy", I
would have to admit that the answer is no, since I have stated that similarity
does not imply ancestry.  So my points about the lack of half-this-half-that
are therefore moot, and may well be construed as a tease."

And I revised my essay entitled "The fossil record of life forms", the revision
of which you now see in this version of Christian.

I don't know whether it was a coincidence that, subsequently, the evolutionists
capitalized on this point in the Soapbox discussion (i.e. whether *I* actually
fueled this or not), but I have to admit that they did so successfully, at 
least in my opinion.  The debate goes something like this:

	Creationist:  There are no transitional forms in the fossil record.

	Evolutionist:  Define "transitional form".  What would you accept?

	Creationist:  (???)

Despite the fact that some leading creationists, such as Dr. Duane Gish, have
used the "(lack of) transitional forms" argument, I have to take exception and
declare this a bad argument.

First of all, since both creationists and evolutionists admit that
fossilization is a rare occurance in nature to begin with, why are we insisting
that they come up with a fossil for each and every animal that ever existed,
especially if evolution in concept represents a nearly infinite continuum of
different animals.  The lack of fossil evidence does not disprove their theory.

Secondly, as I said, similiarity doesn't imply ancestry to begin with, 
rendering the whole point moot.  So what if this fossil is similiar to that
one, anyway?  And so what if we can assume that one fossil deeper down in the
strata was buried before another fossil higher up?  The really honest thing for
us to say is "We won't accept any fossil as a 'transitional form', no matter
what it looks like!"  Otherwise, no matter what fossil the evolutionist digs
up and calls "transitional", we creationists will just say "that's not good
enough", and ask for two more transitional forms. 

And what shall we accept?  Well, to know that one animal evolved into another 
requires evidence that it did.  Not circumstantial evidence, but real evidence.
Someone has to have had to have watched it happen, or show by theory that it
*must* happen.  That is essence of the scientific method.  Since no one was
around to observe it happen, and no theory insists that fish X must evolve into
lizard Z, the evolutionists are left with no evidence to support their theory.
Any discussion of ancestry is a non-sequitur from a discussion of the fossil
record of life forms.

On our side is the record of the Creator, who *was* around to observe it
happen.  (Is His testimony less reliable than the best human testimony, used
as the foundation for scientific knowledge in any field?)

And on our side is the consistently observed application of the principles of
randomness vs. selection, chaos vs. design, in which we can confidently declare
that, in the absence of planned intervention, the opposite of evolution must
occur. 

In any case, I will be taking yet another stab at my essay "The fossil record
of life forms", to further clean it up and clarify this point, ensuring that my
presentation is internally consistent. 

Several people have suggested to me that I participate in the discussion raging
in Soapbox.  This discussion currently covers at least four different notes
(76, 383, 471, 589) containing some 2000+ replies. 

My response is that I just don't have the time for that kind of volume of 
noting.  I have tried to keep current on the discussions "read-only", because
I am interested in hearing what people are saying -- especially evolutionists. 

I am sorry that I cannot participate, because I feel certain that I could
easily refute the majority of arguments made there by evolutionists.  But
that's life.  I generally have my work responsibilities and my family to tend
to, and *they come first*.  There is a time and a place for everything, and
this is neither. 

Regarding my essays on Creation vs. Evolution, FYI these have already been
cross-posted or referenced by one person or another in Soapbox. 

Regarding my postings in general, I want to say again that I give permission
for anybody to copy my material any place they want, in whole or in part.  You
do not need my prior consent, and you need not even give me credit for
authorship.  I'm giving you just the exact opposite of a copyright notice. 
However, when you copy my material, you become responsible for it.  You own it,
and you shall defend it.  Bear in mind that I do not reference the text, beyond
a summary of secondary documents in the end.  Obviously, my presentation was
intended for interactive notes, and was intended to subsequently be defended by
me, citing references and supporting my points on demand. 

    I saw something yesterday on a car in the parking lot here at CXO that
    bothered me.  It was a plastic stick on similar to the fish that you
    see on many Christian's cars.  However, in the center, enclosed portion
    of the fish was the name "Darwin" in varying sized letters that varied
    in size based on the height available by the enclosing fish.  Then,
    from the bottom of the fish there were feet front and rear protruding.
    Didn't like it at all.

    Ron

    -1
    
    I can understand why.

re 25.30, Ron,

Guess they're still trying ;-}.  Very, at times, too...

I have a soft spot for some of those 'far side' cartoons.  There's a couple 
I rather appreciate, as poking fun at the evolutionists.   Both portray 
fish, and a little hummock of an island.  They might even both be entitled 
'great moments in evolution'!

One has a fish 'taking a dare' - making a dash across the island, running
on its fins. 

The other has a bunch of fish (one with a baseball bat clutched in it's
fin), gazing hopelessly at the ball they've hit out onto the island...

The 'reason' they're funny - offered as cartoons, rather than scientific
suggestions (!) - is because they're so way out of all possibility.  As
even an evolutionist acknowledge. 

For me, they underline how creation (apart from the heart of man) has 
remained within the design limits God has ordained.

							Andrew

RE: 25.5 by KALI::WIEBE "Garth Wiebe"

> Most of us understand that the information that represents the data and 
> instructions for a computer program has a particular pattern, designed
> specifically by the software engineer.  What would we expect to happen
> if, once the program was loaded and running, we zapped the binary 
> image from which it was executing with a random change of some data bit?

> In most cases, the program would probably crash, or seriously fail to 
> accomplish anything useful.  In a very few cases, the program might 
> exhibit some interesting aberrant behavior.  But in no cases would we expect
> to get a more complex program, or a program of a totally different kind. 

This subject is discussed in PEAR::SOAPBOX topic 608.*

Press KP7 or select to add SOAPBOX to your notebook.


Phil

    But its still a fish, Phil, my boy.
    
    jeff

RE: 25.35 by USAT05::BENSON

> But its still a fish, Phil, my boy.

Ah yes,  it's a fish that breaths and walks on land.  Tell me Jeff,  what does
a fish need to do to no longer be a fish?


Phil

    -1
    
    Become Dinner! :-) :-)

   
>    Become Dinner! :-) :-)

         I was told that a goldfish (and this may be true of other fishy 
         types) has a memory retention of only 3 or 4 seconds...
         
         	...I sometimes have difficulty remembering things...
         
         					  ...please don't eat me!
         
         Paul

	Jeff, your arguments in here don't seem to hold much water (especially
now the fish walked out onto the land) as in the BOX.



Glen

Hi Phil,

� Have you ever seen a lungfish?

Not socially - only through the glass of a tank.  ;-)

If you'd seen the Far Side cartoon, you'd know what I meant.  It's the 
personality Gary Larson puts into them....

							Andrew

� Tell me .... what does a fish need to do to no longer be a fish?

Not Jeff, but doing my best ;-)  Not even a biologist, come to that!

I believe the distinguishing feature of fish is that their gills function 
to extract their needed oxygen from water rather than from air.

Odd types like lungfish and flying fish can exist for brief periods in 
air, but this isn't their preferred medium, and they can't handle it long 
term.

Not an expert by any means - but if you can give a closer definition,
please feel free... Briefly, because this is all rather a red herring from
the topic in question... ;-) 

								Andrew

There should be a cartoon that shows some lizards playing baseball on the
shore.  One of them hits a baseball into the water, and they all look at
each other wondering what to do.  

Entitle the above, "Great moments in evolution"

Shall we now discuss how useful an adaptation it is for an animal with lungs to
develop the capability of filtering out oxygen from water?  Does this explain
the evolution of fish? 

Hi Phil,

Sorry you don't appreciate that it *is* a  red herring - pun regardless.

� Lungfish can live in air for fairly long periods of time as their "lungs" can
� extract needed oxygen from the air.  Are they fish?

Phil, I'm not concerned with how people label them.  How many instances are 
there of lungfish which change their capability in this respect, to be 
solely land-based, or solely aquatic?

The 'not fitting the fixed box' lies purely in how people want to describe
and categorise them.  It's mankind who has drawn the fixed boxes which
don't fit.  God has created infinite variety.  The significant thing is
that each keeps within it's own boundaries of development. There's a wide
variety of genes in any type, but while this gives variation to a large
degree, it doesn't blur over to any other species. 

Now, my terminology may not be precise here.  I don't remember if te term I 
should use is species or genus, etc...

								Andrew

Re: .45  (Phil)

>No,  as fish (and other aquatic animals) are found in far older rocks than are
>land animals.

More accurately, fish fossils are usually found buried beneath land animal
fossils.  Is this supposed to have something to do with ancestry?  

re .47  Hi Phil,

You misread me.  The *source* of the definitions in the quotes you took
from .44 is what is significant. 

There are two sets of definitive divisions.  The one man has described, and 
the one God established in creation.

Man's definition doesn't necessarily fit the boundaries God has 
established, so he gets confused when he sees something crossing *his* 
boundaries, not realising that they haven't crossed *God's* boundaries.

� Species is another fuzzy box.  Are horses and donkeys different species?
� Are chimps and humans?

Like I said - man isn't the definitive source of knowledge.  We haven't 
understood much of the design yet.  As Job 38-41 points out...

I think (but am not sure) that the potential for cross breeding is an 
indication of where species boundaries occur.  So horses and donkeys would 
be in the same group, while chimps and humans wouldn't be.  But that's
strictly going outside my area...

								Andrew

� We need to correct our definations if they do not match.  Agree?

If you mean man's definitions of species need to conform to God's creation 
standards, I agree that would be a more meaningful classification.  However, 
this is not an area I'm conversant with in any detail, so don't know the 
grounds of human classification used.

								Andrew

I have an article from Discover Magazine, September 1992, 
entitled _The_Dating_Game_ that I will be posting some excerpts from,
when I have more time.  

To sum, while some discoveries seem to show certain anachronisms 
(artifacts that should be not have been invented at the date which
they test), it calls into question whether dating is correct, or 
whether the concept of stratification is correct.  I mean, they still
think on the order of thousands and thousands of years, but scientists
are puzzled by confusing dating data.  (I probably have not summed it
justifiably, but the excerpts will clarify the information.)

One quick quote:  "To put this in perspective, imagine discovering
a prototypical Pontiac in leonardo da Vinci's Attic."

Mark

The point of .53 is that what was conventional wisdom, before 
conventional wisdom was supplanted by evolutionary conventional
wisdom, is coming around.  It is interesting that the more the
scientists study, the more they know that they don't know,
and chase down blind alleys of hypothesis and theory.  But testing
is something that must be done to prove the veracity of a hypothesis
such as evolution.  With all the blind alleys, and u turns, and
the stubborn tenacity to "make the theory fit", it is a wonder
that today's "conventional wisdom" hasn't evolved as much as it might
have if the question of origin was come to with an open mind.

Mark

Re: .50  (Phil)

>> More accurately, fish fossils are usually found buried beneath land animal
>> fossils.  
>
>And even more accurately, marine animal fossils are found in rocks that can be
>dated in many ways to older times than the rocks first known land animal
>fossils are found in. 

So the animals on the bottom were buried some amount of time before the animals
on top.  What does that have to do with the following?: 

>> Is this supposed to have something to do with ancestry?  
>
>Ancestors usually come before descendants.  :-)

You haven't related the statement "ancestors usually come before descendants"
to anything having to do with order of burial of some now-fossilized animals.  
Please do so.

The rest of your note is just a collection of hypothetical scenarios which 
neither of us have bought into, and is therefore superfluous.  I redirect
you to answer the question:  "What does order of burial or length of time
between burial have to do with ancestry?"

The shape of the earth depends on the granularity of the perspective.
With all the mountains and valleys, all of your descriptions are rendered
invalid.  Bringing up one of those granular perspectives does not negate
all conventional wisdom.  Further, though the Catholic church force Galileo 
to recant about the earth's position in the solar system, the Bible 
has never made the claim that the earth was flat, nor that it was the
center of the universe.

>The Earth is not flat.  The Earth is much older than 6000 years.  Life, 
>regardless of how it originated,  evolves.  If one insists that the Earth is
>flat,  most of modern knowledge is out of understanding.  If one insists that
>the Earth is 5998 years old,  a lot of modern knowledge is out of
>understanding: almost everything labeled Astronomy,  Biology...Zoology.

You make imperative statements here, and some of them may be subject to 
change, for you are being just as adamant about these beliefs as the
"flat earth" believers were centuries ago.  What has not evolved is 
man's ability to understand that he is not as enlightened as he thinks he
is (at any age, or eon).

Mark

    Interesting subject...
    
    

By the way, is "open mindedness" defined as "you should see it as clearly as
I see it"?

  I will try and skim through much of the boring tedium, and very much
  likely this may still be boring.  What this article spoke to me about
  was that for all the technology, certainty was too contaminated by 
  the many possible variables.  So, I reason that the open minded approach
  is still that man's ability to understand that he is not as enlightened 
  as he thinks he is.

  That we may better understand from flat, to round, to sphere, to whatever,
  is nice, but we'd better come off the high horse or be in peril of being
  a "flatlander" when this present time is past and we are scoffed at by those
  in the future for our foolish perceptions.  And when man is left to it,
  it is foolish.

  From Discover Magazine, September 1992, _The_Dating_Game_, James Shreeve

  "...In design and workmanship the harpoons were not unlike those at the
  very end of the Upper Paleolithc, some 14,000 years ago.  But there is
  one important difference.  Brooks and Yellen believe the deposits John
  was standing in were at least five times that old. To put this in
  perspective, imagine discovering a prototypical Pontiac in Leonardo da
  Vinci's attic.
    "'If this site is as old as we think it is,' says Brooks, 'it could
  clinch the argument that modern humans evolved in Africa.'"
    "Ever since the discovery the couple had devoted themselves to chopping
  awa at that stubborn little word, _if_.  In the face of entrenched
  skepticism of their colleagues, it is a uphill task.  But they do have
  some leverage...."

  "...Ten years ago, I would have said it was impossible for harpoons like
  these to be so old," says archaelogist Michael Mehlem... "Now, I'm
  reserving judgment. Anything can happen."

  blah blah blah yawn blah blah

  "The most celebrated *absolute* method of telling archaeolgical time,
  radiocarbon dating, came along in the 1940s...Conventional radiocarbon
  dates are extremely accurate up to about 40,000 years.  This is far and
  away the best method to date a find -- as long as it is younger than this
  cutoff point. (In older materials, the amount of carbon 14 still left
  undecayed is so small that even the slightest amount of contamination in
  the experimental process leads to highly inaccurate results.)..."

  "The technique doing the most damage to conventional wisdom is calle
  thermoluminensence, TL for short.... Unlike radiocarbon dating, which
  works on organic matter, TL pulls time out of stone.... Minute amounts of
  radioactive elements, both in the rock and inthe surrounding soil and
  atmostphere, are constantly bombarding its atoms, knocking electrons out
  of their normal orbits....A few [electrons] become trapped en route -
  physically captured within crystalline impurities or electronic
  abberations in the mineral structure itself.  These tiny prisons hold
  onto their electrons until heated, whereupon the traps spring open and
  the electrons return to their more stabel positions.  As they escape,
  they release energy in the form of light - a photon for every homeward
  bound electron." .....

  "Now, our lineage has been making flint tools for hundreds of thousands
  of years, and somewhere in that long stretch of prehistory we began to
  use fire as well.  Inevitably, some of our ancestors kicked discarded
  tools into burning hearths, setting their electron clocks back to zero
  and opening up a ripe opportunity for TL timekeepers in the present."

  Note for clarification:
    (Taking a rock and dating it with TL would show one date.  Taking a
    (shaped) rock that has been heated will show the date it was heated (set
    to zero) thereby extrapolating how old the rock was.

  ..."If Valladas's dates are accurate, they completely invalidate the
  notion that modern humans evolved from Neanderthals in any neat and tidy
  way.  Instead, these two kinds of human, equally endowed culturally, but
  distinctly different in appearance, might have shared the same nook of
  the Middle East for tens of thousands of years.  To some, this simply
  does not make sense."

  "...While simple in theory, in practice TL has to overcome some devilish
  complications....To convert into calendar years the burst of
  luminescence when a flint is heated, one has to know both the sensitivity
  of that particular flint to radiation and the dose of radioactive rays it
  has received each year since it was 'zeroed' by fire.... determining the
  annual dose fromthe environment _around_ the sample - the radioactivity
  in the surround soil, and cosmic rays from the atmosphere itself - is an
  iffier proposition.  As some sites fluctuations in this environment can
  turn the 'absolute' date derived from TL into an absolute nightmare."

I could scan for more but I've grown tired of it.
If you're not bored silly, maybe I'll continue after I get through another
1000 pages of review text.

Mark

One more comment (can't help myself).

It stikes me as the epitome of ego that this society makes 
discoveries in archaeology, such as running water in ancient cities,
and is amazed how "advanced" those poor slobs survived without the
benefit of cumulative wisdom of the ages.  And just about whatever 
age you would choose to visit, had you a time machine to do so, 
you would find people as sure about the "facts" that are obvious
to any sensient being, only to find from our own century's perspective
that the "facts" are not as we perceive them.  And because we perceived
them a little better, we make the erroneous leap that we have arrived 
at the Truth, and know more than did our ancestors, when in fact we
do not know more; we only know differently.  In many cases, with
mind-sucking pablum from a television, and hedonistic pursuits, we 
know less and less than did our ancestors; and we rely more and more
on others to provide our opinions for us to the point of becoming
reguritation factories for the opinion makers in our society.  
Open-mindedness?  An extremely rare commodity many claim to possess,
even with sincere belief, but all they have is regurgitation in a 
19"-diagonal can.  Original thoughts are even more rare than 
open-mindedness.  As Solomon so wisely put it, "there is nothing 
new under the sun."  He also proclaimed what the cheif end of man is,
if one is open-minded enough to see what he had to say about it.

MM

RE: 25.59 by TOKNOW::METCALFE "Eschew Obfuscatory Monikers"

> By the way, is "open mindedness" defined as "you should see it as clearly as
> I see it"?

Nice hint.

I know the way you define "open mindedness",  it is in 2.8.  Real friendly.

Science and the study of the natural world is not "based in a Bible centered 
point of view",  right?  And might be used to try to get me fired,  according 
to 2.8,  right?

I'll take the hints.  I like my job.  Bye.

Anyone wanting to follow up this discussion can continue it in
PEAR::SOAPBOX 383.*


Phil

    Phil,
    
    Chill :-)... you're not gonna get fired.  NOONE in this conference has ever
    contacted personnel against a participant.. 
    
    However, we have been called by personnel from someone who took 
    offense to the Bible stand on homosexuality, which is why we do not 
    discuss it here... 
    
    The discussion can continue here.
    
    Nancy
    

>> By the way, is "open mindedness" defined as "you should see it as clearly as
>> I see it"?
>
>Nice hint.

The only hint is to show you that while you may think of yourself having an
open mind, you may be demonstrating something else.

>I know the way you define "open mindedness",  it is in 2.8.  Real friendly.

2.8 refers to antagonism.  If you're here to antagonize, then perhaps you
should leave.  If you are here to discuss with an open mind, then let's.
The conference premise is that "all subjects are measured for truth and 
wisdom in a God-inspired Bible."  This is our belief.  Who is the more
closed-minded in their belief?  And how do we discuss these?

>Science and the study of the natural world is not "based in a Bible centered 
>point of view",  right?  

I don't know where you get this effluvia.  The Bible is actually supported
by objective science and the natural world.

>And might be used to try to get me fired, according  to 2.8,  right?

Poppycock, balderdash, and rubbish.

>I'll take the hints.  I like my job.  Bye.

An over-reaction, which I deem to be chickening out of the discussion.
If you cannot discuss your view without antagonism then you will have
a problem with the moderators; but if perchance you can discuss your
view within the bounds of propriety, cut the snow on losing one's job.

Mark

Anyone wanting to follow up this discussion can continue it in
PEAR::SOAPBOX 383.*


Phil

>Anyone wanting to follow up this discussion can continue it in
>PEAR::SOAPBOX 383.*

Or not.

Re: .55  (Phil)

>The Earth is much older than 6000 years.  

Please demonstrate that the Earth is much older than 6000 years.

>Life, regardless of how it originated, evolves.  

To what extent?  Please specify and explain the limits and then justify.

Re: .50  (Phil)

>Of course,  God could have created the rocks with fossils already in them and
>created the rocks with argon,  lead,  uranium,  and thorium isotopic ratios 
>consistently to suggest an false date.  Do you think that God would lie this 
>way?
>
>Or God could have created the rocks and then altered the isotopic ratios to
>suggest a false date.
>
>Or God could have changed the laws of physics in such a way to give the 
>universe an appearance of great age and gives no hint that the laws of physics 
>were any different in the past.
>
>Or maybe someone other than God created the universe.  Like Satan,  as some of 
>the Gnostics believed.  (I doubt if we will hear from the Gnostics)
>
>I will not discuss any suggestion that the Creator of the Universe lies with 
>anything other than a statement that I don't believe that God lies.

    Chris and Lucy entered a building looking for Manuel.  In a room they
found a note and a lighted candle.  Chris looked at the note and read it aloud:
"Hi!  It's 2:30, and I'm leaving to run some errands.  I'll be back in a couple
of hours.  BTW, the electricity is out, so I lit a candle for you.  -Manuel". 

    Then Lucy said, "I know how we can find out how long it's been since he 
left!  Look, the candle has been burning since he lit it and has a significant
amount of wax that's melted and dripped down.  If we figure out what the rate
is which the wax is melting and measure the amount of wax that has thus far
dripped, we can work backwards to find out how long it has been since he left."

    Chris said, "Why waste your time?  The note says he left at 2:30."  Lucy
said, "Don't believe everything you read."  Chris replied, "Look, I've known 
Manuel for a long time, and this is his handwriting.  Don't be ridiculous."
Lucy replied, "Ah yes, but what does he *mean* by '2:30'?  A note like that
is subject to interpretation.  Suppose he was talking about another time zone
or something."  And so a short philosophical argument ensued about the note. 
However, Lucy prevailed and insisted on performing the measurement and
calculations.

    A few minutes later, Lucy announced:  "Well, I've got bad news for us.
Based on the amount of wax that has melted and the rate at which the wax is 
melting, I can confidently tell you that it has been at least one whole day
since this guy left.  He was probably talking about 2:30 yesterday.  And since
he said that he'd be back 'in a couple of hours', we can assume that something
happened to him and he's not coming back at all.  So much for your 'note'.

    Just then, Manuel walked in.  Lucy said, "Are you this guy 'Manuel'?  What
took you so long?"  Manuel replied, "What are you talking about?  I left you
guys a note saying I'd be back in a couple of hours.  It hasn't even been that
long."  Lucy said, "Never mind the note.  I measured the amount of wax that has
dripped off your candle, and the rate which the wax was melting.  I know you've
been gone since yesterday." 

    Manuel replied,  "First of all, that candle isn't burning anywhere near
as brightly as when I first lit it.  Second of all, I didn't light a new
candle, but a used one.  And thirdly, I used another candle to light this
candle and in the process the wax from that candle spilled all over this one."

    Lucy said, "So you set up that candle to deceive us, to make it look
like you left the room over a day ago, when in fact it's been less than a
couple of hours."  Manuel replied,  "Look, I left you a note telling you 
when I left.  I never intended for you to conduct some silly experiment 
measuring wax dripping off of a candle to figure out when I left.  I put 
the candle there so you guys would have some light." 

    re. -1 
    
     Garth,
    
       I really liked that one!
    

    I should have listened to my father.  He said "One day you will want to
    be able to point to this date and this article."  He was right.  It was
    sometime in the late 60s, and he was reading an article quoting
    Dr. Leaky (the older one -- his son continued the work), who was famous
    for his "prehistoric man" discoveries at Olduva Gorge.  In the article,
    Dr. Leaky was quoted as saying that the theory of evolution was an
    error.

    My father was right.  I wish now that I had saved the article.

    Mark L.

    {cross-posted to SOAPBOX's "Creation" topic}
    
In 1953, Stanley Miller reported the results of an experiment in which he
synthesized amino acids by totally nonbiological reactions among simple
inorganic compounds found throughout the universe. [description can be found in
Dickerson, "Chemical evolution and the origin of life," in Dobzhansky et al.,
"Evolution", p. 30]  Miller showed that amino acids, the very basis of all life
on Earth, could indeed be the product of random reactions.  Their production did
not depend on some supernatural guidance.

The amino acids found in Miller's experiments were far from being alive.  But
even if his research had actually produced life, the question would still have
remained: Can life arise from random reactions among inorganic molecules?
Miller's experiments represent conditions that are not at all random.  Each was
life outside a test tube - the researcher - carefully manipulating the
environment within the test tube.

Stanley Miller developed his experiment off of the information written in "The
Origin of Life" by Alexander Ivanovich Oparin (1936).  They both asserted that
random chemical processes inevitably led to life.  But how was nature to get
these individual molecules organized into the complex array found even in the
simplest forms of life?  In theory, the needed sequence that would carry the
basic molecules through the complex path ending in a true protein could occur
step-by-step in chance reactions over long periods of time.  The difficulty with
such a slow and random process is that just as there is a given probability of
forming an intermediate product in this chain of products leading to life, there
is also a probability of its spontaneous dissolution.  At each step as we go
from simple to more complex compounds, we are in a sense swimming upstream in
the flow of entropy.  The result is that the likelihood of the disintegration of
a newly formed organic compound is much greater than the likelihood of its
formation.

As we experience it, life is required to produce life.

World-famous biologist, George Wald, wrote a convincing argument in "Scientific
American" indicating that random processes following the physical laws of our
universe can and indeed account for the spontaneous generation of life from the
nonliving.  Wald ultimately said, "Time itself performs the miracles.  Time is
in fact the hero of the plot." [Scientific American 191, August 1954]  The
lesson here is not that life is inevitable.  The lesson is that the trend of
thought in this controversial study of life's origin has very often been based
on POORLY RESEARCHED SCIENCE PRESENTED AS FACT by one or a few noted
personalities.  By 1948, Wald was a full professor at Harvard and received a
Nobel prize for his research.  Unfortunately, Wald's skills in mathematics seem
to be less than his skills in biology and it is on the mathematics of
probability that Wald's rather unoriginal argument rests.

In 1968, Professor Harold Morowitz, a physicist at Yale, published the "Energy
Flow in Biology."  Along with other physicists and mathematicians, he was
concerned with the casualness some scientists studying the origins of life were
assuming that unlikely events must have occurred.  Nobody was performing
rigorous investigations into the probability of such events.  Morowitz presented
computations of the time required for random chemical reactions to form a
bacterium - not an organism as complex as a human, not even a flower, just a
simple, single-celled bacterium.  Basing his calculations on optimistically
rapid rates of reactions, the calculated time for the bacterium to form exceeds
not only the 4.5-billion-year age of the Earth, but also the entire
15-billion-year age of the universe.  The likelihood of random processes
producing life from a primordial bath of chemicals is even less likely than that
of your shaking an omelet and having the yolk and the white separate back into
the original form of the egg!

"Scientific American" later acknowledged that Wald had erred.  The fossil record
itself is gradually dispelling this argument of chance.  You see, neither 15
billion years nor 4 billion years are available for this random development
of life.  Life, we are learning, appeared on the Earth almost immediately after
the Earth formed!

If we are searching for fossil evidence of the earliest life, then we need
conditions in which fossils can form.  An organism lying among large rocks will
not develop into a fossil.  Fossils can be preserved only in rock that has
weathered, sedimented, and then resolidified with the fossil-to-be contained in
the sediment prior to its solidification.  The oldest sedimentary rocks found to
date are in the southern African shield and in the Canadian shield in North
America.  Within these sediments (Fig Tree Formation), dated at over 3.3
billion years old, the fossils of spherical and rod-shaped single-celled
organisms were discovered by Elso Barghoorn and J.W. Schopf of Harvard.  The
dimensions of these fossils match those of similarly shaped microbes found in
present-day aquatic environments. [Barghoorn, "The oldest fossils," Scientific
American 224 (May 1971); Schopf, "The evolution of the earliest cells,"
Scientific American 239 (Sept. 1978)])  This earliest evidence of life is dated
less than 500 million years after the appearance of the first sedimentary rocks,
the oldest rock types able to contain fossils.  At this relatively young age,
several forms of life had already formed.  It is statistically improbable, in
fact, essentially impossible, that random events produced this life in such
relatively short time.

The stumbling block in the transition from the geochemical process to the
biological is the appearance of the genetic code.  In spite of the complexity of
DNA, RNA, and individual proteins, often containing specific combinations of as
many as 300 individual amino acids, there are several nearly identical proteins
that appear in most forms of life.  This equivalence among all life forms is
strong evidence for a single source of life.  It is not plausible that this
similarity arose by chance.  There are 20 different types of amino acids used in
forming proteins.  The probability of duplicating, by chance, 2 identical
protein chains, each with 100 amino acids, is 1 chance in 20^100, which is equal
to 10^130.  To give perspective to the extraordinary magnitude of this number,
realize that there have been less than 10^18 seconds in the 15-billion years
since the Big Bang.  To reach the probable condition that a single protein might
have developed by chance, we would need 10^110 trials to have been completed
each second since the start of time!  To carry out these concurrent trials, the
feed stock of the reactions would require 10^90 grams of carbon.  But the entire
mass of the Earth (all elements combined) is only 6x10^27 grams!  In fact the
10^90 exceeds by many billion times the estimated mass of the entire universe!

The appearance of life on Earth almost as soon as the Earth was able to host
life and the improbability of a random development of our genetic code in the
available time has led scientists in many disciplines to suggest
extraterrestrial sources for life on Earth.  Only one genetic code exists very
likely because only one code is viable.  Many scientists are looking outside
Earth because the fossil record itself cannot be explained by the conventional
laws of chemistry and biology.  Both biblically and scientifically speaking, we
are formed of the stuff of the universe.  A major step forward in our scientific
perception of the universe is that we now know that random events did not do the
forming.

...and the Lord God formed man of the dust from the ground... Genesis 2:7

Source:
"Genesis & The Big Bang", Dr. Gerald L. Schroeder, chapter 7, �1990, Bantam
Books, ISBN 0-553-35413-2.

Matthew 7:17-20
"-Even so every good tree bringeth forth good fruit; but a corrupt tree bringeth
forth evil fruit.
-A good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit, neither can a corrupt tree bring
forth good fruit.
-Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the
fire.
-Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them."

    Let's examine the "fruit" of evolution.  Evolution has provided a basis
    for atheism, pantheism, humanism, communism, fascism, "New-Age" cults, 
    and any other philosophy or religion that denies the existence of God.  
    Not every evolutionist is an atheist or Communist, but every atheist, 
    pantheist, or humanist is an evolutionist by necessity.  

    In addition, evolution is the alleged cause for many of the evil and
    dangerous practices of this century.  Racism is one obvious example. 
    The subtitle of Darwin's "Origin of Species" was "The Preservation of
    Favored Races in the Struggle for Life."   In a later book, "The
    Descent of Man," Darwin wrote that natural selection would eventually
    eliminate what he called "the savage races" in favor of "the civilized
    races of men."  In addition to Darwin, Thomas Huxley, Herbert Spencer
    and most Post-Darwin evolutionary scientists were racists.  This
    continued until World War II and Hitler emerged.  Hitler's actions gave
    racism a bad reputation among the educated.   It's interesting to note
    that Hitler himself was a devout evolutionary pantheist, deeply
    involved in the occult and imperialistic social Darwinism.

    Another "fruit" of evolution is the secular psychological counseling
    and psychiatric treatment with roots in the theories of Sigmund Freud. 
    Freud himself based his theories and techniques on Darwin, Lamarck, and
    Ernst Haeckel.  These theories have long been rejected by modern
    evolutionary biologists.  Despite that, the leaders of modern
    psychology (J.B. Watson, B.F. Skinner, Carl Rogers, etc.) have built on
    Freud's theories, and his atheism, even while rejecting much of his
    psychoanalytical theories.  All of this has had a devastating effect on
    religion, morality, the traditional family and time-honored values.

    The modern promotion of "alternate sexual orientations" is based on
    pseudoscientific theories in evolutionary logic.  Supporters take a
    leap of logic in stating that heterosexuality cannot be the norm for
    mankind since we have trees and flowers with male and female
    characteristics.

    Abortion is another "fruit" of evolution.  Pro-choice supporters today
    base their beliefs that the fetus hasn't evolved into a human being so
    it is fair game if the mother so chooses.  As we all know, Paul Weiss
    has easily put this view into question using nothing but common sense
    and logic.

    Evolutionary philosophy has been at the roots of both World Wars.  In
    the name of Social Darwinism, it has been responsible for unrestrained
    capitalism, while monopolizing and exploiting human and natural resources.
    Evolution is responsible for liberalism in biblical studies.  It has
    caused a shift in law and political science away from their original
    foundations in biblical and constitutional principles.  

    Finally, the overall breakdown in our traditional moral structure in
    society had evolutionary philosophy at its roots.  Its attempt to
    replace belief in a Creator with belief in animalistic psychology makes
    man forget that he will have to answer to that Creator some day.  As a
    result, the drug culture is flourishing, and sexual promiscuity abounds.
    And why not?  If man is merely an evolved animal, he may as well act
    like one.

    The fruit of evolution is corrupt and is proof that it is false.

 Hmmm...I thought he was mentioned in this topic, but couldn't find it..Dale
 Hovund who lectures on creation vs evolution will be at Calvary Bible Church
 in Derry NH OCT 24,25 and 26.  I'm going to try and attend the 25th and 26th.




 Jim

RE:       <<< Note 25.74 by CSLALL::HENDERSON "Friend will you be ready?" >>>

        Kent Hovind was mentioned in notes 239.80, .83, .85, and .86.  He
        will also be speaking at a Church in Hanson Mass Oct 27, 28, and
        29.

        I'm going to try to make the sessions in Derry on the 25th and
        26th, as are some others from my church.  I hope to meet you there,
        Jim!!

	Tony

 Great, Tony...I look forward to it.





 Jim

On some maountain we have a radio dish 1000' wide attached to a cray computer.
This dish has "listened" to outer space and has received 
30 trillion signals
110 billion of those were filtered as radio-type signals.
out of those 164 are possibilities of extraterristrial, intelligent life
  all of which don't make any sense to any linguistic tests.

With all this data, out comes the faith statement:

  "The universe is teeming with life."

Whether I agree with this statement or not isn't the point.
I just wonder how come scientists with such sketchy data can
make such a faith statement, and spawn the imaginations of
highly profitable science-fiction movies, novels and television shows?
When making the statement "God exists" is viewed with [sometimes
vehement] scorn?

The evidences of God, to my collection of data (as primitive as it may be)
certainly have a better ratio that 164 possibilities our of 30 trillion
searches.

Just a comment on the pick and choose method of people about what they
will believe and why.

Mark

    
    
    	Mark ,
    
    
    I always wondered about this too. It would seem that we are living in
    the last days, in which people will worship the things created instead
    of the Creator, having their ears tickled etc...
    
    
    				Fonz
    

It gives all the more weight to the axiom that statistics are "lies, more lies,
and damned lies."  Lord, save us from damned (damning) lies.

    Re: measure the age of the universe
    
    This was an exercise I did in an astronomy lab last summer.  I
    remembered promising this and am finally getting around to it.  First you
    need the absolute and apparent magnitudes of a galaxy and plug them
    into this formula:
    
                               (m - M + 5)
                    log (d) = -------------
                                    5
    
    m = apparent magnitude, M = absolute magnitude, d = distance in parsecs
    
    Then you need to determine the frequency of calcium H and K wavelengths
    being emitted from the galaxies and calculate their deltas.  You're
    basically playing with Doppler shifts here.  The calcium lines are in
    the light emitted by the galaxies or target 'candle.'
    
    Delta H = H -393.367            Delta K = K - 396.847
    
    Then you can calculate the velocity of recession (in km/sec) for the H
    and K lines.  The C constant (speed of light) = 300,000 km/sec.
    
                        C x Delta H             C x Delta K
                 V(H) = -----------      V(K) = -----------
                          393.367                 396.847
    
    Take the average of V(H) and V(L) for the velocity value in the Hubble
    constant formula:
                                V
                           H = ---
                                d
    
    I ended up with a value of 60.9 for the Hubble constant.  You can then
    calculate the age T of the universe using this formula:
    
                           3.09 x 10^19
            T (in Gyr) = ----------------
                         H � 3.16 x 10^16
    
    My answer came out to be 17.1 Gyrs and I received an A on the
    assignment.
    
    fwiw,
    Mike

	Has anyone discussed Polonium halos here yet?  Years ago, a
scientist at Oak Ridge National Labs (I don't recall his name) had studied
"halos", visible, spherical disruptions in the crystalline structure of
minerals, caused by radiation from tiny inclusions of natural radioactive
substances.  He published his work in a science journal, and later lost his
job at the lab, which was said to be a consequence of his published
conclusions in favor of a special creation model of origins.

	I looked up Polonium in the Britannica, which says it has a number
of isotopes with half-lives ranging from a fraction of a second to over 100
years.  They mentioned alpha particles (helium nuclei) as the only type of
emitted radiation, and bismuth and lead as the stable products of decay.
Polonium can be artificially prepared by bombarding bismuth and lead with
accelerated charged particles (protons and/or alpha particles?).

	Polonium can also be a product of uranium decay.  However, this
scientist must have learned to read the halo signatures (based on the
emitted radiation energies) of all possible participant elements and isotopes
in the various decay chains.  His conclusion was that an isotope of
Polonium with a short half-life (one or two seconds, I think) had been
embedded within rock crystals AT THE TIME THEY WERE FORMED, indicating that
the rocks must have been formed and solidified ALMOST INSTANTANEOUSLY!

	He must have had some good reason(s) to believe that the Polonium
was not a product of the decay of some other element with a much longer
half-life.  Also, there must be some good reason(s) to discard the idea that
the rock was formed by some (very rapid) *natural* process (such as lava
eruptions, quenched in the ocean or tossed into the air).

	I'd like to find out more about the factual bases for this
conclusion.  Does anyone know where to start looking?

    Re: Note 25.82 by CUJO::SAMPSON
    
>	I'd like to find out more about the factual bases for this
>conclusion.  Does anyone know where to start looking?
    
    a)  talk to the labs, they should have kept records of the research
    by their staff, and if they don't, tell them how silly they would look
    if somebody asked you what you found from them... ;-)
    
    b)  look for index entries for the article, searching abstracts for the
    element name, using university library databases,
    
    c)  ask on the internet, first without mentioning the religious and
    creation aspect, then if that fails, mention that aspect...
    
    James

    
    Oak Ridge National Laboratories is located in Oak Ridge, Tennessee -
    about 25 miles from Knoxville, TN, where I grew up.
    
    Oak Ridge has its own personal legacy for me.  My father worked there
    in the 60s as an electrician and began to hear a great deal about
    evolution and so on.  This, he uses as an excuse, for his turning from
    what he called true belief in Christ to true and vapid disbelief.  I
    really don't buy it but it is part of his litany of excuses.
    
    jeff

    Re. .82
    
    Hello,
    
    My name is Greg Frazier and I worked in Oak Ridge for 7+ years and at
    the Lab (ORNL) for 4 of those years.  I believe I have a copy of the
    book that you are looking for in my home library.  I'll check tonight
    and will let you know Friday, Jan. 14th.
    
    Re. .84
    It's a small world 8->
    
    Greg Frazier @BHO
    
    

    Re. .82
    
    The name of the book that covers radiohalos, polonium, etc. is
    CREATION'S TINY MYSTERY by Robert V. Gentry.  The book was published by
    Earth Science Associates, Box 12067, Knoxville, Tennessee 37912-0067.
    The first printing of the book was October 1986.  The ISBN is
    0-9616753-1-4 and the Library of Congress Catalog Card Number is
    86-081671.  The table of contents is as follows:
    
    	1	RADIOHALOS AND THE AGE OF THE EARTH
    
    	2	THE GENESIS ROCKS
    
    	3	POLONIUM HALOS GO TO PRESS
    
    	4	SECONDARY POLONIUM HALOS FUEL THE CONTROVERSY
    
    	5	REVERBERATIONS FROM SCIENTISTS
    
    	6	REACTION FROM THE NATIONAL SCIENCE FOUNDATION
    
    	7	CREATION SCIENCE - A PUBLIC ISSUE
    
    	8	ACLU STRATEGY REVEALED AT LITTLE ROCK
    
    	9	CONFRONTATION IN THE COURTROOM
    
    	10	CREATION'S TEST ON TRIAL
    
    	11	THE TRIAL DECISION
    
    	12	MEDIA REACTION TO THE ARKANSAS TRIAL
    
    	13	THE AFTERMATH OF THE ARKANSA TRIAL
    
    	14	CREATION CONFRONTS EVOLUTION
    
    	15	CURRENT ATTACKS ON CREATION SCIENCE
    
    
    Regards,
    
    Greg
    

	Awesome!  Christian noters are really *sharp* people!  D. James
Kennedy ran a program on creation vs. evolution, with this man's story
as one of several segments.  The radiohalos were mentioned only in passing,
and I've always wanted to know more about them.  Can I still order a copy
of this book, or is it out of print now?

 Somewhere I have a video tape of that D James Kennedy program..it was great





 Jim

	Well, I picked up a copy of the book (paperback, 363 pages, $13.95)
at Tattered Cover, said to be the "Nation's Largest" bookstore.  They get
special orders for this book from time to time, and they "just happened"
to have one copy in stock.  I will read it, then post a short book report
here.

I've been meaning to mention that the Institute for Creation Research (ICR)
distributes Gentry's book on Radiohalos.  They probably have the largest
selection of popular creation/evolution literature, and you can write to
them for a catalogue.  From 25.15:

	Institute for Creation Research
	P.O. Box 2667
	El Cajon, CA, 92021
	(619) 448-0900

Sorry for the delay in mentioning this.

	This book thoroughly documents the history of Robert V. Gentry's
research, and includes a catalog of color photographs and published
articles.  The evidence is clearly presented in complete detail.

	The focus is primarily on those radiohalos which clearly are 
caused *only* by isotopes of Polonium (210, 214, 218), which have short
half-lives.  These isotopes appear in the normal alpha-decay chain of
Uranium 238.  However, Gentry has carefully searched for any evidence
of parent element decay (other than low background levels) in the vicinity
of these halos (such as alpha-recoil pits or fission tracks) and found none.
He was very careful to check his findings at every step, in every way he
could think of.

	These halos are abundant in the biotite micas of some "basement
granites", very coarse combinations of crystals of different minerals.
Conventional evolutionary geochronology considers these rocks to be
"pre-cambrian", having cooled very slowly over many millenia from the
molten proto-earth.

	However, this slow model for the formation of these rocks cannot (so
far) provide any explanation for the presence of Polonium halos, embedded
within their intact mica crystals, well away from any fissures or cleavages.
Their presence strongly suggests that the mica crystals solidified rapidly
enough to include "primordial" polonium; within minutes.  That is, these
rocks were apparently created almost instantaneously.

	Gentry continued to publish his research, looking for other
explanations, and inviting critical review from other scientists.
He investigated Polonium-210 halos in coalified wood, and found that their
presence and shapes not only confirmed the validity of his previous
findings, but provided tangible evidence of a Genesis-flood type event.

	This is a fascinating book, well worth reading!

I was put to task by one of my critics, I think justifiably, on two issues
regarding my writings in 25.12 ("Radioisotope dating methods") and elsewhere.

Firstly, I mention on more than one occasion that the decay rates for 
radioisotopes can be altered, and have been altered in the laboratory.
It should not be construed from this that there is a known natural 
phenomenon that would be expected to have altered decay rates *to the extent*
needed to explain the isotope ratios that have been measured in terms of
thousands, instead of billions of years.  At least, I am not aware of such
a phenomenon.  It is only fair to include this disclaimer.

The significant point to be construed is only that they *can be changed* and
*are not necessarily constant*.  This weakens the evolutionist's assumption
that they *are*, and *have always been* constant, showing that this is not
necessarily so.  Since evolutionists have only been making measurements and
observations for the last century or so, it is presumptuous for them to so
confidently predict what was going on in any particular rock allegedly millions
or billions of years ago.  

Secondly, I mention on more than one occasion discordant radioisotope dates
obtained for rocks and organic material of known young age.  I should point
out that evolutionists truly believe that they have explained many of these 
discordant dates.  In fact, many examples that creationists use of discordant
dates are extracted from writings specifically attempting to explain the
discrepancies.

From the above, it can easily be seen how said creationists can be accused of 
taking out of context things that evolutionists have written.  I think that 
if we don't at least acknowledge the evolutionists' intent, that there is 
validity to the evolutionists' criticism.

In my and other creationists' defense, I will say that it is hard to take 
the evolutionists' explanations seriously, since they involve even more
assumptions about initial conditions, process rates, and environmental
influences that are not finally known and certainly have not been observed.
By the same principle that the dating metric is unsubstantiated, how much
more are the explanations for discordant data!  Furthermore, it is not
scientific to obtain data and then explain away potentially falsifying 
data after the fact of the data collection in order to further a particular
cause -- in this case an old earth and prehistoric life forms.

Creationists do not generally reject the actual fact of the observations and
measurement data that evolutionists aquire.  What creationists object to is
the *interpretation* of the data.  Creationists are happy to take the data
collected by evolutionists and reinterpret them in light of the facts of a
young earth, the abrupt appearance of life forms, and a global flood, which
facts are validated through historic (not scientific) inquiry.

Another book on Creation/Evolution!

While going through my library, looking for a calculus book, I came across the 
following book:

Title:		_Evolution: Possible or Impossible?_
Author:		Dr. James F. Coppedge, Ph.D.
Copyright:	1973 by The Zondervan Corporation
4th printing:	August 1976
Cat. Card No.:	72-95524

The book covers the subjects of molecular biology and the laws of chance in
nontechnical language.  The table of contents is as follows:

	1	How the "Laws of Chance" Affect You

	2	The Heart of Modern Probability Theory

	3	The Mystery of the Left-handed Molecules in Proteins

	4	The Odds Against Proteins With Only Left-handed Components

	5	Where Natural Selection Fails

	6	Probability and the First Proteins

	7	How Large Numbers Can Help You

	8	DNA-"The Most Golden of All Molecules"

	9	The Remarkable Way Cells Translate DNA

	10	Could Chance Arrange The Code For One Gene?

	11	Why Has Evolution Been Widely Accepted?

	12	The Assumed Evidence of Evolution

	13	Examples of Phenomena Unexplainable by Evolution

	14	Increasing Your Certainty


Regards,

Greg Frazier

    From Chuck Missler's current newsletter:
    
    "Whenever we're in Jerusalem, we always try to connect with Dr. Gerald
    Schroeder, a world class nuclear physicist and author of 'Genesis and
    the Big Bang.'  As an old friend, Gerry is always available to our
    group, and after reviewing the compatibility of modern science with the
    Torah, he pointed out some interesting mathematics:  Since (from
    Einstein's Theory of Relativity) time dilates relative to mass, it is
    interesting to compare the mass of the universe to the mass of the
    Earth.  If one takes the '16 billion years' observed by scientists, and
    divides it by the expansion factor 10^12, the result is 0.016 years, or
    6 days, as described in Genesis 1!  A provocative analysis, indeed."
    
    vol. 4, no. 4, April 1994, page 10

    After all these years, I've finally saw the light and now believe in
    evolution.
    
Romans 12:1-2 -> Evolution re-defined ;-)
    
    I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present
    your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your
    reasonable service.

    And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing
    of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and
    perfect, will of God.

I've not read this whole string, so what I'm curious about may already have 
been answered.
David (5) goes to a Christian school. Yesterday the school was visited by 
"the Creation Bus" - a Christian group who showed videos etc on creation vs 
evolution. From what I've been able to extract from David (which is a bit 
limited) a couple of the things discussed including "don't believe scientists" 
(which seemed to be a bit of a sweeping statement for 5yr olds to handle)  and 
T.rex "ate mush"....
I realize scripturally vegan beasties were the go pre-flood but tofu t.rexes 
seem a bit bizarre.
I think the creation bus thingy is a US concept - anyone encountered similar 
things elsewhere?

Chele

Re: .96  (Chele)

>David (5) goes to a Christian school. Yesterday the school was visited by 
...

>From what I've been able to extract from David (which is a bit limited) 
...

See note 236.

On the topic of T. Rex, I believe it has been argued that this dinosaur 
would have been inept at fighting, because its teeth were not deeply rooted
in its jaw.  So in a fight, T. Rex would get its teeth knocked out.  I vaguely
recall something like 6 inch teeth rooted 3/4 of an inch in the jaw, but don't
quote me on those numbers.  Also noted were its tiny arms.  It was therefore
suggested that T. Rex was a vegetarian or a scavanger.  I have the article
someplace, but I'd have to dig it up. 

    Some have theorized too that there were no carnivores before the fall
    of man.  The implication is that sin brought about meat-eating desires.
    
    I'm not saying I agree, but some do.
    
    Mike

'Before the flood' God explicitly gave all seed-bearing plants as food
(Genesis 1:29-30) to both people and animals.

After the flood, He added meat to the diet, with safeguards against even
animals killing people, and added fear of man to the animal make-up, as a
defence (Genesis 9:2-6).

To me, this implies specifically that there were no carnivores before the 
fall.

The fact that it was God Who authorized a carnivorous diet rather precludes
it being merely an expression of sinful desire or appetite.  I have also
heard it taught that this may have been a defence against the demonic 
activities of Genesis 6, though this is not at all clear.

							Andrew

    sorry, couldn't resist!
    
    Paul

    Ohhhhhhhh, very good Paul.  I *am*impressed  ;-)
    
    

Shameless.  Truly shameless.

    I think I've heard something before about the Nephilim being
    vegetarians.  This would fit in with what Andrew said.

I want to mention that I have been working for the better part of a year on
the next version of my collection of essays on Creation vs. Evolution, poking
at it and revising it in my spare time.  The new version is about 50% bigger,
and covers several additional topics.  I am especially excited about an essay
that I wrote to quantify the biogenesis issue in a way that I hope will be
easily comprehended and understood by anyone with a high school education.  I
am having two different professional scientists, both biochemists, review this
work, so as to avoid any embarrassing slip-ups (like the "radioactive" Helium-4
slip-up in my present version). 

I would really appreciate any feedback on the present set of essays that are
posted at the beginning of note 25.  My goal is to present the issues as
objectively, simply, and succintly as possible. 

Let me know how I can improve.

Great, Garth!  I appreciate this ... even where it goes beyond me
technically.  I look forward to the update.  Would you like outside opinion
(eg scientisis in my church who are interested and up on these issues)? 

								Andrew

Re: .105  (Andrew)

>Great, Garth!  I appreciate this ... even where it goes beyond me
>technically.  I look forward to the update.  

My goal is not to go over anyone's head technically.  If there are are areas
that you don't understand, please let me know about them, so I can make them
more understandable.

>Would you like outside opinion
>(eg scientisis in my church who are interested and up on these issues)? 

Yes, definitely.  Trying to get believers to give me critical input is 
difficult.  Most believers are either undiscerning, or don't care.  Those 
believers who are scientists in the relevant fields tend to carry the 
attitude that evolution is so stupid that it is not worth their time to
give it their consideration.  They have become immune to all the evolutionist
blather by collegues in their field, and just ignore it.  My most valuable
input has been from vehement anti-creationists, who will look for any detail
to take me to task on.

If you have some knowledgable people in your church who would give it a look,
let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy.  Meanwhile, I'll continue to pester
these two biochemists in our church.

� If you have some knowledgable people in your church who would give it a look,
� let me know and I'll e-mail you a copy.  

There is one person in particular I have in mind who is knowledgable and 
discriminating, who, I believe, would give useful feedback.  There may be 
others too.

I'll try them for you.

								Andrew

Garth,

As you probably know, there are some books out now which take a critical
look at the theory of evolution, some from believers points of view, and 
at least one from a nonbeliever whose last name is Denton.  I have a 
bibliography at home if you're interested (though my guess is you probably
already know about these books).

Leslie

Re: .109  (Leslie)

>As you probably know, there are some books out now which take a critical
>look at the theory of evolution, some from believers points of view, and 
>at least one from a nonbeliever whose last name is Denton.  I have a 
>bibliography at home if you're interested (though my guess is you probably
>already know about these books).

Yes.  See 25.15.  If you have read something that is not on my list, you 
might want to share with us a one-paragraph description of it.

Well, I've got to draw the line somewhere, so here it is.  My new essays are
posted in note 640.  I've increased the content from 1500+ lines to 2500+
lines, from 16 headings to 22 headings.  I timed myself reading the thing from
cover to cover, and it took me about 100 minutes at the rate I read, which I
presume is about average.

I feel that this topic of creation vs. evolution is important, since evolution
and uniformitarianism have become the prevailing ideologies of our society,
especially of the educated elite.  It is becoming more and more difficult to 
reach people with the message of the gospel of Jesus Christ, at least
intellectually, when our primary source document (the bible) is invalidated 
from the very first chapter by what is assumed to be scientific fact.  Of
course, God can change anyone's heart, but we have the responsibility as His
witnesses to always be prepared to give a defense for the hope that is within
us.  Sadly, the issue of creation vs. evolution has been one of the most
neglected topics in the church over the last 150 years, with very few in
reality being prepared to answer the challenge of the naturalists. 

In writing my essays, I've really tried to condense a lot of information into a
relatively small amount of space, focusing on the points that I think are most
important. 

Please continue discussion of my new essays in note 640.*.

 This topic is now write locked.  See 640.*





 Jim Co-Mod