Conference yukon::christian_v7

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

As design demonstrates the existence and capability of a designer, the inherent
design in life, the earth, and the universe implies the existence and
capability 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, probability and statistics,
and basic information theory 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 result in complex
and sophisticated designs.  [.5] 

The "survival of the fittest" clause is a tautology, and success does not 
imply complexity.  Natural selection shouldn't be expected to result in
functionally different or more complex designs.  Putting natural selection
together with random genetic mutations doesn't help matters.  [.6] 

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.  [.7] 

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.  Similarity does not imply ancestry.  [.8] 

Any discussion of "transitional forms" is based purely upon speculation and 
conjecture, and is therefore moot and useless.  [.9]

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.  "Hopeful monster" theories are without foundation and
fallacious.  [.10] 

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.  [.11] 

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.  Burial order does not imply ancestry.  The ordering 
is also too inconsistent to fit within the evolutionary model.  [.12] 

There is no basis for assuming uniform geological processes and ruling out
catastrophic events.  There is no basis for even assuming the uniform and
consistent application of natural law throughout all time.  Uniformitarianism
is an ideology without a foundation.  [.13] 

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.  [.14]

Many dating methods exist which would similarly suggest that the earth is
thousands, not billions, of years old.  While these methods also have their own
set of unverifiable assumptions, they invalidate, or falsify, the few dating
methods that would seem to suggest an old age for the earth.  [.15] 

There is no substantial evidence for the existence of ape-men, or any hypo-
thetical sub-human ancestor 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.  [.16]

Science is limited to the study of natural phenomena, and is not sufficient
to evaluate the issue of either creation or evolution.  Nevertheless, the
fact of creation is obvious.  In conclusion, it may be stated that the
overwhelming evidence points to creation, and rules out evolution.  [.17]

Faith is "confident belief, trust", "being sure of what we hope for and certain
of what we do not see."  To believe evolution over creation one must ignore the
overwhelming evidence available for creation.  It is better to place our faith
in the Creator, rather than the creation.  [.18] 

Rebuttals are provided to common objections to the design argument and chance
argument.  [.19]

A quantitative comparison is made between a hypothetical message from outer
space and the complexity/coding of a living structure, demonstrating that if
one accepts purpose, planning, and intent as the cause for one, then one is
compelled to accept purpose, planning, and intent for the other.  [.20] 

A resource list of books, pamphlets, tracts, videos, magazines, and research
organizations is provided for further reference.  [.21]

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.  In fact, the
more sophisticated the machine, the more planning and forethought we attribute
to its development, and the more intelligence and ability we attribute to the
designer.  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 or any
process of nature. 

No one would suppose that something as complex and sophisticated 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.  In fact, the 
collective know-how of the greatest minds in all of human history have failed
to produce a machine of the sophistication and success of even the simplest
replicating life forms.  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 something obvious that design proves a designer and
coded information demonstrates a coder.  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 and his documentation.

From the principle 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
the circumstances concerning the implementation of the design. 

Written testimony from the Creator includes things like (paraphrased):  "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). 

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. 

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.  We call these phenomena
"miraculous", because they are supernatural phenomena.  

Examples of God's supernatural intervention are such as:  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 and buried, then raising
himself up from the dead after three days.  Multiple witnesses have seen these
things happen and heard the Creator speak, and have written them down as
reliable testimony which we can now refer back to.  Such events are not
considered natural phenomena, and so by definition fall outside the realm of
scientific inquiry. 

Keep in mind that 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. 

An adequate defense of the authenticity and reliability of the ancient
historical records that make up what we now call the bible is beyond the scope
of this document, so will have to be assumed as a premise.  Although the bible
is not required to defend the fact of creation and the existence of the
Creator, it is required to defend the historical time frame and circumstances
in which creation happened, and the identity and personality of the Creator. 

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 knowledgeable, and
none of us was 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 in exactly the same way, 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 we conclude that there isn't enough intelligence and skill behind my coin
flip and consequently we expect a random distribution of results.  We conclude
that it is my lack of skill and ability that 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. 

Suppose I announce that I am going to repeatedly flip a coin and hope to come
up with a sequence of all heads.  So I proceed to flip the coin, and it comes
up heads.  You say, "OK."  I flip it a second time, and it comes up heads
again.  You say, "OK."  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?" 

Now, 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 based
on the non-random results.  Statistically, he would have only 1 chance in a
thousand of being wrong!

Given the immensely lower probability of things happening in the evolutionary
scheme of things, one should conclude, (to be consistent,) that evolution
didn't happen.  That person would have a 1 in 1000000000000...(fill in desired 
number of zeros)...0 chance of being wrong, solely on the basis of sheer
probabilities.  In any case, this person is not to be taken for some sort of
fool. 

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 the 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 classic 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 proteins 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 by chance). 

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 amino acids.  Right-handed amino acids are not useful to
living organisms, and are in fact often lethal.  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-handed and right-handed
amino acids.  So it would take an enormous sequence of coin-flips (in which the
coin came up heads each time) to come up with a protein that could constitute
living matter.  Yet there is more... 

Proteins consist of amino acids linked together with only peptide bonds.  Amino
acids can also combine with non-peptide bonds just as easily.  In fact,
origin-of-life experiments in the laboratory yield only about 50% peptide
bonds.  So, it would take another enormous sequence of coin flips to come up
with a protein that could constitute living matter.  Yet there is more... 

Any particular protein contains amino acids that are linked together in a 
particular sequence geometrically.  At a minimum, that sequence must be correct
for any given protein at all the active sites, which comprise about half of the
amino acids in the protein.  Proteins contain anywhere from 50 to as many as
1750 amino acids, depending on the particular protein.

There are about 20 basic amino acids that comprise the basic building blocks of
life.  Any particular protein must have all the correct left-handed amino acids
joined with only peptide bonds with the correct amino acids at all the active
sites.  Yet there is more... 

Let us consider the sequence of chemical reactions necessary for us (or rather,
"nobody") to produce one particular protein contained in living matter:  One
amino acid *can* combine with another amino acid in a condensation reaction to
produce a peptide (two amino acids linked with a peptide bond) and water.  One
peptide *can* combine with another peptide in a condensation reaction to
produce a polypeptide and water.  And so goes the sequence of chemical
reactions that supposedly *can* produce one protein essential to living
organisms that *can* reproduce.  Let's stop again, 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 popular 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.  Yet there is more... 

Amino acids can react and form bonds with other chemical compounds, and not
just other amino acids.  Assuming that there is more in our "primordial sea"
than just amino acids and water, we will encounter scenarios where these other
reactions will take place instead of the ones we want to produce a protein.

An oxygen-rich atmosphere, such as we have today, is one example of what
would ruin the chemical reactions proposed for the origin of life.  It is
for this reason that we have the Oparin Hypothesis, which states that the
atmosphere must have originally been reducing, rather than oxidizing,
containing very little free oxygen, and an abundance of hydrogen and gases
like methane and ammonia.  Circular reasoning is employed to defend the
Oparin Hypothesis.

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).  Finally, all these must occur in
in a specific arrangement to form a complex structure that would make for a
reproducing organism (...by chance).

Some evolutionists are proposing that not proteins, but DNA or RNA occurred
first.  Consider that this is moot, since the same amount of information must
be coded into the nucleic acid to synthesize a protein as is represented by
structure of the protein itself.  This makes such scenarios to be at least as
unlikely.  In fact, both the DNA/RNA code and the proteins must be
simultaneously present in the simplest known independent self-replicating
organism before that organism can be considered functional. 

The spontaneous organization of nucleic acids into DNA or RNA suffers in
concept from the same problems that the spontaneous organization of amino
acids suffers from.  All nucleic acids must be right-handed, form particular
bonds, in a particular arrangement, in chemical reactions that proceed in
a particular direction and aren't spoiled by other chemical reactions.

Some evolutionists are proposing that life originated not in a primordial
sea, but on some clay template.  Again, this is moot, since the clay template
must by necessity be as complex as what is formed on the template.  This makes
such scenarios to be at least as unlikely.  Furthermore, the evolution of
informational "defects" in the crystalline structures of clays has never been
observed or demonstrated in theory.  Shifting the medium for evolution from 
biological molecules to polyaluminum silicates solves nothing.

The classic examples given for the formation of some of the basic building
blocks of life by chance therefore lacks substance on a theoretical basis both
according to the principles of chemistry, the principles of probability and
statistics, and the principles of basic information theory. 

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 code, 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 factor 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 factor 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.

When considering the idea of "beneficial mutations", keep in mind that mere
reproductive success in the presence of a particular environment is not
sufficient to account for innovative functionality and increased complexity.
One can imagine a scenario where a runaway computer program, as a consequence
of its malfunction, begins to consume system resources beyond what it was
designed to, even getting in the way of the proper execution of other programs
that are also running under the same operating system.  That program may have
been more than successful in its own right, but it experienced a deterioration
of function that was not advantageous in the grand scheme of things. 

Sickle-cell anemia is an example of a mutation which gives one a reproductive
advantage over normal people in scenarios where malaria is rampant, because
people with sickle-cell anemia aren't as susceptible to malaria.  But
sickle-cell anemia itself is a lethal disease, and represents a deterioration
of function when compared with a normal person who has no disease.  If malaria
became so rampant in the world that only people with sickle-cell anemia
survived, then the final population would be worse off functionally than the
non-mutant population that lived before the plague hit.  This is not evolution.

The important thing to remember is that random genetic mutations are the 
consequence of random noise corrupting highly coded information.  In the long
run, living things should be expected to deteriorate as a whole, implying the
reverse of evolution.  If anything, the complex should evolve into the simple.

Genetics disproves evolution.

Given that neither random genetic mutations, nor natural selection, nor both
put together can be considered a vehicle for one kind of animal to change into
a functionally different or more complex kind of animal, then variations in
interbreeding animals must be 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 is important not to quickly jump to the conclusion that any particular 
beneficial trait was due to a mutation.  Already-existing genetic information
can find latent expression in the presence of new environments.  Also, there
are genes that can turn on and off upon being subjected to a particular
environment.  Evolutionists cite all sorts of alleged examples of beneficial
mutations.  The burden of proof is on them, however, to show that a particular
beneficial trait was a mutation to begin with. 

It should also 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 disprove 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 requires planning and
intent.

Similarity does not imply ancestry.

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 and design principles 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 similar, 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.  And it would
be circular reasoning to argue that the charts support evolution.

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.

The issue of whether or not "transitional forms" exist is not a productive
topic to debate in the creation/evolution controversy. 

Some evolutionists use similarities between three particular animals to argue
that animal A evolved into animal B based on the fact that animal X exists. 

Some creationists use the dissimilarities between these same animals to argue
that animal A did not evolve into animal X and animal X did not evolve into
animal B. 

Said evolutionists keep seeking to justify their "transitional forms" on
account of the similarities and despite the differences. 

Said creationists keep seeking to rule out "transitional forms" on account
of the differences and despite the similarities.

Anything is good enough for the evolutionist, and nothing is good enough for
the creationist.  Neither will ever satisfy the other or a discerning observer.

A scientific theory is validated through experimental observation and/or 
theoretical evaluation.

Neither party actually observed the origin of animals A, B, or X, and so is
not qualified to argue scientifically from an experimental perspective whether
or not animal X is a "transitional form". 

Neither party can justify the origin of animals A, B, or X from a theoretical
perspective, since no scientific theory exists to explain why animals A, B, 
or X must exist with their particular characteristics.

It can be concluded that a discussion of "transitional forms" is moot and
useless.

The fossil record of life does not support evolution.

The fossils which are found in what are usually considered the lowest deposits
are alleged 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, and various other complex invertebrate
life forms. 

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. 

Furthermore, suppose we grant genetic mutations as the proposed vehicle for
change.  No evolutionist would debate the fact that most genetic mutations are
bad.  If so, then we should expect the geologic column to be littered with all
sorts of mutant animals that were not fit to survive.  But we find that this is
not the case. 

Charles Darwin actually represented the fossil evidence as being a hostile
witness to his theory, as documented in his famous book "The Origin of 
Species".  He claimed that the abrupt appearance of life and lack of
transitional forms was the most serious objection to his theory. 

However, it should be noted that the fossil record of life-forms does not prove
either evolution or creation, even though it is most consistent with the
latter.  Neither does the fossil record disprove either evolution or creation. 
The fossils that exist, exist in the present.  And the fossils that don't exist
prove nothing.  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.  

"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 settling down on the sea floor, waiting 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 to decompose it, 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.

Burial order does not imply ancestry.

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, from the fish in the lowest layers to 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
supposedly 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 naturally 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 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 and the fewest to be buried. 

The problem with 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.  And there isn't
a single place on earth in which this textbook "geologic column" is represented
in its completeness. 

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 evolution story, since this would require that the
organic remains of such life forms remain intact and unfossilized for millions
of years in place above the ground, 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. 
Evolutionists cannot explain polystrates at all, and they resort to theories of
"overthrusting" to explain how older strata ends up over newer strata, even
though such a phenomena has never been observed, and even though they cannot
explain where the geologic forces should originate.  Overthrust theories also
demonstrate circular reasoning, as evolutionists try to use the geologic column
to support their theory, then use their theory to explain away inconsistencies
in the geologic column. 

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 obviously not be a problem.

Uniformitarianism is the philosophy wherein it is assumed that the geologic
features of the earth have been laid down through uniform processes, gradual
erosion and gradual sedimentation being examples.  A philosophical extension of
this principle is that all phenomena in the universe can be explained by the
uniform application of the laws of nature -- put another way, that all
phenomena are natural phenomena.  A philosophical consequence of this principle
is that there is no Creator who exists outside of the creation able and willing
to intervene in the natural order in a supernatural way. 

Catastrophism is the viewpoint wherein it is assumed that some of the features
of the earth have been laid down as a result of a worldwide catastrophe.  A
philosophical extension of this principle is that some phenomena may be
explained by exceptions to the laws of nature -- put another way, that not all
phenomena are natural phenomena.  A philosophical consequence of this principle
is that there is the allowance for a Creator who exists outside of the creation
able and willing to intervene in the natural order in a supernatural way. 

Since at least one worldwide catastrophe has been historically documented,
catastrophism is backed by historical record.

Uniformitarianism has no backing for it.  It is just a baseless presupposition.
Even if uniformitarianists don't accept the historical record, they have no
scientific basis for assuming that a worldwide catastrophe has not ever
occurred. 

A scientific theory is validated through theory and experiment.

	No theory exists to show that a worldwide catastrophe cannot occur.

	No experiment has been done to show that a worldwide catastrophe
	cannot occur.

	No theory exists to show that all phenomena are natural phenomena.

	No experiment has been done to show that a supernatural phenomenon
	cannot occur.

Evolution is defended based upon the assumption of uniformitarianism.  Because
uniformitarianism is not defensible, therefore its application in the defense
of evolution is not valid. 

No man was there to both observe and document the formation of the major 
geological features of the earth.  Neither do the features have dates attached
to them in any coded form.

The idea of gradual sedimentation and fossilization already mentioned are
examples of uniformitarian interpretations.  Other examples range from multiple
Ice AgeS and plate tectonics, to such cosmological assumptions as that the
speed of light has always been the same as what it is now (implying that the
universe must be old because it took the light from stars so long to get here.)

Multiple Ice AgeS seem to be a basic assumption in geography books and are
spoken of occurring in a time frame of at least hundreds of thousands of years,
consequently precluding an earth that is only several thousand years old.  This
is nothing more than an assumption, based on other unverifiable assumptions,
including even the assumption that N00,000 layers of ice were laid down
annually. 

Yet, 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 tropical life forms are found in the polar regions. 

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.
What caused them to freeze so quickly?

Plate tectonics assumes that the continents of the earth are riding upon 
some huge geologic conveyer belts that meet at the mid-oceanic ridges.  But
where do the mechanical forces come from to operate such a mechanism?  And
why are there multiple fractures perpendicular to the ridges?

Scientists who accept creation have suggested some reasonable explanations
as alternatives to conventional wisdom.  These should not be touted as
scientific facts, or theories, but working hypotheses: 

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."

What may be submitted as one 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 "floodgates of heaven" -- Gen 7:11).  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".  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.) 

Another alternative is that at the time of the flood, there was an immense
subterranean chamber of water ("the fountains of the great deep" - Gen 7:11)
which collapsed under the weight of the earth above it, spewing water/vapor and
mud into the atmosphere which primed the hydrodynamic cycle and precipitated as
rain, or was frozen high in the atmosphere and fell to the earth in the polar
regions as ice, cold enough to freeze animals on contact.  Perhaps also coal
and oil deposits in the polar regions are there because huge mats of uprooted
vegetation *floated* there during the Flood. 

This latter scenario, referred to as the "hydroplate hypothesis" contradicts
the popular plate tectonics hypothesis (and also possibly the vapor canopy 
hypothesis).  It also explains (hypothetically) many more geologic features of
the earth.  Consequently, the mid-oceanic ridges are not the intersection of
moving plates, but the place where the earth underneath where the layer above
the water first cracked and gave way bulged up.  The continents are not 
constantly moving on some geologic conveyer belt, but literally slid on top of
the water of the collapsing subterranean chamber to their present locations,
where they are now nearly motionless.  The mountains were formed where the
continents eventually hit something and buckled upwards.  Paleomagnetic
anomalies showing "reversals" (actually not complete reversals in flux, but
reversals about an average non-zero flux level) reflect originally magnetized
materials that moved away from the mid oceanic ridges.  The continental shelf
defines the edge of the original plates, and is submersed under only shallow
water because that is where the edge of the newly-formed continents, rapidly
eroded by moving water underneath, submerged and settled. 

An adequate description of the hydroplate hypothesis, its geologic
implications, and a comparison to conventional geologic explanations is beyond 
the scope of this document.  The descriptions above are merely meant to
illustrate that there are alternatives to conventional wisdom (dogma, really)
that is based upon uniformitarianism, which is not defensible. 

In any case, once the allowance is made for an all-powerful creator, it is
a small matter to allow for him to have acted supernaturally upon the earth,
which means that a natural, scientific explanation may not even be appropriate.

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 radioisotope 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, even among evolutionists, 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 time frame 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.  (Although this does not necessarily explain sufficient measurement
error, it does demonstrate that the rates are not necessarily constant.)

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.  (Again, this does not necessarily explain sufficient measurement
error, but does demonstrate that the rates are not necessarily constant.)

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.  (We know about these 
inconsistencies, ironically enough, because they are usually the subject
of papers by evolutionists attempting to explain them away.  Such explanations
demonstrate more circular thought, as evolutionists resort to concocting more
unsubstantiated scenarios to explain away data based on the prior assumption
that the dating metric must be good.)

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.  So
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.

Finally, keep in mind that age does not imply ancestry.  If evolution does not
work in theory or practice, no amount of time added into the scenario will make
it work. 

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 instead 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 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.  Keep in mind that each
of these metrics is also subject to limitations due to its set of unverifiable
assumptions, extrapolation of data, and so forth, and should never be touted as
"proof" that the earth is young. 

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 most plausible model of magnetism being
generated by circulating electric currents that are decaying 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. 

Critics of this theory insist on the existence of an electric generator 
("dynamo") inside the earth, without theoretical or empirical evidence to
justify such a thing.  (Paleomagnetic anomalies are touted as evidence, but
are inferior to the global statistically averaged data used to justify the
young-earth model.  Said paleomagnetic artifacts are dated using old-earth
metrics and assumptions.)  Again, circular reasoning is employed:  "The earth
is old, therefore the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying. 
Because the magnetic field has not been monotonically decaying, there must be
a dynamo.  Because there is a dynamo, the magnetism in the earth has not been
monotonically decaying.  Because the earth has not been monotonically decaying,
the young-earth model is invalid."

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?

Critics of the young-earth model hypothesize what they call an OORT cloud,
which supposedly generates comets, even though they have never observed such a
thing, nor can theoretically show that it must exist.  Circular reasoning is
employed:  "The universe is old, therefore something is producing the
short-term comets.  Because something is producing the short-term comets,
therefore the young-earth metric is invalid."

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?  (...Leave it to the evolutionist to propose some source of heat and
energy.)

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

Even rocks have a viscosity and flow like a liquid if you give them enough
time.  This can be observed in old tombstones and glass windows.  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.  Yet
it is said that life originated in the oceans some 1-2 billion 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 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.  They don't prove that the earth
is young, but they are not less valid than the metrics which suggest that the
earth is old.  The inconsistencies between dating metrics 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. 

Given that both the old-earth metrics and the young-earth metrics are subject
to the same sort of fallacies of assumption, the evolutionist should be asked 
to explain why he is such a vehement supporter of the old-earth metrics and 
such a vehement critic of the young earth metrics.  Why doesn't he apply the
same sort of reasoning he uses to justify the old- in support of the young-?
And if he can so keenly and appropriately point out the problems with the
young-, then why won't he point out the problems with the old-?

In considering the issue of creation vs. evolution, we must keep in mind that
a discussion of transitional forms is moot and useless.  To the evolutionist,
anything looks good enough to be considered a transitional form, and to the
creationist, nothing looks good enough to be considered a transitional form. 

There remains, however, the prominent issue of whether there has ever *existed*
a species of animal that was decidedly sub-human and super-ape -- 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 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 the earth on the order of
several thousand years ago.

Science, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is 

	"The observation, identification, description, experimental 
	investigation, and theoretical explanation of natural phenomena."

It is important to keep in mind that science only deals with *natural*
phenomena.  Intelligent design, planning and intent is not a natural phenomena.
Miracles are not a natural phenomena.  "Logic" and "common sense" are concepts
presented as intuitively obvious, consistently applied, and profitable, but are
certainly not a science.  "History" is not a science. 

Some have elevated the natural sciences to the level of ideology, such that all
things can ultimately be explained by scientific thought.  (Consider that such
a proposition is not a scientific proposition in and of itself, so it is
self-refuting!)  In any case, there is no foundation for such thinking. 
Rather, science is a discipline which deals only with the workings of the
natural order.  It does not invalidate other means of inquiry, and in fact it
*requires* other methods of inquiry. 

When a scientist makes experimental observations, the actual facts of the
observations themselves can't be subject to scientific scrutiny.  If this were
not the case, then no scientific progress could be made.  Suppose that we 
launched a highly accurate clock into orbit and then discovered that it lost
time.  Now, you could make an appeal to the science of Newtonian mechanics, and
conclude that something went wrong with the measurement.  And as for Lorentz,
FitzGerald, and Einstein, you could just state that they were quacks.  A wiser
thing to do, however, is to consider the possibility that Newtonian mechanics
needs to be revised.  The issue, then, is not whether a particular observation
violates a scientific theory, but whether the observation was correctly and
reliably made.  And that is not a scientific matter. 

This last point is worth repeating.  In the above example, it is not Newtonian
mechanics (a scientific theory) which invalidates the observation, but the
observation which potentially invalidates Newtonian mechanics (the scientific
theory).  The issue is whether the observation was correctly made, and again,
that is not a scientific matter.

I have made assumptions about the validity of certain ancient historical
records (the books of the bible).  A defense of the authenticity and validity
of these is beyond the scope of this document on creation vs. evolution.  But
it is important to keep in mind that evolutionists also rely principally on
written testimony by reliable witnesses who have observed events in the course
of their experience and written down their observations.  Scientists cannot
contradict what are historically confirmed observations, since historically
documented observations are the very basis for scientific analysis.  Scientists
should be challenged as to their objectivity in selecting which authors they
consider reliable and which authors they don't. 

Those who have elevated the natural sciences to the level of ideology desire
to scientifically test and judge the authenticity of the bible.  But the bible
is not a scientific treatise containing any scientific theories to be
scientifically evaluated.  The bible is principally an historical record of
historical events written down by historical witnesses.  In fact, some of what
is written documents supernatural phenomena, which is inherently outside of the
realm of any kind of scientific inquiry. 

When it is recorded that Jesus turned water to wine at the wedding at Cana,
the issue is not whether that event was "scientifically plausible".  The issue
is whether we can rely on the written testimony that states that the phenomenon
did in fact occur.  If it did in fact occur, then either there is something 
about the natural order that needs to be better explained by scientific study,
or the event was simply a violation of the natural order brought about by a
cause outside of the natural order. 

"Creation scientists" (at least those who accept the authority of the Bible)
are those who pursue scientific study in light of the facts of history that
the scriptures document.  They are not (or at least should not) be those who 
suppose that they can scientifically prove creation or any of the circumstances
surrounding it.

Neither evolution nor creation are strictly scientifically defensible.  No
scientist was there to observe the origin of life.  No scientist has been able
to repeat it in the laboratory.  No scientist has been able to demonstrate a
theory that compels the present array of life forms to exist with their present
characteristics.  A scientific theory is validated through experiment and/or
theory.  Both evolution and creation ultimately fall outside the realm of
scientific verification.

Evolution has been touted as a scientifically defensible theory, but these
essays have endeavored to show that it is not.  Creation is intuitively obvious
based on the consistent observation about how complex, sophisticated designs
and codes whose origins have been observed always have required purpose,
planning, and intent.  It is confirmed based on testimony revealed by the
Creator.  Furthermore, the abrupt and recent appearance of life is an
historically defensible fact, explicitly revealed to us by the Creator.

Faith, according to the American Heritage Dictionary, is "confident belief,
trust".  According to the Bible, it is "being sure of what we hope for, and
certain of what we do not see" (Heb 11:1).  It is no mystical or necessarily
religious concept.  It is not the religious buzzword some have made it out to
be.

Every time we decide to sit in a chair, we are demonstrating our faith that
this chair will hold us up.  And we even sit in chairs that we have never seen
anyone sit in before!  Obviously, there are a set of criteria which we use to
decide whether we should place our faith in any particular chair, that it would
hold us up and not collapse just as soon as we sat in it. 

When people say things like "it takes more faith to believe in creation" or
"it takes more faith to believe in evolution", they are misusing the word
"faith".  It is like saying, "it is more rickety to sit in that chair".  The
fact of the matter is that it is a matter of faith to believe in either
creation or evolution.  And the issue is, how much faith do you have that
creation (or evolution) took place, and how much faith will you place in the
Creator (or the creation) as the cause for the origin of life, and how well
will your faith stand the test when all is said and done? 

In the case of creation vs. evolution, no mortal man was there to observe the
origin of life.  The creationist did not observe the Creator create, and the
evolutionist did not observe the life forms evolve.  Yet, based on a variety of
reasons and criteria each individual purposes to place their faith in either
the Creator or the creation as the cause responsible for the origin of life. 
The question is, which is the better substantiated position to place one's
faith in:  Creation, or Evolution? 

These essays have endeavored to show objectively that there is a good
foundation for believing that the Creator was responsible for the creation, and
that there is no good reason to believe that the creation was responsible for
the creation.  Therefore, we should place our faith in the Creator, and not the
creation. 

The argument from design is actually the most powerful and obvious defense
for the fact of creation vs. evolution.  It is one expression of what has been
written in scripture:

	"...since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has
	made it plain to them.  For since the creation of the world God's
	invisible qualities -- his eternal power and divine nature -- have
	been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that
	men are without excuse."  (Romans 1:19-20)

There are four popular objections to the argument from design.  The first is
"If design demonstrates a designer, then who designed the designer?" 

The answer to that question is actually irrelevant to the design argument.  The
argument from design insists that complex and sophisticated designs demonstrate
the existence of a designer.  Whether or not *that* designer was designed makes
no difference to the point that design demonstrates a designer.  Computers are
designed by computer engineers regardless of whether the computer engineers
themselves were designed.  The reason we know our Creator was not created is
not because of the design argument, but *because he said so*, which is based on
our acceptance of the record of his testimony, and is an entirely different
matter. 

The following is a more rigid definition of the design argument presented:

Point 1:  For all complex and sophisticated things (especially machines, even 
more especially automatic machines) whose origin we have observed, we see that
it was always through planning and implementation by a designer.  We therefore
apply this reliable and consistent experience and observation to those things
whose origin we have not observed, and assume that they likewise were designed.

Point 2:  Further to point 1, the greater the sophistication and complexity of
something, the more obvious that it was designed, and the more intelligent and
capable the designer. 

Point 3:  We are inferring the existence and skill of the designer from the
complexity of the design, not making statements about the nature of the
designer (e.g. he must be likewise "complex" in construction).

Point 4:  In all cases of observed design, the creator is apart from that which
he created and not necessarily bound by all the rules which he caused his
creation to operate in.  The Designer of the universe can be assumed to be
apart from the universe, and not necessarily bound by any process or phenomenon
which we observe. 

Point 5:  From points 3 and 4 above, we can say nothing about the nature of
the Designer, but only that he exists and has demonstrated awesome power and
intelligence in our realm, unequaled by anything in the known universe.  Not
necessarily bound by anything we have observed in the universe, it is premature
to make statements about his nature or abode (e.g. he also must be complex, and
therefore designed).  He himself is therefore not necessarily even bound by the
principle of the argument from design (though perhaps he defined it!)

Point 6:  That God did not himself have a creator is not known from empirical
observation (i.e. the argument from design), but by his own testimony.  That
however is a different issue, requiring a different defense.  In any case, it
is irrelevant to points 1 through 5 above.

Point 7:  It is important to note that both creationists and evolutionists are
equally responsible for ultimately attributing phenomena in the universe to an
"uncaused cause".  The creationist says that God caused everything but was not
himself caused by anything.  The evolutionist says that the cosmos that we
behold caused everything but was not itself caused by anything.  In either
case, someone or something had to be first, or else there would be nobody and
nothing ultimately responsible for the origin of things.  If your boss needs to
ask his boss, who needs to ask his boss, who needs to ask his boss, ad
infinitum... permission to give you a raise, then you can be sure that you will
never get one. 

The second objection to the design argument is this:  "Crystals and snowflakes
are examples of ordered things spontaneously occurring in nature."  First, this
is a weak rebuttal even on the surface, because crystals and snowflakes are
nothing compared to the complex and sophisticated self-replicating automatic
machines that living systems consist of.  Secondly, crystals and snowflakes do
not actually demonstrate complexity -- only very simple order and repetition.
They are but natural consequences of structures at the molecular level which
make them up. 

The third objection to the design argument goes like this:  "The panda's thumb
is an example of poor design."  Now, one could embark on a useless discussion
about whether it is indeed poor design or not.  For that matter, we could just
as well embark on a useless discussion about whether it is a design flaw that
men aren't given the ability to fly like birds or breath water like fish.  For
all we know, it could be an issue of pure aesthetics. 

But to begin with, we shouldn't consider ourselves qualified to criticize the
design, since we ourselves have not designed anything of the level of
sophistication of a panda, let alone a single-celled organism.  But further
than that, the person stating this objection has not observed the genesis of
the panda, such that he could describe the panda's functionality in light of
the panda's original environment, which is not known for certain to be the same
as it is today.  For all we know, the Panda may have been much better suited in
its original environment, regardless of whether he evolved or was created!

The fourth objection to the design argument is this:  "If the design argument
is so intuitively obvious, then why don't more people believe it?"  God only
knows.  But this is an objection _ad populum_, and so is invalid.  The validity
of a position is not determined by how many people support it.  But as the
scripture quoted at the beginning of this essay then proceeds to elaborate:

	"For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor
	gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their 
	foolish hearts were darkened.  Although they claimed to be wise,
	they became fools..."  (Romans 1:21-22)

There are three objections to the chance issue, all based on the same theme. 
The first:  "It may have been improbable, but the fact that we are here
demonstrates that the improbable did happen." 

This assumes the conclusion in the premise and is circular reasoning.  

The second objection is this:  "The chances of winning the lottery are one in
a million.  But someone has to win the lottery.  When someone pulls a winning
ticket, you don't cry foul.  Why do you cry foul when you observe the fact that
there is life on earth?" 

This is a bad application of a valid example of probability and statistics.
If there are 1,000,000 people in a sample set, each with a 1 in 1,000,000
chance of winning it, then we are not surprised to find 1 person who has a
winning number.  The key point is that there were 999,999 people with losing
lottery tickets who could win, but didn't, and we could theoretically collect
all those losing tickets to prove that point.  In the case of evolution, the
evolutionist has not even specified the sample set, to demonstrate that
evolution should be considered probable.  In fact, he is using a sample set of
1 (this biosphere), since he has no examples of planets that had the right
materials and conditions but in which life did not evolve.  

The third objection is this:  "97565075027519207409.  There!  Now I have
successfully typed a random sequence of 20 numbers.  Yet there was only a 
1 in 100000000000000000000 chance of me typing _that_ number."

Again, this is a bad application of probability and statistics.  The number
typed is not meaningful.  "Success" was already defined as anything and
everything before the number was randomly typed.  So in reality there was a
100000000000000000000 in 100000000000000000000 or 100% chance of success.  If
a particular number had been specified in advance, that would be a different
issue.  In application, life cannot be construed as anything or everything.
In fact, life as we know it can only exist and operate under some extremely
narrow boundaries.

As a caveat and disclaimer to this final essay, it should be noted mind that it
is in principle impossible to prove a universal negative.  To categorically
exclude all possibilities requires one to have all knowledge of past, present,
and future events, information, and processes.  One who is omniscient puts
himself in the position of claiming to be God -- a particularly bad image to
project. 

Rather, it should be kept in mind that the burden of proof remains on the
evolutionists to provide a *working* hypothesis for the chance formation of
life from non-life -- something they have not done.  All the evolutionists have
done is state their first article of faith:  that increasing complexity occurs
spontaneously, given enough time.  This statement of faith is made in spite of 
the fact that there is no evidence to support it. 

The purpose of the following work is to show the magnitude of the problem that
evolutionists face in their propositions and speculations about life arising
spontaneously.  That said, let us proceed. 

Most of us have heard of the project called SETI (Search for Extra-Terrestrial
Intelligence).  Radiotelescopes are pointed towards outer space, searching for
a coded message among the electromagnetic noise that bombards the earth from
distant sources.  It has been said that just one coded message would prove the
existence of intelligence elsewhere in the universe. 

Let us suppose that on one of these radiotelescopes the following message
is received, to the evolutionists' delight:

"Hello.  We are the inhabitants of a planet in the Alpha Centauri system,
your closest neighboring star.  We have been monitoring radio transmissions
from your planet for several years, and have figured out your English 
language.  What a coincidence that life evolved on two planets so close
together!  Sadly, our society is largely controlled by right-wing
fundamentalist religious quacks who believe in a Creator who created everything
from nothing, and until now they have prevented us from funding this noble
communications project.  Now let us tell you a little bit about what life is
like over here, and hopefully in eight years we will hear back from you..." 

Let us suppose that the text of this message continues for the equivalent of
some 133 lines of text 80 characters wide totalling 10658 characters and 1500
words, roughly the size of one of these essays on creation vs. evolution.  How
do we know that a message such as this had an intelligent author, as opposed to
being something that just appeared spontaneously out of random noise? 

There are about 60,000 words in the American Heritage Dictionary.  Yet, a
random assembly of just 10 alphabetic characters would produce 26^10 =
140 trillion different possibilities.  Clearly, meaningful words are a very
small subset of what we would expect to get from random letters.

If we arranged 1500 random words, the result would be 60,000^1500 = 10^7167
possibilites.  And even though we cannot begin to count the number of possible
arrangements of words that would result in a meaningful message -- any 
meaningful message -- we know that meaningful messages are but a miniscule 
subset of all the possible word arrangements.  One can get an idea of how small
this subset is by repeatedly arranging random words picked from out of a
dictionary, and seeing how many arrangements turn out to be meaningful.

If we were to choose from a set of 80 possible characters, including the upper
and lower case letters, the ten digits, and another eighteen non-alphanumeric
characters, a random assortment of 10658 characters would produce 80^10658 =
10^20283 possible text strings. 

Note that even though we cannot begin to count all the possible text strings
that would constitute a recognizable message, we conclude that the message has
an intelligent author.  The message is non-random, containing only recognizable
words, following some specific rules of English syntax, spelling and grammer. 
More importantly, the message accomplishes a purpose, carries out a project,
and executes a task, with a clearly defined goal. 

If such a message were actually received, neither evolutionists nor
creationists would debate the fact that it had its origin in intelligence,
planning, intent, motive, and purpose. 

Now let us consider the chance formation of a protein structure.  A protein
consists of a chain of only left-handed amino acids connected by only peptide
bonds, in an arrangement in which the amino acids at approximately half of the
sites (called the "active sites") must be the correct amino acid.  The smallest
known protein contains 50 amino acids; the largest, 1750 amino acids.

All proteins are manufactured within a living cell in complex structures called
ribosomes.  Each of the some 15,000 ribosomes found in a very simple
single-cell organism, Escherichia Coli, contains 56 proteins and 3 ribosomal
RNA molecules in a particular structure.  53 of the 56 proteins in this
structure are unique.  The ribosomes in higher organisms may contain as many as
100 such macromolecules, manufacturing perhaps 50,000+ different proteins that
make up the organism. 

A ribosome can be viewed as a machine that manufactures proteins according to
the genetic code that it receives externally from messenger RNA molecules
generated elsewhere in the cell.  And the proteins in the ribosome itself are 
similarly built according a genetic code.  Altogether, E. Coli is made up of
several thousand different proteins, nucleic acids, and other organic
compounds.

The correspondence between code and structure should be noted.  Any complex
structure can be represented by a finite amount of information that describes
the structure and how it is built up from raw materials, like the blueprints
for a computer.  E. Coli has both the hardware (complex machine) and the
software (code) to not only function, but replicate itself. 

A ribosome is a highly integrated miniature chemical factory.  When separated
into smaller components, the individual components lose their function. 

In order for the simplest living cell to replicate, it must manufacture
proteins.  In this analysis, we will consider just the chance formation of
the proteins in a single ribosome.  

Note that viruses and bacteriophages are simpler in construction than the
single-cell organism that we are using as a model, but require the prior
existence of a host, so a discussion of their origin is moot. 

The total molecular weight of the proteins in the E. Coli ribosome is about
1215000.  The molecular weights of the 20 known amino acids range from about
75 for glycine to about 181 for tyrosine.  For simplicity, let us use an
average amino acid of molecular weight 132 (asparagine has this molecular
weight) for our calculations.  Subtracting 18 for the molecular weight of a
water molecule given up when two amino acids form a peptide bond, we have
132-18 = 114 for the molecular weight of the amino acid residue.  This would
give us something on the order of 1215000/114 = 10658 amino acid residues in
the protein structure of a ribosome in E. Coli. 

In a random arrangement, the probability of a particular amino acid being
right-handed versus left-handed is 1 in 2.  The probability of having a peptide
bond versus a non-peptide bond is about 1 in 2.  The probability of getting the
correct amino acid is roughly 1 in 20 (the distribution isn't quite even).  The
probability of getting a correct right-handed amino acid connected with a
peptide bond is therefore 1 in 20*2*2 = 80.  The probability of all 10658 amino
acids in the ribosome being correct is 1 in 80^10658, which is 1 in 10^20283.

Compare this with the number 10^20283 for the character arrangement in our 
hypothetical intelligent SETI message. 

Which brings us to point of this exercise:  Both the message and the protein
component of the ribosome are information-rich.  They both represent complexity
and/or coding that accomplishes a purpose.  Why is it then, that some people
would attribute the origin of the former to an intelligent source, but insist
that the latter came about through some yet-to-be-determined chance processes? 
And if the codes and complex structures inherent in life forms on earth cannot
be attributed to a natural origin, shouldn't we conclude that the evidence for
extra-terrestrial intelligence is right under our noses?  Why then do some look
to the stars for evidence? 

Stating the dilemma a different way, if the evolutionists so dogmatically hold
to the position that life arose spontaneously, regardless of its
sophistication, then shouldn't said evolutionists be ready to reject any SETI
message as being of intelligent origin, regardless of its sophistication?  Why
then do they look to the stars for evidence?

So if we shouldn't expect that many proteins to randomly occur in a functional
arrangement, then we shouldn't expect the whole ribosome to occur.  And if we
shouldn't expect a ribosome to occur, we shouldn't expect a functional
single-celled organism to occur.  And if we shouldn't expect a functional
single-celled organism to occur, we are left with nothing for higher organisms
to evolve from. 

In reality, it takes a considerable amount of know-how by scientists with 
advanced academic degrees using technologically advanced equipment in a well-
equipped laboratory to synthesize proteins, which is what a ribosome, a machine
too small to be seen by the naked eye, accomplishes.  And the synthesis of a
biological structure like a ribosome is currently beyond the capability of the
collective know-how of all of the most intelligent minds of mankind, let alone
a fully functional single-cell organism. 

Keep in mind that what we are encountering is in principle a significant
information/complexity problem.  Regardless of the exact path which one
proposes to get to a fully functional organism, be it protein evolution or
RNA evolution or anything else, the same level of complexity must be achieved
in the outcome through chance events.  The point is that a random, natural
process should not be considered a reasonable explanation for it.  And since
time does not imply complexity, the putting together of many separate events of
proportionally better probability over eons of time does nothing to help solve
the dilemma. 

It is therefore demonstrated that we shouldn't expect life to have come about
by chance, given what we know.  The dogma of life coming about by chance is
reduced to a mere ideology without basis.  Furthermore, by removing the
foundation for the common ancestry of living things, the dogma of the evolution
of all present species through mutations + natural selection, and all the
various peripheral issues concerning fossils, dating, stratigraphy, taxonomy,
and etc. are rendered moot, because the present species cannot be evolved from
a non-existent first life form.  And if the origin of the first life form must
have required planning and intent, then it is an even easier matter to say that
the origin of the higher life forms required planning and intent. 

Upon all this I rest my case.

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. 


_Biochemistry_
Geoffrey Zubay
The Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company, Inc, 1983, 1986
Hardbound, 1268 pages

This is a standard introductory college-level secular biochemistry textbook,
assuming a knowledge of introductory college-level general chemistry as a
prerequisite.  This book, more than any other in this resource list (aside
from the Bible), made me want to just fall prostrate before God.  The final
chapter of the book addresses the origin of life from an evolutionist
perspective, and is amusing to read. 


_Principles of Biochemistry_
Albert L. Lehninger
Worth Publishers, 1982
Hardbound, 1011 pages

This is another standard introductory college-level secular biochemistry
textbook.  Easier to understand than Zubay, and is weighted more towards
Biology than Chemistry.


_Chemical Principles_
Masterton/Slowinski
Saunders, 1973 (3rd ed)
Hardbound, 715 pages

This is a standard secular introductory college-level general chemistry
textbook.  The last chapter contains an introduction to biochemistry.


_CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics_
Robert Weast
CRC Press, 1977 (58th ed)
Hardbound, 2348 pages

This is a standard reference which contains physical constants, formulas, etc.


_In the Beginning..._
Walter T. Brown, Jr.
Center for Scientific Creation, 1989 (5th ed)
Paperback, 122 pages, $9.00+10% shipping

I very recently (12/93) came across this book in a bookstore, and now put it at
the very top of my list to recommend.  If you like my outline and approach, you
will appreciate Dr. Brown's as well.  (Obviously, I am quite biased.)  He
organizes his writings into categories in a tree structure, with adequate
references to support each point.  His approach is extremely objective.  He
also proposes an interesting model to explain 17 known geological phenomena and
the flood based solely on the bursting forth of the "fountains of the great
deep". 


_The Creation Hypothesis_
J. P. Moreland, editor
Intervarsity Press, 1994
Paperback, 335 pages

Difficult reading.  This book argues for the creation hypothesis being a valid
scientific pursuit.  Very secular approach.  Good material on information and
biological origins -- chapter 5 makes the book worthwhile. 


_Creation Scientists Answer Their Critics_
Duane T. Gish
Institute for Creation Research, 1993
Paperback, 451 pages

This book does exactly what the title implies.  Gish goes into very lengthy
discussions concerning the points and counterpoints of his opponents. 
Laborious and lengthy reading, but contains interesting information.


_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.  However, last
I saw, this book was out of print.  Try a used book store or a library.


_The Collapse of Evolution_
Scott M. Huse
Baker Book House, 1983, ...4th=1988
Paperback, 170 pages

This is an excellent treatment, covering creation/evolution issues in geology
and paleontology, physics, mathematics, biology, anthropology.  It has 
appendices listing organizations, creationist scientists throughout history,
a glossary, references, and index.


_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.  Considered by most
creationists to be a classic and standard treatment of creationism.


_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.


_Origin and Destiny of the Earth's Magnetic Field_
Thomas G. Barnes
Master Books, 1983
Paperback

This is a technical monograph in which the author evaluates the magnetic 
flux of the earth's magnetic field in recent history and argues that the
earth must consequently be of recent origin.


_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, if not _the_ 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 flood geology.


_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 mudslinging, 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.  Highly illustrated.


_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.  It requires
a very high reading comprehension level.


_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 so 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
similar 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, arguing
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, arguing 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

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

The concept of natural selection involves a tautology, and is not a cause
that would be expected to result in different or more complex designs.

A tautology is a statement that includes all possibilities and is therefore
always true.  A tautology cannot be used in defense of a position, since
it is a restatement of the obvious and contributes no useful information.

Here is the "survival of the fittest" tautology:

	Q:  Who survives?                 A:  Why, the fittest do, of course!
	Q:  And what do the fittest do?   A:  Why, they survive, of course!

Every instance of an animal living or dying can be explained by the "survival
of the fittest" clause, regardless of whether evolution or creation actually
took place.

Consider how natural selection applies even in the computer industry, where we
know the origin of things.  The good computers sell and people buy the good
computers.  The lousy computers don't sell, and people don't buy the lousy
computers.  The proliferation of the best computers and the extinction of the
worst is observed.  And lo and behold, the computers have actually gotten
better and more sophisticated.  But this is not an explanation for the origin
of the the computers and their inherent functionality, just their survival in
the marketplace.  In each case, every aspect of the sophistication and
complexity of a computer can be attributed to intelligent design by actual
designers. 

The neo-darwinian evolutionist should be challenged to explain by what process
of nature the innovative functionality of life forms originates.  Predators
eating prey is not a vehicle for the origin of any innovative functionality --
only its possible destruction if one trait should be driven to extinction.  And
random genetic mutations should be expected to corrupt the existing coded
genetic information.  Furthermore, the animals, their predators, and cosmic
radiation have not been shown to be working in some sort of grand coalition
with each other towards a common engineering effort. 

This last point is worth repeating, for evolutionists tend to provide a
circular justification based upon random genetic mutations and natural
selection.  When it is pointed out that random genetic mutations are but
meaningless noise, the evolutionist counters that natural selection filters it
into something useful.  When it is pointed out that natural selection doesn't
provide any new genetic codes, the evolutionist counters that new information
arrives through genetic mutations.  But cosmic radiation and other natural
environmental influences are random, and predators are self-serving, merely
purposing to kill and eat those less fit to survive, *leaving alone* those who
are more fit to survive.  And the mere fact that these survivors are successful
doesn't compel them to be endowed with new functions and codes that weren't
there before.  In fact, we should expect just the opposite in the presence of
cosmic noise. 

Success does not imply complexity.  Evolutionists should be challenged to 
explain why higher life forms, such as humans, are to be favored over lower
life forms, such as bacteria, in the fight for survival.

Since neither natural selection nor random genetic mutations nor the two put
together have been demonstrated as a vehicle for the design of innovative
functionality, the concept of neo-darwinian evolution (design by mutation +
natural selection) cannot be supported, scientifically or otherwise.  We should
instead expect variations in animals that are limited to already-existing
genetic information. 

In the long run, the opposite of evolution should be expected to occur as
the total pool of highly coded genetic information is gradually corrupted. 
Complete extinction of all life forms is the ultimate end, as the pool of
genetic information finally deteriorates into random data that is no longer
useful to fulfill its intended purpose. 

	Thanks for the update Garth.  Your presentation has actually caused
	some people to think, and at least one I know of to accept Christ.

	God bless you,
		Tony
		

    Last month's Missler newsletter mentions a bone recovered in an 1800ft.
    mine in Provo, Utah that has DNA intact (small fragment of 1 gene) 
    within it.  The genetic material matches no living mammal, bird, or 
    reptile, but they aren't calling it (officially) a dinosaur bone yet.  
    
    Scott R. Woodward, lead microbiologist of BYU is working ont he
    project.
    
    Mike

Jeff Benson took it upon himself to post my essays in Soapbox, note 64.

I don't have time to do much more than scan the multitudes of entries there
(replies to that topic are in the 600s now.)  But I did make a few
observations. 

Most replies were of the nature "we've seen this before," some various 
_ad hominem_ remarks, unspecific allegations of "bad science," and so on.

One that caught my eye was one noter's allegation that I was trying to date the
earth based on the age of ancient civilizations.  Of course, that was never my
intention.  But the noter's comment had merit.  My error was in sloppy
catagorization and headings, where I lumped a number of different metrics
together having to do with the age of the human species, the age of life, the
age of the earth, the age of the solar system, and the age of the universe,
all under the heading of "young-earth metrics."

If it's not one thing it's another, of course.  Last time around it was my
"radioactive Helium-4," and this time it's "dating of ancient civilizations
yields age of earth."

I'll plan on fixing this if and when I revise these essays again.

As usual, thanks to my critics, the anti-creationists, and no thanks to all the
professing believers who think that anything and everything I write on this
subject is fantastic. 

(Sigh.)

I want to make mention of another common flaw that I recently discovered in
popular creationist reasoning.

Many creationists argue that the probability of life or evolution happening
by chance can be calculated in an absolute sense. They then proceed to work the
numbers, producing a figure that is sufficiently close to zero that allegedly
proves, in an absolute sense, that life or evolution could not have happened.

This actually was the goal of a previous version of my new essay #20, which I
had carefully researched and had reviewed by some professional scientists that
I know.  In a nutshell, I filled the known universe (a sphere of, say, 16
billion light-years in diameter) with a soup of amino acids, and allowed them
to react at the rate of once every 10 nanoseconds for 16 billion years, to see
if I could come up with a basic protein structure such as a ribosome by chance.

After working on this on and off over a 2 month period of time, and after
pondering about what I was trying to accomplish, and after posing a geometrical
probability problem in the math notesfile and not getting the answer I wanted,
and after some really good critical reads by a christian friend and collegue of
mine (I asked him to try to blow holes in my argument), I abandoned the whole
thing. 

What I concluded was that the effort was futile, because although I could 
calculate the odds of coming up with a specific biological structure, I could
not, in an absolute sense, calculate the odds of coming up with *any* 
conceivable biological structure that could be construed as something that
could constitute a life form.

Many have heard the well-worn example of monkeys sitting at typewriters,
hitting the keys at random, and coming up with a work of Shakespeare.  Of
course, you could show that they could not come up with Hamlet in a zillion
years.  But in reality you are not looking for them to succesfully type a copy
of Hamlet.  What you are looking for is for them to successfully type *any*
valid document that demonstrates intelligence, planning, and purpose.  And how
many possible outcomes does that amount to?  God only knows.  And I can't do
the math if I don't take this into account. 

A read of my current essay #20 will show what I did instead.  Instead of trying
to quantitatively show that the evolutionist doesn't stand a chance, I
endeavored to show somewhat quantitatively with my "intelligent message vs.
biological structure" comparison that the evolutionist is a hypocrite. 

So I concluded that trying to calculate absolute probabilities for the origin
of life is futile.  It ranks alongside other futile efforts, such as arguing
about transitional forms, discussing footprints in the Paluxy River bed,
assessing whether or not there is today an ark on top of Mt. Ararat,
determining whether or not Darwin had a deathbed conversion, and debating about
whether or not evolution or creation should be taught in the public schools. 

As with any other endeavor, a bit of honesty goes a long way in establishing
credibility.

Garth,

Back onto this one, I had some feedback that what is needed is precise
source references for your quotes, so that they can be seen in context by 
serious readers, and the argument taken to the next level.

							Andrew

>As usual, thanks to my critics, the anti-creationists, and no thanks to all the
>professing believers who think that anything and everything I write on this
>subject is fantastic. 

>(Sigh.)
    
    What are you saying here, Garth?
    
    jeff

Garth, 

  A couple of things you have said caused an itch.

>no thanks to all the professing believers who think that anything 
>and everything I write on this subject is fantastic. 

To most professing believers, you are way out ahead in this field
and perhaps you might view these kudos as encouragement to continue
your pursuit, rather than appearing to dismiss those who applaud your
efforts.

>Many have heard the well-worn example of monkeys sitting at typewriters,
>hitting the keys at random, and coming up with a work of Shakespeare.  Of
>course, you could show that they could not come up with Hamlet in a zillion
>years.  But in reality you are not looking for them to succesfully type a copy
>of Hamlet.  What you are looking for is for them to successfully type *any*
>valid document that demonstrates intelligence, planning, and purpose.  And how
>many possible outcomes does that amount to? 

The way I read your statement, the possible outcome of a limited-intelligence
creature creating a work of intelligence, planning, and purpose far beyond
its capability is none, or the creature is no longer a monkey.  That is, 
Cornelius on the Planet of the Apes, is an intellegent character capable of 
intelligence, planning, and purpose, but is not the monkey posed in the 
hypothesis..  

The idea of chance produce anything that can be interpreted a intellegence, 
planning, and purpose is an idea only for those who can read the code; those
who assign meaning to the symbols and things created by chance.  

One of the things I learned from a discussion about such probablilities is 
that even though some odds are virtual impossibilities, the fact that 
something exists removed the word impossible from the vocabulary.  (Someone 
won  the powerball $100M despite the not so astronomical but highly improbable
odds.)

Chance COULD have created the universe as we know it, an infinitely complex
combination code that hit the right numbers and unlocked what we have now.
And indeed, we can assign meaning to this and attribute it to God.

However, when it comes down to it, we come to the edge of the land and
go no further on foot across the ocean that bars our way.  There comes a
time where reason and evidence can only point to the truth when arrival
is impossible within our current (limited) framework.  Belief becomes all
the more important to either conclusion a person makes when considering
the origins.

Just a comment,

Mark

>something exists removed the word impossible from the vocabulary.  (Someone 
>won  the powerball $100M despite the not so astronomical but highly improbable
>odds.)
    
    ...and in case you're wondering, no I do not know the Phoenician couple
    who won.

Re: .27  (Andrew)

>Back onto this one, I had some feedback that what is needed is precise
>source references for your quotes, so that they can be seen in context by 
>serious readers, and the argument taken to the next level.

Point well taken.  I've been aware of this for quite some time.

A question that comes to my mind is how and to what extent I should do this.
Should I just list my secondary sources, or list the secondary sources and the
primary sources that they reference?  Perhaps a way to do this efficiently 
would be to number all the entries in my general reference list in reply #21,
then cite the entry number, followed by page number in the text, such as
"{nn.ppp}".  Perhaps I could make a list of all the pertinent primary sources
at the end of #21, numbering them as well.  In the text, it would look like
"{nn.ppp:mm.qqq}".

Re: .28  (Jeff)

>>As usual, thanks to my critics, the anti-creationists, and no thanks to all
>>the professing believers who think that anything and everything I write on
>>this subject is fantastic. 
>
>>(Sigh.)
>    
>    What are you saying here, Garth?
    
Nothing more than I wrote at face value, really.  As I mentioned in the preface
to my essays, I've gotten the most valuable reviews from my most hostile
critics.  I wish that my friends could have pointed out my weaknesses before I
had to learn about them the hard way from my enemies. 

Re: .29  (Mark)

>>no thanks to all the professing believers who think that anything 
>>and everything I write on this subject is fantastic. 
>
>To most professing believers, you are way out ahead in this field
>and perhaps you might view these kudos as encouragement to continue
>your pursuit, rather than appearing to dismiss those who applaud your
>efforts.

Perhaps I am "way out ahead" in a relative sense, but in an absolute sense
I view my achievement as elementary at best.  This should have been a paper
for a high school science class.

Regarding your comments on my monkey/typewriter/Hamlet scenario, I think you
are reading too much into my illustration.  The only point that I was making
was that we can't rigorously work the numbers, because we can't quantify the
number of possible "successful" outcomes. 

    Forgive me if this is common knowledge, but you should probably use the 
    MLA standard for quotations like they teach in ENG102.  
    
    (author, page #)

    If more than one volume, I've used something like this in college
    essays:
    
          (McDowell, vol. 1, 44)
    
    If you have succeeding quotes from the same author, just the page
    number is sufficient.
    
    regards,
    Mike

� Should I just list my secondary sources, or list the secondary sources and the
� primary sources that they reference?  Perhaps a way to do this efficiently 
� would be to number all the entries in my general reference list in reply #21,
� then cite the entry number, followed by page number in the text, such as
� "{nn.ppp}".  Perhaps I could make a list of all the pertinent primary sources
� at the end of #21, numbering them as well.  In the text, it would look like
� "{nn.ppp:mm.qqq}".

Certainly include the primary source references.  It niggles me to find a
secondary source [which might be taking out of context in some measure]
precisely pinpointed, with but a passing acknowledgement of the primary 
source, which has any source derivation inforomation etc.  I think that 
footnotes are a suitably unintrusive way of including these, as :

.... Wooldarf, citing the instance of semi-deformism from Newton�� denigrated 
the multi-cellular option as relying on too unstable an interim state under 
normal temperatures and pressures ..... 

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

20 ....
21 Wooldarf, 'Basic rock structure in dimorphous fractures', vol VI p 739 
   para 3i, ref Newton 'Living under the Big Apple', chapter 3, p 97 'core 
   experiences which give me the pip'
22 ....
									p 8169
 

Re: .32, .33  (Mike, Andrew)

The problem is, I never took any writing courses in college.  I avoided them.
I went to an SAT 600-700 verbal 600-700 math kind of college.  My SAT math was
650, but my verbal was 450.  I just couldn't compete with my peers. 

Perhaps I should have heeded my father's advice from the distant past:  "Take
a writing course."

� The problem is, I never took any writing courses in college.  

Nor me...  I just had to format my sons medi�val thesis on the lives of the 
saints ... ;-}

								&

    Garth, it's never too late to take ENG101,102 (First-Year Composition).
    If you'd like, I can photocopy some rules and send it to you.
    
    btw - before I took the above classes, I was kind of self-conscious
    about my writing.  I found that using DEC's Grammar Checker application
    changed how I wrote and corrected some of my habitual mistakes.  You
    might want to install it and give it a whirl.
    
    let me know,
    Mike

There are books in both bookstores and libraries that cover all of this
information - they give you grammar rules, tell you how to footnote, how
to format bibliographies, etcetera.

Leslie

    I might even have an extra one at home that I could send.  I'll check
    tonight.

Re: .36  (Mike)

"DEC's Grammar Checker" application?  What does it run on?

    VAX/VMS.  Here's the conference, which should have a current kit
    location.
    
    VAX Grammar Checker             ABBOTT::GRAMMAR_CHECKER            2031

>Perhaps I am "way out ahead" in a relative sense, but in an absolute sense
>I view my achievement as elementary at best.  This should have been a paper
>for a high school science class.

"In the land of the blind, the man with one eye is king."

Translation:  as we grow in understanding, we come to understand that 
what we understand is far less than what we don't understand.

Re-translation:  I know how you feel; I've had similar feelings.  But the
fact remains that whether your attempts are at a "high school level,"
most of us have belief without the research.  Not everyone can do the 
research either.  

Most of us here believe the Bible to be inspired and we parse the Word
to understand what it means.  Yet very few of us really know Greek or
Hebrew to read the originals and must rely on (a) translators and (b)
interpreters (commentators and other sages).

You have more authority on the subject because you have made it one
of your pursuits to research Creationism and Evolution, just as some
people have endeavored to become fluent in Greek to know for themselves.
If I knew Greek, it would be no cause for me to boast, but neither would it 
be cause for me to dismissing those who accepted the Word from its
translation into English, or admired my acquired skills in reading Greek
if my Greek was only at a "high school" level.

You're doing a good work, friend.  I wish you will continue to pursue
this and that God grants you wisdom far beyond any level of higher
education in this matter to astound your critics and glorify His name.

Mark

If this issue has you confused or wondering about God, the origins of life,
and so on, you might interested in the event posted in note 13.214.

Leslie

For those who may only be keeping up with this topic (640.*), there is a
discussion about the Norman/Setterfield light-decay theory beginning with note
663.20, a theory that I used to endorse a couple of versions prior to the
essay I wrote in 640.15.

I had my father review my Creation vs. Evolution writings for composition and
grammar when I visited my folks over the Christmas holidays.  He is a published
author and 35 years a university professor of English, now retired.  The
following is a list of some of the common errors he found: 

Superfluous use of commas:  I tend to punctuate with commas where not
appropriate, consistent with a punctuation style that is now outdated.

Illegal use of ellipses:  Ellipses ("...") are to be used where something is
intentionally left out.  They should not be used arbitrarily.  I often used
them to indicate a long pause or to indicate that something is coming up.

Use of long dashes ("--") for punctuation:  Although this is becoming more
commonplace even in published material, he advised against it.  He said it
conveys the message that the writer doesn't know what punctuation to use in
each instance.

Punctuation following a close quote:  When a quotation ends a phrase, the
punctuation for that phrase must be within the close quote.  I think that I
adopted my style of punctuation way back in elementary school, as a reaction of
protest against the established standard.  It seemed more logical to me to nest
all punctuation. 

Deviating from the "decorum" of the argument:  He was most critical of this
error.  Examples were my reference to the Flintstones, "falling prostrate
before God," and inflamatory verbs such as to "tout."  The point was that
I set a certain standard ("decorum") for a logical and objective piece of
literature, then violate it in a few places with editorial remarks.  He says
that this denigrates and distracts from my presentation.  He said that I
should give my critics no cause to find fault over something like that. 

He also pointed out that it was not obvious who my intended audience was from
reading the document.

I was always a "B" student in English.  Generally good, but not exceptional. 

I editted my note 640.24 because I discovered that I was in error when
I said that my father said that punctuation should be within a close
parenthesis.

One of these days I'll get this punctuation-thing right.

      "There is often great logic in religion and there is little logic
       in materialism.  Those who maintain that the world created itself are
       often people without any respect for reason."


       Isaac Bashevis Singer
       from the Epilogue, "Are Children the Ultimate Literary Critics"
       in his book Stories for Children
                   --------------------

This is a pointer to discussions related to this topic:

239.* "Jurassic Park..."

788.* "Progressive Creation, Theistic Evolution,..."

================================================================================
Note 748.21            Christian Resourses on the Internet              21 of 21
OUTSRC::HEISER "watchman on the wall"                 8 lines  21-SEP-1995 11:39
                            -< Answers in Genesis >-
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Answers in Genesis, a Creation Science ministry, is now available at
    
    http://www.christianswers.net
    
    The web site includes info to assist Christians with Biblical answers
    in Creation evangelism efforts.
    
    Mike