Conference lgp30::christian-perspective

    Hi Rodger!
    
    (We met in Vienna: Maybe you remember?)
    
    I would be *very* interested in the paper you mentioned, and grateful
    if you would send itto me.
    
    Greetings, Derek.

    I have made the files available on EVTSG8:: They are EVOLUTION.LN03,
    EVOLMEN.LN03 and EVOLR.PS, totalling about 550 blocks. As shown by the
    extension, 2 of the files must be printed on an LN03, the other on a 
    postscript printer. (EVOLR is the reference to quotes, EVOLMEN is a 
    short rundown on the credentials of those who are referenced.)
    
    Rodger

Rodger,

I'm not able to print the two .ln03 files.  Could you provide them in a
different format, such as PostScript or ASCII?

				-- Bob

    There are 2 new files on EVTSG8::, EVOLR1.PS and EVOLUTION1.PS.
    HOWEVER, the postscript font I used didn't understand the 'fi' and 'fl'
    characters. Otherwise, they are O.K.
    
    Later when I have time I'll correct the PS file.
    
    Rodger

All of the quotes in .0 attacked the theory of abiogenesis, not those of 
evolution.  They are separate.  There *really is* a great deal of evidence 
supporting the various theories of evolution.  There is almost zero evidence
supporting simultaneous creation of all life forms or a single worldwide flood.

I'll read the files you provided pointers to.  This promises to be an interesting
discussion.


/Mike

I just finished scanning the document EVOLUTION.LN03.  I have seen most of these
arguments before, and they simply don't carry much weight for me, but then, I'm
not a Christian.

/Mike

    .6
    
    Refreshing honesty...

Note 850.7

>    Refreshing honesty...

Intimating that someone has been less than honest?  Or merely unrefreshing?

    	I made a first pass through these files yesterday evening. I found
    	nothing new in them and certainly nothing which could possibly
    	shake my confidence in the basic truths of evolution.
    
    	In fact, I would venture that anyone who is 'converted away' from
    	belief in evolution by these arguments cannot claim to have been
    	seriously informed about evolution in the first place.
    
    	I will not pursue this theme here any further.
    
    	Greetings, Derek.  

    Some folks out of fear of hurting someone else's feelings will be less
    then honest about their own... .6 demonstrated honesty to himself first
    and integrity follows such honesty regardless of whether I *like* the
    statement.
    
    Don't read more into the statement then an acknowledgement of the 
    noter in .6. :-)
    

Rodger,

Thanks for making your evolution files available in PostScript format.

As someone not trained in biology I don't want to get involved in the
scientific aspects of an evolution vs creation debate.  I think most of
the points raised by your paper have been addressed by notes in other
conferences, e.g. note 35 in MR4SRV::BIOLOGY and note 199 in
GRIM::RELIGION.  The theory of evolution remains the dominant scientific
theory, and from what I've seen the arguments in favor of it seem more
convincing than the arguments against it - but as I've said, I'm no expert.

I am interested, though, in the last section of your paper, titled "Moral
implications".  To summarize your arguments:

	In believing that Evolution is true the following implications are
	made:

	1. There is nothing inherently wrong with murder.

	2. There is no purpose in life.

	3. There are no moral rules.

First of all, the theory of evolution simply describes how the various
species of plants and animals, including humans, originated.  It says
nothing about how humans should behave toward each other, which is the
province of philosophy or religion.  Someone who believes in evolution
might also believe in God, or believe in mass murder, or believe in
secular humanism.

	1. There is nothing inherently wrong with murder.

You ask, "What is really the difference between killing a dog and killing
a man?"  Well, one difference is that the dog's friends and relatives are
unlikely to take revenge on you when they discover what you've done.
Humans have created laws and systems of morality which in various ways
discourage you from harming other people.  Unfortunately there are people
like Stalin who have committed mass murder despite laws and moral sanction,
but people like that existed long before the theory of evolution was
proposed.

I personally agree with your statement in the limited sense that there is
nothing "inherently" wrong with murder.  I see morality as being something
invented by humans for the benefit of humans.  I do think that murder is
wrong, but only because our culture has defined it as being wrong (and
because I don't want to be murdered, or for someone that I love to be
murdered.)

You also state that, to someone who believes strongly in evolution,
"Starvation is viewed 'favorably' as the 'survival of the fittest'.  Even
wars, mass-murder and abortions are spoken of as 'helping' mankind, being
an answer to the problem of overpopulation."  If there are people who
believe that starvation, war etc. are beneficial, this belief comes from
something other than their belief in evolution.  Starvation etc. might be
a factor that has inflenced evolutionary patterns in the past, but to say
that it's "beneficial" is a value judgement, not a scientific conclusion.

	2. There is no purpose in life.

My belief is that life has whatever purpose we choose to bring to it.
True, my lifespan is limited and whatever I accomplish will most likely
"vanish in the millions of years to come".  However, this shouldn't
prevent me from enjoying the few years that I have to live.

	3. There are no moral rules.

There are no moral rules except the ones that we humans have chosen to
give ourselves - this is my personal opinion.  Again, the theory of
evolution says nothing about morality.

You also say that "The belief in evolution destroys virtues such as love,
self-sacrifice, long-suffering, kindness, self-control and meekness.  It
also weakens the covenant of marriage and the bonds of love in a family.
Instead, the world is viewed as 'the survival of the fittest'.
Selfishness, lack of self-restraint, a competitive spirit and pride are
cultivated in such a religion Having been an atheist myself, I know of the
implications of the theory of evolution."

Well, Rodger, if that was the kind of person that you were, then perhaps
conversion to Christianity may have changed you for the better.  You
should realize, though, that not all evolutionists share the moral beliefs
that you once held or the personality traits that you once possessed.

				-- Bob

Bob,

Hello. Thank you for taking time to respond to what you read.

There are two points I would like to respond to, each separately. For this
reason, I decided to write 2 replies. 

The first reply concerns the 'more convincing' arguments supporting the
theory of Evolution. 

> The theory of evolution remains the dominant scientific theory, and from 
> what I've seen the arguments in favor of it seem more convincing than 
> the arguments against it - but as I've said, I'm no expert.

I agree with you that it is the theory most widely believed by the scientific
community. But as mentioned in the article, more and more are discarding
it. If there was another alternative besides God this would be happening in
a much greater way.

Some of the basic well-known problems are:

1. Over 300,000 species have been clasified, either living or fossilized. This
   number isn't growing very much at all. It is a rare occurance of a fossil
   being found which hasn't already been identified. This was not the case
   at the time of Darwin. He mentions in his book 'Origin of Species' the
   lack of fossil evidence and believed the holes would be filled by 
   the findings. They weren't. Throughout the fossil records, species with as
   good as no exceptions appear suddenly without gradual development. Of the 
   300,000 species, there is not one showing the many expected evolutionary 
   steps. If the theory were true, ALL would have at least some intermediate
   species and most would have many intermediate species. The argument today
   of a lack of fossil evidence is no longer valid.

2. There is no mechanism in nature by which new species can occur. Although 
   Darwin spoke nothing of mutations, the scientific community by their 
   accumulative knowledge of cells, and especially RNA/DNA, have concluded 
   that the evolving of new species would require more than selection of 
   genes, it would involve new and more genes(code in the chromosomes). Such 
   changes are called 'mutations'. At first, scientists thought radiation could
   be the mechanism. After countless experiments and no new species
   these attempts have been decreasing. Drugs were also tried, with the same
   negative results. Morgan tried 40 years on fruit flies without a single
   new species. Many, many more tried and ALL failed.

   The only mechanism for developing new, more advanced life forms is
   purposeful intelligence, much greater than the best programmers now alive
   in bringing new functionality into the existing genetic code. Not only
   would the existing genetic coding have to be understood, but how to
   modify, delete and add more functionality would also have to be understood.
   
3. Life, even in its simplest forms, is highly complex. For the sudden
   occurence of the simplest life forms would require at least 2 unfathomable
   miracles happening simultaneously. First, the matter would have to 
   by chance come together. Those who know about the complexity of the 
   simplest cell would gasp at this one. The second miracle is that EVERY
   bit of the cell would have to simultaneously begin to function, which
   is probably 1000000 times more unfathomable than the material coming 
   together. Even until today there are a lot of unanswered questions 
   involved in reproduction of cells, the development of so many cell
   types, how the life expectancy of cells and species is determined, etc.

   I know that evolutionists often claim that given an unlimited amount of time
   anything is possible. They sometimes give the example of monkeys writing the
   works of Shakespeare. Did you know that given the assumption that a billion
   monkeys worked a billion years on a computer with 100 possible keys, each 
   pressing a billion keys a second, the probability would be that at most
   18 characters might be found to be correct. Probability experts consider 
   anything greater than one in 10 to the 48th as impossible. It is assumed
   that there are less than this amount of atoms in the observable universe.
   With a keyboard of a hundred keys, a maximum of 24 could be considered
   within the possibility of chance. 
 
   Evolutionist Sir Fred Hoyle mentions that for the physical matter for a
   cell to come together by chance is one in 10 to the 40,000. If anyone
   would just believe him! He didn't believe himself. Any probability expert
   would have classified this a zillion zillion zillion, etc. times impossible.
   Morowitz mentions not 10 to the 40,000, but 10 to the 100,000,000,000.
   And if the simultaneous functioning of the cell is to be considered too,
   it just becomes pure theory no longer related to reality. 

   All of the scientific data says evolution is a loosing horse. Even as
   I was so strong a believer of the theory, I knew of its unlikeliness.
   
   When talking of 'convincing arguments', science in an attempt to justify
   evolutionists has spent an unimaginable amount of money. They have created 
   the 'convincing arguments'. It is not from logical, truly scientific 
   observances made in the fields of paleantology or biology or nature which 
   have been so convincing.

   But the truth still shines through all of these 'convincing arguments'
   for those who will heed its rays.

   Rodger Dusatko
    

Bob,
Concerning the points you listed about morals:
> First of all, the theory of evolution simply describes how the various
> species of plants and animals, including humans, originated.  It says
> nothing about how humans should behave toward each other, which is the
> province of philosophy or religion.  Someone who believes in evolution might 
> also believe in God, or believe in mass murder, or believe in secular humanism.

If evolution were true, there is hardly any difference between a monkey and
a man. Basically, man is considered an intelligent monkey with a few other 
mutations besides. Some apes and chimpanzees also seem to vary in intelligence.
Is killing an ape much worse than killing a chimpanzee? Is killing an
intelligent monkey(man) much worse than killing a less-intelligent monkey?

Killing animals, experimenting on them in all types of ways, eating them, etc.
are all done. I sold meat in my lifetime and killed sheep. I ordered animals
to be killed by a butcher, both cows and sheep. It didn't bother me in the 
least. If a man REALLY believes in his heart the theory of evolution, he
starts approaching this same perspective with killing people. I
don't believe that it is the same believing evolution intellectually and
believing it in your heart. 

The basic foundation of the theory of evolution is the 'survival of the 
fittest'. In our biology class we often applied this also on man. This, 
applied to man, means that starvation and killing of the weaker are important
for any evolutionary advancement of Man. Hitler was influenced with evolutionary
thinking as he attempted to produce 'super-humans' and remove the weak. I
live in a town where the 'physically handicapped' were exterminated by him.

> Unfortunately there are people like Stalin who have committed mass murder 
> despite laws and moral sanction, but people like that existed long before 
> the theory of evolution was proposed.

Stalin believed in his heart the theory of evolution. He with Lennin made 
evolution the religion of communism, which was very strongly taught in all 
the schools. For people who believed otherwise, there were hospitals made for 
correction and concentration camps in Siberia. Meeting in a home with other 
'believers' was reason enough to be killed or sent to either the hospital or 
the concentration camp. This was NOT ONLY done by Stalin, but by many communists.

Maybe I can say my opinion concerning what evolution has worked in our 
society. As you said, there were men before Stalin who were just as bad. 
One power-hungry nation after another would kill millions to reach their goal. 
The Syrians, the Babylonians, the Persians, the Greeks and then the Romans. 
But then a huge change happened on the face of the earth as the Roman Government 
became christian, what still today remains as the catholic church. For a long 
time, whole countries went through some 'positive moral' changes. Not too long 
afterwards the 'Moslem governments' also experienced a new set of morals. And 
all related to God and what God approves of and doesn't approve of. So the laws
of the countries were influenced by the laws of Moses and the Koran.

Evolution is a milestone in the dividing of these nations from their belief
in God. The 'God' as spoken of in Genesis had been accredited to as being the 
creator by all the nations under the influence of the jews, the muslims or
the christians. The scientists and the general public for the most part
believed it.

Over the last hundred and forty years this separation has been taking place.
For our society it has birthed many new problems, and the morals that had
been placed upon it are decaying. It is no longer an accepted fact that
God created or that God even exists.

Is this good or bad? I personally believe 'good' and see the hand of God it
it. Why? To separate his bride, the church, from the world, that she be
holy. With Constantine, the church was absorbed into the Roman Government,
making a 'Christian Roman Government'. But her beauty quickly vanished,
and she lost to a large degree her identity. For much of the world, it was a 
unique time of peace where that which had been happening of one government
rising after another and slaughtering millions of people ceased. To a 
certain degree, just laws were made, not just the execution of the whims of
Roman kings. 
I am not interested in trying to convince the public that 'God is the creator'
unless directly related to becoming part of his church. If you, Bob, do not
want to know God, then I don't think it matters at all whether you believe
evolution or not. But just because you are reading the notes in this
conference means that something is happening within you. NOBODY, except
deceivers, would have any interest at all in this conference, unless God were
drawing them to himself (whether they are aware of it or not).

Many of us who now know Jesus experienced him cleansing us from sin and making
us right with God, the father. As long as sin rules in our lives, it is 
impossible to not be deceived. Jesus said to those of his days:
Joh.8:31:
    Then said Jesus to those Jews which believed on him, If ye continue in
    my word, then are ye my disciples indeed; And ye shall know the truth, and
    the truth  shall  make you free. Verily, verily, I  say  unto  you,
    Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin. If the Son therefore shall
    make you free, ye  shall  be free indeed. 
The truth has a price. If someone is not willing to pay that price, they
will not know the truth. The truth also has an effect in our lives, it
it makes us free from sin.

When I met Jesus as a totally convinced athiest, I was immediately 
confronted with the cost involved. The choice I made was and is knowing 
Jesus as he really is, being his disciple, doing what he says. This is 
something which is not related to church attendance or believing certain 
things. It is a direct exchange between myself and my creator, who speaks 
to me, changes me, loves me in a daily way. He is truly Lord of my life.

Rodger Dusatko
    

Re .12/.13

Rodger, whey don't we cut to the heart of the matter?  You aren't going to 
convince anyone with your bogus scientific arguments, so let's discuss what 
really bothers you about evolution.

During my Christian days, I noticed one particular viewpoint among those who
would not accept evolutionary theory.  That was that if the book of Genesis
was not literally and historically true, then there we no fall, and therefore
no need of a savior.  Thus, no Jesus Christ and bye-bye worldview!  The problem
with this is that they were willing to accept, unquestioningly, just about any
silly scientific argument that supported their view.

Is this true of you?  I suspect so, because I have *never* met anyone who,
having accepted evolutionary theory, later rejected it on solid intellectual 
grounds.

So, let's discuss.  It would be more appropriate to this conference, anyway.


/Mike

Re: .12 Rodger

>   Throughout the fossil records, species with as
>   good as no exceptions appear suddenly without gradual development. Of the 
>   300,000 species, there is not one showing the many expected evolutionary 
>   steps. If the theory were true, ALL would have at least some intermediate
>   species and most would have many intermediate species. The argument today
>   of a lack of fossil evidence is no longer valid.

Isn't this explained by Gould'd theory of punctuated equilibrium?  Not that
I claim to understand it - I haven't even read any of his books all the
way through - but in Gould's theory the evolution of a new species is
(relatively) sudden, not gradual.

In any case, if the theory of evolution says that there should be
intermediate species and extensive research shows that these intermediate
species don't exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that evolution doesn't
happen.  It could just mean that evolution doesn't happen the way that we
thought it did.

>2. There is no mechanism in nature by which new species can occur. Although 
>   Darwin spoke nothing of mutations, the scientific community by their 
>   accumulative knowledge of cells, and especially RNA/DNA, have concluded 
>   that the evolving of new species would require more than selection of 
>   genes, it would involve new and more genes(code in the chromosomes). Such 
>   changes are called 'mutations'. At first, scientists thought radiation could
>   be the mechanism. After countless experiments and no new species
>   these attempts have been decreasing. Drugs were also tried, with the same
>   negative results. Morgan tried 40 years on fruit flies without a single
>   new species. Many, many more tried and ALL failed.

According to some notes in the MR4SRV::BIOLOGY conference (e.g. 35.38,
35.45, 35.122) speciation has been observed in the laboratory.  So who
should I believe?

>3. Life, even in its simplest forms, is highly complex. For the sudden
>   occurence of the simplest life forms would require at least 2 unfathomable
>   miracles happening simultaneously. First, the matter would have to 
>   by chance come together. Those who know about the complexity of the 
>   simplest cell would gasp at this one. The second miracle is that EVERY
>   bit of the cell would have to simultaneously begin to function, which
>   is probably 1000000 times more unfathomable than the material coming 
>   together.

Couldn't there be some kind of precursor to life that was far less complex
than a complete cell?  Then more complex precursors might have a
competitive advantage over simple precursors, so that eventually the
simplest precursors evolved into single celled organisms.  There wouldn't
have to be a complete cell formed at random from its constituent molecules;
that would indeed be amazing.

I would think that any research in this area would be highly speculative
though.  It's hard to observe in the laboratory a process that took
millions of years in nature.

				-- Bob

Re: .13 Rodger

>If evolution were true, there is hardly any difference between a monkey and
>a man.

There certainly is a difference from a man's point of view, and it's humans
who invented morality.  Isn't it natural that we'd want to protect our own
species?

> Basically, man is considered an intelligent monkey with a few other 
>mutations besides. Some apes and chimpanzees also seem to vary in intelligence.
>Is killing an ape much worse than killing a chimpanzee? Is killing an
>intelligent monkey(man) much worse than killing a less-intelligent monkey?

Well, there are people who think that it's wrong to kill apes and monkeys.
Some people think it's as wrong to kill an animal as it is to kill a
person.  Personally I place a much higher value on human life than on
animal life - secular *human*ism, you know.

>Killing animals, experimenting on them in all types of ways, eating them, etc.
>are all done. I sold meat in my lifetime and killed sheep. I ordered animals
>to be killed by a butcher, both cows and sheep. It didn't bother me in the 
>least. If a man REALLY believes in his heart the theory of evolution, he
>starts approaching this same perspective with killing people.

I don't believe this.  I think what you are referring to is a form of
social Darwinism, and is not a necessary consequence of the theory of
evolution.

>The basic foundation of the theory of evolution is the 'survival of the 
>fittest'. In our biology class we often applied this also on man. This, 
>applied to man, means that starvation and killing of the weaker are important
>for any evolutionary advancement of Man.

But is the evolutionary advancement of Man a good thing?  That's a moral
judgment.  Maybe by now our genetic evolution is less important than our
cultural and intellectual evolution.

> Hitler was influenced with evolutionary
>thinking as he attempted to produce 'super-humans' and remove the weak. I
>live in a town where the 'physically handicapped' were exterminated by him.

In a sense you might say that Hilter himself and his way of thinking were
selected against - because his way leads to war and death, and would lead
ultimately to the end of civilization.  (But that's probably an overly
optimistic view of things - Germany could have won World War II and our
lives today would be very different.)

>But then a huge change happened on the face of the earth as the Roman Government 
>became christian, what still today remains as the catholic church. For a long 
>time, whole countries went through some 'positive moral' changes. Not too long 
>afterwards the 'Moslem governments' also experienced a new set of morals. And 
>all related to God and what God approves of and doesn't approve of. So the laws
>of the countries were influenced by the laws of Moses and the Koran.

So, I suppose, for the centuries between Constantine and Darwin the world
was a paradise full of moral people doing what was right.  There was no
Inquisition, no witch trials, no slavery, no war...

>Over the last hundred and forty years this separation has been taking place.
>For our society it has birthed many new problems, and the morals that had
>been placed upon it are decaying.

Personally I think there have been a lot of positive moral changes over the
last hundred and forty years: the end of slavery, women's suffrage, child
labor laws, civil rights, changing attitudes toward all forms of
discrimination.  Some of these changes introduced new problems, but on the
whole I think the world has been changing for the better.

>It is no longer an accepted fact that God created or that God even exists.
>
>Is this good or bad? I personally believe 'good'

I agree!

> and see the hand of God it
>it. Why? To separate his bride, the church, from the world, that she be
>holy.

I'm glad to be of help. :-)

>If you, Bob, do not
>want to know God, then I don't think it matters at all whether you believe
>evolution or not. But just because you are reading the notes in this
>conference means that something is happening within you. NOBODY, except
>deceivers, would have any interest at all in this conference, unless God were
>drawing them to himself (whether they are aware of it or not).

Who knows, maybe my presence in this conference has a supernatural
explanation, or maybe it's because, since my parents were missionaries and
I was a sincere Christian for many years, I continue to be interested in
Christianity and religious debate in general.

				-- Bob

    I normally read-only here, but at least one statement struck me enough
    to enter the fray...
    
    (from .13)
>I am not interested in trying to convince the public that 'God is the creator'
>unless directly related to becoming part of his church. If you, Bob, do not
>want to know God, then I don't think it matters at all whether you believe
>evolution or not. But just because you are reading the notes in this
>conference means that something is happening within you. NOBODY, except
>deceivers, would have any interest at all in this conference, unless God were
>drawing them to himself (whether they are aware of it or not).
    I do not read this conference because I am interested in becoming a
    Christian.  I read it (and other conferences on religious subjects)
    to try and understand things about people of those faiths (why they
    take the faith, lose it, how they handle it, etc.)
    
    Others have already pointed out that your scientific arguments are
    flawed.  I can do this in more detail if you wish (including citing
    some specific references to things you claim have never been observed.)
    
>If evolution were true, there is hardly any difference between a monkey and
>a man. Basically, man is considered an intelligent monkey with a few other 
    If evolution were false, it would still be true that man is little more
    than a very smart monkey.  (Else, why is the DNA so similar?)
    
>Is killing an ape much worse than killing a chimpanzee? Is killing an
>intelligent monkey(man) much worse than killing a less-intelligent monkey?
    Yes.  But I'm species-ist.  But killing a monkey is worse than killing
    a sheep, and killing most anything is pretty bad. (I'm a vegetarian,
    and use fairly little leather, if you *really* care that I practice
    what I preach.)
    
>least. If a man REALLY believes in his heart the theory of evolution, he
>starts approaching this same perspective with killing people. I
    Speak for yourself, please.  Survival of *species* is important for
    some of us.
    
>don't believe that it is the same believing evolution intellectually and
>believing it in your heart. 
    I don't "believe" in evolution.  I accept the scientific principles
    that lead to the conclusion that it happened, and continues to happen.
    
>[Hitler abuses the survival concept.]
    Hitler believed that German ("Aryan") genes were superior to other
    genes.  There is *no* basis for this in evolutionary theory.  Hitler
    (and others) greatly abused the theory.
    
    On thing about the "survival of the fittest."  It has often been noted
    that cooperative (sharing) behavior leads to survival of more
    individuals than uncooperative behavior.  Thus, the "fittest" (in most
    any population) engage in such behavior to at least some extent.
    
>Stalin believed in his heart the theory of evolution. He with Lennin made 
>evolution the religion of communism, which was very strongly taught in all 
>the schools. For people who believed otherwise, there were hospitals made for 
    You've obviously never heard of Lysenko.  Lysenko (first name escaping
    me) was a third-rate biologist with wacky ideas, but a first-rate
    politician.  He got into Stalin's favor, and proceeded to set Soviet
    agriculture back for decades.  Stalin was no evolutionist.  (His camps,
    etc, were all for political persecution and repression, pure and
    simple.)
    
    I've probably said too much here.  Lemme find the intro note now...
    Mark

    Hello, Mark (.17),
    
    The Intro Note is topic 3, in case you've not found it.
    
    We welcome people of all expressions (including atheists and agnostics).
    
    Peace,
    Richard

If my reading this means that God is drawing me closer, are the Christians I see
in the atheist newsgroup on the internet drawing away from him?

If the odds of a single cell being created spontaneously are too high to
conceive, then what are the odds of an entire God being created? 

BTW, no theories that I have seen postulate that a highly complex cell first
appeared out of nowhere. Most that I have read postulated (backed by lab
experiments) that the chemical reactions leading to life began when fairly
simple organic molecules appeared that had the property of self replication, ie.
they tended to cause similar organization in the surrounding material, similar
to the way crystals 'grow'.

 Which all just happened accidentally?

Mike,(re.14)
Thanks for your note and taking the time to respond. I guess that I am the
opposite as yourself. I was raised an athiest, my father, grandfather were
athiests, and all believed in evolution. And I came to know Jesus when I was
17. For yourself, if I understand with 'During my Christian days' correctly,
you were raised christian and later became an athiest. I see this as an
honor to talk to you about these very important points. 

The 'heart of the matter' is always the best way to address things. When
you state:
> You aren't going to convince anyone with your bogus scientific arguments, so 
> let's discuss what really bothers you about evolution.

Mike, I am amazed today how I could have been so blind as I believed in 
evolution. If anyone would have asked any of us of the reality of its claims,
we all would have said the same thing, from 'very unlikely' to 'inconcievable'.
And yet we ALL were convinced of it! 

The 'heart of the matter' is that we all chose to believe something which we
all knew was next to impossible. And we spoke of it almost as being a proven
fact! I see here a real contradiction. 

Could it be that we as people, once deceived, can no longer distinguish
the truth from the lie? I remember even from the very beginning recognizing
that there was no mechanism for evolution, not macro-evolution and not
micro-evolution. When examining radiation or drugs we all recognized of their
complete inadequatcy of being able to account for the complete different 
coding found in the different species. Radiation and drugs under 'impartial'
examination can do hardly more than destroy links, they do not offer an
answer to new functionality. Still, I CHOSE to believe this theory, knowing
full well that it was based on things which were not scientific, but rather
only unfounded speculations. After choosing to believe it regardless of the
improbability of the assumptions on which it was founded, I found in the near
future I could fit 'any contradictions' into this theory. But I left the
realm of reality and entered into the realm of theory.

Science was not earlier so far into the realm of theory. The wife of Charles
Darwin, who was warning him of this danger, wrote in a letter which Darwin
himself says 'When I am dead, know that many times I have kissed and cried 
over this.
  'May not the habit in scientific pursuits of believing nothing till it is
  proved, influence your mind too much in other things which cannot be proved in
  the same way...'
Charles I'm sure knew exactly what she was talking about. He had been slowly
leaving this realm of reality, trying as I once did, to fit all of the
contradictions of the theory into the theory. Later in his life as he 
no longer could do this. 

You may have heard of Evolutionist Dr. Pierre-Paul Grosse, former President
of the French Academie of Science and who held the Chair of Evolution at the
Sorbonne in Paris for twenty years. He looks also at the 'heart of the matter',
the mechanism of evolution,

'a single plant, a single animal would require thousands and thousands of
lucky, appropriate events. Thus, miracles would become the rule; events
with an infintesimal probability could not fail to occur... There is no
law against day dreaming, but science must not indulge in it.
   Evolution in Living Organisms, NY Acad.Press, 1977, p.103

He also says, 'No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce
any kind of evolution'

Both Morgan and Nilsson speak of 40 years of attempts without the least
bit of success!

'My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experient carried on for more 
than 40 years have completely failed... The fossil material is now so
complete that it has been possible to construct new classes, and the lack
of transitional series cannot be explained as being due to the scarcity of 
material. The deficiencies are real, they will never be filled.'
  The Earth before Man, Part 2, Nr.20 p.51.
Morgan says that the central issue of Evolution, new species evolving,
cannot be accredited to evolution.

Mike, the 'heart of the matter' is that regardless of how impossible
it may be, people choose to believe it or not believe it. And once you
have your stance, our 'pride' eventually makes us think we are right.

In the book 'Darwinwas Wrong' this centural issue is again addressed:
   any physical change of any size, shape or form is strictly the result
   of purposeful alignment of billions of nucleotides(in the DNA). Nature or
   species do not have the capacity for rearranging them nor to add to them.
   Consequently no leap can occur from one species to another. The only
   way we know for a DNA to be altered is through a meaningful intervention
   from an outside source of intelligence

When you state:
>   The problem with this is that they were willing to accept, unquestioningly, 
>   just about any silly scientific argument that supported their view.
I think it is those of the public who believes the unfathomly unrealistic
views of evolution theorists who are fullfilling these words. Mans failing 
attempts to cause mutations using radiation or drugs has not produced a single
grain of sand for new species. Evolution theorists say chance + nature, void of 
purposeful intelligence, has produced all the seashores of sand for new speciesm,
not to mentioned the zillions of intermediate ones. Evolution theorists claim
natural selection is guilty for the extermination of all these intermediate
steps. The fossil record, however, proves 'natural selection' innocent, they
didn't exist in the first place! 

Rodger
    

    It has always appeared to me that people who refute the many theories
    of evolution base their entire argument on their preconception of the
    high odds against a single cell organism evolving into a higher form.

    The argument usually goes: "The probability of the necessary events
    taking place to support a theory of evolution are so high that I reject
    the entire concept of evolution as impossible." This is usually closely
    followed by "There is no scientific evidence because all evolution
    scientists are wrong... and I found me one that says so." Which usually
    ends up: "Taxonomy is flawed, dating methods are bogus, scientists are
    crack-pot, atheistic lairs... unless they happen to agree with me."

    If you base your belief system on the number of successful events
    needed to produce a desired outcome -- and you knew the myriad events
    that must occur flawlessly to produce a normal human baby -- you
    would most likely conclude that normal human reproduction is
    impossible. 

    What is the problem of accepting that evolution is a natural process
    guided by God? Just as reproduction is.

    	Eric

re Note 850.21 by EVTSG8::DUSATKO:

> Mike, I am amazed today how I could have been so blind as I believed in 
> evolution. If anyone would have asked any of us of the reality of its claims,
> we all would have said the same thing, from 'very unlikely' to 'inconcievable'.
> And yet we ALL were convinced of it! 
...
> Could it be that we as people, once deceived, can no longer distinguish
> the truth from the lie? 

        Rodger,

        Of course, a question you must ask yourself (we must all ask
        ourselves, as well) is whether you can trust what you believe
        now as true given that you are so convinced that what you
        previously believed as true was false.

        Once you are convinced your track record on something like
        this is so poor how do you convince yourself that this time
        you are right?

        Also, why should I (as someone whom you potentially want to
        convince by your writing) hear you out when you start off by
        saying that you tend to believe things without understanding
        or foundation?

        Bob

re Note 850.22 by APACHE::MYERS:

>     What is the problem of accepting that evolution is a natural process
>     guided by God? Just as reproduction is.
  
        That's essentially my position as well.

        Discovering the mechanisms that lead to the diversity of
        species is, to me, the same kind of exercise as discovering
        the mechanisms which lead to the development of severe
        weather.  There are differences in detail:  one occurs at a
        far slower rate than the other, so our evidence for it must
        be almost exclusively based on finding the sparse evidence
        from the distant past.

        We humans make mistakes in both pursuits.  As new evidence
        and theories appear, our understanding of the mechanisms
        improve.  Our understanding of neither the weather nor
        speciation is likely to ever become perfect.

        Of course, there are some other differences.  The book of
        Genesis in the Bible appears to offer a mechanism for
        speciation.  Many read it that way.  The nature of that book
        is an element of the world-view of many people.  It is
        essential to many that evolution is false.

        Also, unlike the weather, we don't use speciation mechanisms
        for prediction of events that affect our day to day living. 
        We can hold bad theories of speciation and it won't affect
        our lives.  If we hold bad theories of weather, or follow
        those who do, we will be in trouble.

        Nobody these days is called an atheist or, even worse, a
        "picker-and-chooser" because they hold that the jet streams,
        and not God's direct intervention, bring storms to us.

        Bob

Re:  .22

    >It has always appeared to me that people who refute the many theories
    >of evolution base their entire argument on their preconception of the
    >high odds against a single cell organism evolving into a higher form.

Well, the flip side of the argument is the declaration that God
gives us in Genesis through Moses along with all the supporting
confirmation that there is a God (which is quite vast).

However, people who have chosen to believe that there is no
God (or that there is no God as He has revealed Himself through
his prophets in the Scriptures) are unimpressed.  They also
tend to be unimpressed with any arguments against evolution.

The facts are the same whether you believe in evolution or in
creationism.  The question is, how do the facts stack up?

Personally, I view the facts

 - the fact of God, the creator, is very convincing through
   prophecy, life-changing experience, accuracy of His Word,
   constant miracles, etc. is quite impressive
 - the fact of the missing link(s) is impressive
 - the fact that mutations don't seem doable seems impressive
 - finally, the fact that random chance doesn't explain anything
   (but is a catch-all kind of phrase for - this happened but
   we haven't a clue how) makes me skeptical

But, hey, what do I know?  Jesus as my Lord and Savior.  :-)

Collis

Well, the fact of the lack of evidence for a world-wide deluge is also
impressive, not to mention the fact that human fossils have never been found
in any but the most recent geological strata.  Scientifically speaking, there
is far more reason to believe that evolution is a fact than there is to believe
in a recent creation.

/Mike

    re: Note 850.25 by PACKED::COLLIS::JACKSON

> Well, the flip side of the argument is the declaration that God
> gives us in Genesis through Moses along with all the supporting
> confirmation that there is a God (which is quite vast).

> However, people who have chosen to believe that there is no
> God (or that there is no God as He has revealed Himself through
> his prophets in the Scriptures) are unimpressed.  They also
> tend to be unimpressed with any arguments against evolution.

    Collis,

    Why do you think that belief in God and acceptance of theories of
    evolution are mutually exclusive? Why is the Genesis story absolutely
    literal and not symbolic or culturally colored in its explanation of
    creation?

    Eric

    >Why do you think that belief in God and acceptance of theories of
    >evolution are mutually exclusive? 

I don't.  I do find the belief in the God of the Bible and
the belief in evolution as mutually exclusive for the obvious
reason:  the Bible proclaims a God that consciously planned
and created the world in a manner far different than evolutionists
theorize.

  >Why is the Genesis story absolutely literal and not symbolic or 
  >culturally colored in its explanation of creation?

It is true that the Bible contains symbolism - in some places it
has a lot of symbolism.  And if all we had about creation was the
first few chapters of Genesis, perhaps you'd be able to make a
fairly convincing case that this story was simply symbolism
(although I admit you'd be hard-pressed to convince me; I accept
more things as literal in Revelation than most).

But there are a *lot* of references to Genesis throughout the
rest of the Bible.  *Every one* of them that has any implication
about what kind of story Genesis 1-3 assumes or proclaims
that it is a literally true story, not a symbolic story.

That is why I believe it is a literally true story; because
the Bible makes it clear that it was written as a literally
true story.  I'm not going to distort passage after passage in
the Bible just so that I can change the meaning of Genesis so
that it fits in with what some scientists today believe (with
rather unconvincing evidence, in my opinion).  No, the Bible
is actually true - and someday the scientists of today who believe
in evolution instead of creationism will come to realize this as
well (just like Biblical scholars of today realize the many
flaws in the arguments of those who criticized the Bible a hundred
years ago; I've read a few of the critical books and many of the
points that they criticize about the Bible's accuracy have actually
been proven today).

I do expect that this recognition of the truth to not come during
their lifetime, however.

Collis

Bob, (Re .15)

Thank for your response. Because of the amount of things I'm doing, it is
taking me awhile to answer you. Please be patient.

You mentioned Gould's theory of punctuated equilibrium as a possible way for
new species to evolve. Some evolutionists tend towards micro-mutations, others
towards many macro-mutations happening in a very short time. 

Both of these views are dependant upon a 'way' or 'mechanism' by which these
changes in the chromosomes are to take place. This 'mechanism' doesn't exist,
not in nature and not in the library. Without purposeful intelligence, 
the required extensive modification of the genes CANNOT happen. As I mentioned
in my last reply, as well as in the paper I wrote, radiation is no more than
a pistol shooting bullets into highly complex coding. Drugs are no more than
disolving highly complex coding. 

There is no doubt in the scientific world that the coding in chromosomes is 
highly complex, exceeding by far the most complicated programs which man has 
ever written. Who would ever think that random 'deletes' would eventally
improve a very complex computer program? Yet the WHOLE THEORY OF EVOLUTION
is TOTALLY dependant that species in nature were effected by radiation or
drugs working on the highly complex chromosomes and thereby changing them.

You mentioned:

> intermediate species and extensive research shows that these intermediate
> species don't exist, it doesn't necessarily mean that evolution doesn't
> happen.  It could just mean that evolution doesn't happen the way that we
> thought it did.

Anything which would be considered 'evolution', without the intermediate steps,
is not 'evolution'. This is what the word means. If the intermediate species
don't exist and there is no fossil evidence that they once did exist, then
evolution couldn't have taken place. If the intermediate species are missing,
(and they most certainly are!) wh should get rid of the theory of 'evolution'.

>>2. There is no mechanism in nature by which new species can occur. 
> According to some notes in the MR4SRV::BIOLOGY conference (e.g. 35.38,
> 35.45, 35.122) speciation has been observed in the laboratory.  So who
> should I believe?

I read the notes. The notes mainly mentioned crosses, such as
between cabbage and carrots, which can only be successfully done in 
laboratories. The new 'species' can no longer be interbred with cabbage or
carrots. I do not wish here to say that a new species 'cannot develope'.
As in many convincing lies, there is an element of truth in the theory of
evolution. The 'truth' of the evolution theory is just what Darwin observed,
intermediate 'species'. Are they not, however, the result of selection of
existing genes, and not 'mutations' as radiation would cause? And if so, the
question of where the original genes came from is from evolution unanswered,
and the mechanism by which new genes are 'made' unknown.

The German zoologist, Bernhard Rensch, has a long list of leading authorities,
all having the view that macroevolution cannot be explained in terms of 
microevolutionary processes, or any other currently known mechanisms. 
(Evolution above the Species Level', Columbia Univ.Press,NY,p.57)
These dissenters cannot be dismissed as creationists, for among them are some of
the best biologists! This is also acknowledged by E.Mayr:

 'The nature and cause of transpecific evolution has been a highly 
  controversial subject during the first half of this century. The proponents
  of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation
  of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that 
  transpecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification
  of the events that taken place... A well-informed minority, however,
  including such outstanding authorities as he geneticist Goldschmidt, the
  paleontologist Schindewolf, and the zoologists Jeannel, cuenot, and Cannon...,
  These authors contended that the origin of new 'types' and of new organs
  could not be explained by the known facts of genetics and systematics.  

I know of Mules, Kiwi, Sheep-goat, German Shepherds, Poodles, etc. Can you not 
see the difference between selection of coding which already exists and 
creation of new coding? The theory of evolution is TOTALLY dependant on new 
coding occuring through such primitive means as radiation or drugs. All that 
the laboratories have accomplished is the destruction or mixing of already 
existing code. Look at all the types of dogs, sheep, cows, etc. The selection 
of genes is something totally different than believing that radiation 
accidents are responsible for all the species now living. The 'selection'
type of evolution, believed so strongly by Darwin, has been discarded by 
today's evolutionists. There are limits to the variations of species, dependant
on the coding within the chromosomes. But there IS NO MECHANISM which can
be given credit to changes outside of these limits.

> Couldn't there be some kind of precursor to life that was far less complex
> than a complete cell?  Then more complex precursors might have a
> competitive advantage over simple precursors, so that eventually the
> simplest precursors evolved into single celled organisms.  There wouldn't
> have to be a complete cell formed at random from its constituent molecules;
> that would indeed be amazing.

This is a step into theory, pure imagination. Have you ever really 
tried to imagine how a simple living organism could 'accidentally appear'?
I have, with a result that each line of thought goes even further into the
unimaginable. I worked before with 'Gewebekulturen', cell food. The vitamins
and amino acids are all there, everything by which cells can reproduce. But
there were no 'strange reactions' as long as all life forms were filtered
out of them, nobody would even imagine such an event happening. It would be
equivalent to putting a flower pot on a keyboard and believing it was 
responsible for writing the VMS operating system. (continued next reply)

Rodger
    

Bob(continuation)

As I mentioned earlier, how the individual parts of the cell begin to
'function' is even much more impossible to imagine. And what about their
environment, totally filled with complex amino acids and vitamins, although
no other live exists? And the warmth from the sun? etc...

How far science has come from the earlier foundation that many scientists had
that nothing was to be believed until it had been proven! Today it is totally
infected with the wildest of theories.

> I would think that any research in this area would be highly speculative
> though.  It's hard to observe in the laboratory a process that took
> millions of years in nature.

The 'millions of years' in nature is also imaginary, postulated to grant
evolution a chance and to overlook how impossible its claims are.

Nature has a great disadvantage from the laboratory. People in laboratories
know where the chromosomes are and can try to change them. Radiation in nature
doesn't 'know' this. For species in nature to have a change in the
chromosomes, not only would radiation have to occur, but it would have to
occur on the sperm or egg just before fertilization. And it wouldn't be enough
for just a little change, but a huge amount of changes, all happening
simultaneously. 

Yet even Ernst Mayr says that mutations are the 'ultimate
source of genetic novelties'. And they would have to be positive changes. The
list could go on and on. A year in the laboratory with purposeful intelligence
is worth more than a billion years of nature, just as a typest typing the
works of Shakespear is worth a billion years of a billion monkeys typing a
billion characters a second. (The amount of wasted paper from the monkeys
is what we would expect to see in nature of 'partially-developed' species)
These partially-developed species do not exist and are not found in the
fossil record. If we had found 1% or even 0.1% there may be a question.
But there are NONE.

After researching the 5 major fossil museums:

 'None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a
  transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the
  transformation of one basically different type to another'
(Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems.p.88)

And,
The 'millions of years' in nature is also imaginary, postulated to grant
evolution a chance and to overlook how impossible its claims are.

Nature has a great disadvantage from the laboratory. People in laboratories
know where the chromosomes are and can try to change them. Radiation in nature
doesn't 'know' this. For species in nature to have a change in the
chromosomes, not only would radiation have to occur, but it would have to
occur on the sperm or egg just before fertilization. And it wouldn't be enough
for just a little change, but a huge amount of changes, all happening
simultaneously. Yet even Ernst Mayr says that mutations are the 'ultimate
source of genetic novelties'. And they would have to be positive changes. The
list could go on and on.

A year in the laboratory with purposeful intelligence is worth more than a
billion years of nature, just as a typest typing the works of Shakespear is
worth a billion years of a billion monkeys typing a billion characters a
second. (The amount of wasted paper from the monkeys is what we would expect
to see in nature of 'partially-developed' species) These partially-developed
species do not exist and are not found in the fossil record. If we had found
1% or even 0.1% there may be a question. But there are NONE.

After researching the 5 major fossil museums:

 'None of the five museum officials could offer a single example of a
  transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the
  transformation of one basically different type to another'
(Luther Sunderland, Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems.p.88)

And,

 'As is now well known, most fossil species appear instantaneously in the
  fossil record'.

 'In reality, fossils are a great embarrassment to the Evolutionary theory
  and offer strong support for the concept of Creation. If Evolution were
  true, we should find literally millions of fossils that show how one kind
  of life slowly and gradually changed into another kind of life... As a matter
  of fact, there are gaps between each of the major kinds of plants and
  animals. Transition forms are missing by the millions.

 'Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology
  does not provide them'

 'The curious thing is that there IS a consistency about the fossil gaps; the
  fossils are missing in all the important places'
(References are in the Paper, see note .0)

I gave an imaginary example of what would have to have happened to some
creature having the beginning of a tusk and trunk to evolve into the elephant
of today using postulates extremely favorable to evolution, and even then
there would have to have been billions of intermediate elephants.

Macro-evolution is not much more than the stories of 'Alice in Wonderland',
a whale from a cow, a giraffe from a horse (Please read 'Neck of the Giraffe'
from Francis Hitching for more about this).

I have nothing against people telling stories like 'Alice in Wonderland',
but I am supprised at how people sometimes react when I tell them it is only
make-believe.

Rodger

Bob,

> There certainly is a difference from a man's point of view, and it's humans
> who invented morality.  Isn't it natural that we'd want to protect our own
>species?

The theory of evolution has one perspective of man, God has another.

I explained to you how man is seen by the theory of evolution, basically an
animal, just like the ones we eat, only a bit more bright.

Let me contrast this to God's perspective of Man. The MAJOR perspective God
has of man is someone he loves, and who he wishes also to love him. All the
stars of the universe cannot be compared to a single person. All the wealth
and animals of the earth cannot be compared to a single person. God loves man
so much, that he made the greatest sacrifice possible, in heaven or on earth,
that this man may come free from the deception and sin which, just as a 
sickness, destroys him. His son Jesus Christ was sent, the best heaven had
to offer. There was no 'more precious' price God could pay than his Son.

Because God loves each of us so much, not wishing that any should perish,
he COMMANDS us to love one another. He wants us to see how valuable our
friends and collegues, etc. are from His perspective, and that we would
love one another. True love is God's wish for us, that we would partake in
his very nature, with longsuffering, bearing all things, believing all things,
hoping all things, enduring all things for and from one-another. 

Evolution robs people of any reason whatsoever for 'true love' for one-another.

There are many other differences between how an evolutionist views a person
and how God views a person. For the evolutionist, man is devalued to an
animal, to God, we are placed along side his Son, his future wife, far above
all angels and any other created being or thing. For an evolutionist, we might
be compared to a dime, for God, a person is more valuable than all the
diamonds which ever existed.

Rodger
    

re Note 850.29 by GYMAC::RDUSATKO:

> Who would ever think that random 'deletes' would eventally
> improve a very complex computer program? 

        Are you at all familiar with neural networks and
        connectionist learning techniques?

        Random changes CAN help the "improvement" process.

        Bob

Rodger,

>Both of these views are dependant upon a 'way' or 'mechanism' by which these
>changes in the chromosomes are to take place. This 'mechanism' doesn't exist,
>not in nature and not in the library.

I don't know enough about biology to be able to respond to this assertion.
I'd be interested in hearing how someone like Gould would reply - too bad
he isn't a member of this conference!

>Anything which would be considered 'evolution', without the intermediate steps,
>is not 'evolution'. This is what the word means. If the intermediate species
>don't exist and there is no fossil evidence that they once did exist, then
>evolution couldn't have taken place. If the intermediate species are missing,
>(and they most certainly are!) wh should get rid of the theory of 'evolution'.

If the intermediary species only existed for a comparatively short time they
might not have left any fossils.  There's no guarantee that we have fossils
for every species that ever existed.

>Let me contrast this to God's perspective of Man. The MAJOR perspective God
>has of man is someone he loves, and who he wishes also to love him. All the
>stars of the universe cannot be compared to a single person. All the wealth
>and animals of the earth cannot be compared to a single person.

I don't think this description fits the God of the Bible.  If God really
has such tremendous love for each individual person, how can you account
for passages such as this:

	The LORD said to Moses, "Avenge the people of Israel on the
	Midianites; afterward you shall be gathered to your people."  And
	Moses said to the people, "Arm men from among you for the war,
	that they may go against Midian, to execute the LORD's vengeance
	on Midian." ... They warred against Midian, as the LORD commanded
	Moses, and slew every male. ... And the people of Israel took
	captive the women of Midian and their little ones; and they took
	as booty all their cattle, their flocks, and all their goods. ...

	And Moses was angry with the officers of the army, the commanders
	of thousands, and the commanders of hundreds, who had come from
	service in the war.  Moses said to them, "Have you let all the
	women live?  Behold, these caused the people of Israel, by the
	counsel of Balaam, to act treacherously against the LORD in the
	matter of Peor, and so the plague came among the congregation of
	the LORD.  Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones,
	and kill every woman who has known man by lying with him.  But all
	the young girls who have not known man by lying with him, keep
	alive for yourselves."
					Numbers 31:1-3,7,9,14-18

Did God really love each Midianite male child as much as all the stars in
the universe?

>Evolution robs people of any reason whatsoever for 'true love' for one-another.

What do you mean by "true love"?

				-- Bob

See also topic 564.

Cheers,

Jim

re: Note 850.29 by Rodger

>Both of these views are dependant upon a 'way' or 'mechanism' by which these
>changes in the chromosomes are to take place. This 'mechanism' doesn't exist,
>not in nature and not in the library. 

That's quite a charge.  Perhaps an honest exhaustive search through all 
libraries is possible.  But an exhaustive search through all of nature?
I don't think so.  So what other proof (other than opinion) is offered?

Also, please understand the difference between hypothesis, theory, and law as 
used in the scientific community.              ~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~      ~~~

Cheers,

Jim

    I am surprised that anyone can believe that mutations do not happen.
    The mechanisms of mutation are fairly well understood, as I'm sure
    any reasonable introductory genetics or biology text (or possibly even an
    encyclopedia) could describe.  (Furthermore, the classification of
    a mutation as 'good' or 'bad' is often highly context-sensitive.)
    
    How does Rodger explain the rise of pesticide-resistant pests, and
    antibiotic-resistant diseases?  Why are there new strains of influenza
    *every* *year*?
    
    Mark
    
    What follows are some documented instances of mutation.  The first is
    also an instance of speciation (where the offspring are not interfertile
    with the parent species).
    
    1. Evening primrose
    While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera
    lamarckiana, de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants.
    O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 14.  The variant had a
    chromosome number of 28.  These variants could not be bred with
    O. lamarckiana.  The new species was named O. gigas.
    
    Reference: de Vries, H. 1905 Species and varieties, their origin by
      mutation
    
    [Note that there is an *increase* in the size of the DNA.  This is
    not deleting information, this is adding it.  Chromosome doubling
    among plants is a not-uncommon occurrence, as mutations go. --MT]
    
    2. Streptomycin resistance
    Lederberg did an experiment in which he grew thousands of genetically
    identical bacteria from a single bacterium that was unable to survive
    in the presence of streptomycin.  These colonies were divided, and
    half were grown in the presence of streptomycin, and half without.
    Some colonies survived the streptomycin exposure.  The "sister" halves
    of the resistant colonies also proved to be resistant to streptomycin,
    even though they had no exposure.
    
    Reference: J. Lederberg and E.M. Lederberg, _J. Bacteriology_ 63:399
               (1952)
    
    [Where did the drug-resistance come from, if not by mutation? --MT]
    
    3. Increased enzyme production
    Hansche observed a mutation in yeast that doubled the gene that codes
    for monophosphatase, enabling the mutant to obtain more organic
    phosphate from its environment -- and advantage over nonmutant yeast.
    
    Reference: P.E. Hansche, _Genetics_ 79:661 (1975)

Bob,
Thanks for your responses. I am glad for your persistance! There are 2 
totally different themes we are handling, both of which are very relevant
to us all.
First of all, I would like to mention something about God's perspective and
the evolution perspective.

Before I met Jesus directly, I had also a VERY negative picture of God. First,
I thought it naive to even believe in God, since 'science had proven 
evolution true'. Second, the greatest contradiction which existed was
how a God of love would cast people into hell for eternity simply because
they did not want to know him. And all types of other 'contradictions'
were there, all of which put God in a terrible light. When directly confronted
with Jesus I was just thinking of some of these negative points. 

But when I met him directly, I saw he was so different than I had imagined,
and I saw that it was ME who had the problem. I had something in me that was
so strong against him, despising him, making him look as a lie. This within
me was confronted. When he asked if I could believe, I really didn't know
whether it was even possible, I was inwardly so strong against him.

But I answered, 'I don't know if I can believe. But if you are the truth, I 
want to believe'. This simple answer opened the direct door to Jesus himself.
From then on it is not only a belief, but a close friendship. I chose after
just a few days of experiencing only a few morsels of God's fullness, that
the rest of my life I would live with one purpose, knowing him. My 'carreer'
became that which he showed me of my future. 
    I don't know if you can understand me, but imagine that a friend of yours
became the president of the United States(something similiar to this happened
to me), for example Ronald Reagan. Now if you didn't know him personally and
were with people who were continually saying terrible things about him, you
would probably eventually start thinking and saying the same things about 
him. But if you knew him personally, and he was one of the most faithful
friends you had ever had, you would be able to resist believing all of the
lies. If some seemed very convincing, you would go directly to him and talk
to him about it. Maybe sometimes they were pure lies, maybe sometimes they 
were a slanting of the truth, and maybe sometimes they were the truth. But
since you know him closely, your questioning of his basic character would
be stopped. And if he did make mistakes, you would have understanding for him.
    This is EXACTLY how it is with God. When you do not know him directly, there
is SO MUCH speaking against him. His name is a curse word. Some say he doesn't
exist, some say he is worse than Hitler, some make him out to be whatever they
wish. But once you REALLY know him, you found out that the greatest examples
of love shown by man are nothing in comparison to his love, patience, 
longsuffering, etc. His love towards us becomes our greatest example of how
we can love him and love one another. There is no other trait of God which
compares to his love. After I had lived a whole life strongly opposing him,
there was not the least amount of resentment.
    You gave an example from Midian. I think this is a very good example and am
amazed you chose it. 
    Sin is the most deadly 'sickness' on the face of the earth. Through centuries
of time God had brought a 'people' to himself, protecting them as best he
could, teaching them how to resist sin. He had given them the ten commandments
as well as many other laws which, if they would abide by them, they could
keep this sickness from making them corrupt, just as it had already corrupted
the whole earth. Through a prophet a king, knowing that they would most likely
not succeed to kill all the Israelites, was making plans how this might be
done in another way. The way became clear, to bring sin, fornication
and adultry, directly into their camp. The women were charged to try to seduce
as many as possible. On that day many fell from Israel. A plague broke out
against the people. In the middle of the congregation one of the israelites
brought a Midianitish woman to him. Phineas thrust them through. Twenty-four
thousand men were killed that very day.
    Because of how much God loves men, he is very strong against sin, which
corrupts and destroys man. The whole of Moab had gone so far into sin, 
that it was 'unsalvageable', just as a terribly destroyed part of a body
from cancer is 'unsalvageable'. If God hadn't intervened, they would have
affected Israel just as a malignant cancer tumor. For that reason, God
had commanded them to utterly destroy these peoples. At this time in history,
the channel of salvation to the heathen had not yet been opened, God's hands
were 'tied' in turning them from their sins. Israel, his chosen people, 
had as their main purpose the opening of this channel, which happened about
1300 years later. 

There is a war happening right now. Since Satan cannot take a knife and 
rip God apart, he does it in another way. He takes that which is most precious
to God, people, and perverts, corrupts them so much, that in some instances
God himself must intervene and judge the people, often with famine, drought,
war, and, as some examples, such as Sodom and sometimes even his own people 
Israel, God has directly intervened and killed. 

What many don't realize is that people are 'destroyed' even before they
physically die. God sees eternity and the hearts of men. When certain
things happen in the heart of man, he becomes corrupt and forces God to
judge him as 'unworthy' of living forever in a love relationship with him.
Describing the beauty of heaven would be meaningless when the corruption of
this world were to enter it. As the scriptures again and again say, in many
ways, 'without holiness nobody will see God', 'And there shall in no wise
enter into it any thing that defiles or works abomination, or lies...',
'a new Heaven and a new earth, wherin dwells righteousness'.

The bride of Christ will be without spot or wrinkle, fully in love with Jesus.
Heaven was made for those who love him. Now the channel has been opened to all
nations through his Son, and God commands all men everywhere to repent. If 
people do not heed his commandment, they will pay an eternal price for it. But
by him speaking it, everyone have the 'way to life' being offered to them from
God himself.

Rodger

    

Bob, Re.33
The 'mechanism' which doesn't exist was between 1910 and 1920 
'radiation'. Scientists had great hope that this was the answer of how
all the new species evolved. With great vigor the whole scientific world
placed their attention on this research. Countless fruit-fly experiments,
plant experiments, etc. were done. They ALL failed. Many gave up within
the first years, some lasted as long as 40 years. Two of the most known
men who tried the hardest (over 40 years), were Nilsson and Morgan.

They both CLEARLY state this failure. They didn't have partial success, they
had NO success.

'My attempts to demonstrate evolution by an experiment carried on for more than
40 years have completely failed. At least, I should hardly be accused of having
started from a preconceived anti-Evolutionary standpoint'(see Paper for quote)

'No matter how numerous they may be, mutations do not produce any kind of 
evolutin' (Dr. Pierre-Paul Grosse, in paper)

Morgan stated it even stronger, saying that mutations cannot be the mechanism
by which species originate. (The exact quote I have at home). 

There were some very interesting scientific discoveries, however! Any changes
which are caused by radiation or drugs DISAPPEAR quickly. Morgan made pictures
of all of the deformed flies he was able to produce. But these traits faded
very quickly away! And he himself admitted none were even close to a new
species. Should we not regard ALL of the testimonies of those who tried?
Should we not regard that which they did discover? How could nature ever come
close to reaching the results of all of these scientists, directly focusing
their tests in a way where they would cause mutations? Where does the level
of radiation in our atmosphere anywhere compare to the bombarding they have
done?

Before 1910, most evolutionists were convinced that species could vary
without any limits. Through much research, however, through many biologists,
including Mendel, this was shown as incorrect. The whole scientific community
had to then adjust the theory of evolution. The 'evolution' would have to
add 'genetic coding' to simpler life forms. There were 2 'acceptable' ways 
found, radiation and drugs. 

The only examples of new species, as I said before, are those having to do
with selection of genes, Kiwi, sheep-goat, carrot-cabbage, mules, etc. 
There has been extensive work with genetic transplants in laboratories, trying
to speed up what would normally take longer through cross-breeding. But the
scientific world gave up this 'possibility for evolution' in the beginning of 
this century. What scientists today really think that some dog types may one
day become cats by breeding alone? 

So we are back to where the scientists were in 1910. Radiation DOES NOT 
create new species. Do we need again to return to that which had been discarded
almost 80 years ago? Today, with much more accumulated data, biologists would
consider this nonsense. The limits ARE real and do not produce new species.

The hope has diminished so much that I don't know of a single on-going 
radiation experiment today such as Morgan had done.

> If the intermediary species only existed for a comparatively short time they
> might not have left any fossils.  There's no guarantee that we have fossils
> for every species that ever existed.

In my paper I mentioned the example of an elephant. To say that 2 horse-like
animals had 2 baby elephants is really unrealistic. There is no other animal
having both ivory tusks and a long trunk. Let's hypothesize only 10 
'intermediate steps' were needed between some animal where we have the fossils 
having no trunk and no tusks and an elephant. Let's hypothesize that new 
species do happen for every 1.000 births, with a chance of 1 in 10 in being
one of these intermediate elephant-type creatures. Every hypothesis is so
FAVORABLY given, each just as unbelievable as Alice in Wonderland stories,
but there would have been 10 billion elephant-like species with so many
elephants that the whole earth could hardly contain them all, let alone feed
them! And the fossil record has NO evidence.

If someone who believes in evolution would just try to think of what he really
believes applied to the practical world the answer would be as clear as 
chrystal!

Everywhere I have 'AIW', it means a miracle of the magnitude as described in
Alice in Wonderland.

A single cell came together(AIW) and all of its parts started to function(AIW)
and the enzymes started translating the chromosomes(AIW) and it started to
reproduce(AIW). All of the environment supplied all the amino acids and
vitamins it needed(AIW) with the water just the right temperature(AIW).
Over the centuries a 2 celled species started(AIW), then a 3 celled(AIW),
then a 4 celled(AIW), ... then organisms with different types of cells
started(AIW). After a million AIW's huge organisms even visible to the naked
eye could be seen with very complex traits such as pollination, photo-synthesis,
having millions of cells all functioning together. 
    I could go on, but the gaps get so huge that it becomes more and more 
unreasonable. Make an attempt if you think I am wrong! 
    Not a single AIW has ever been seen or produced! 
In an earlier note someone said that the genes of a monkey are similiar to
those of a person. The only thing similiar I can think of is that a monkey
has 48 chromosomes and a man 46. It would be like comparing UNIX with
VMS. Maybe some UNIX operating systems have 48 MGBYTE and VMS 46, but
VMS is not the result of 'accidental deletes' from the UNIX operating system!

Where are the 'new species' which science has produced over the last 80
years of experiments? I don't mean the 'breeding' method, which has clear
limits, but those which show 'new genetic coding'?

Rodger
    

Jim,
Thanks for your note and taking the time to respond! We are back to the
'mechanism' for new coding. 
> That's quite a charge.  Perhaps an honest exhaustive search through all
> libraries is possible.  But an exhaustive search through all of nature?
> I don't think so.  So what other proof (other than opinion) is offered?
True, I have not read EVERY book in the libraries, and all of nature I have 
not checked. 
   But for 80 years this is exactly what the scientific community has attempted!
And completely failed! It is not the christians who need to search all of 
nature trying to prove this 'mechanism' doesn't exist. We don't believe it
exists in the first place, why would we waste our time? It is those who make 
claims that new, more advanced species DO evolve who need to find this 
mechanism, otherwise they have no proof other than their opinions.

It is the search for the 'mechanism' which would cause new species, i.e. 
new coding integrated into the existing genes. If anyone has tried, you must
give the scientific community credit. I would faint at the amount of money
they have poured into their attempts. 

Mistakes in the chromosomes have been estimated and a general consenses has 
been arrived at. (The amount I have read but do not have in my head).
This amount is so small that there MUST be some 'external mechanism'. The
degree of accuracy is EXTREMELY high in reproduction of the DNA! Just the
very existance of such exact 'machinery' in reproducing in a matter of
minutes whole 'libraries' of genetic code is unfathomable. A very simple
comparison would be that in the human body the 46 chromosomes having more 
coding than the VMS operating system has 60 billion copies(1 for each 
reproduceable cell), and in all of these copies most likely not a single 
mistake!

According to Genetics experts Radman and Wagner,
'The set of genetic instructions for humans is roughly 3 billion letters long.'
(The High Fidelity of DNA Duplication' Scientific American, Vol.259,No.2,P.40)

So what would the 'mechanism' be to account for an evolving into 'higher
life forms'? It would have to be massive changes. If 3 billion letters are
to be changed to produce some other micro-mutation ONLY 0,001 percent different
that the original one, then 30,000 changes would have to be integrated into
the existing program simultaneously(AIW). Macro-mutations would require 
such great changes throughout the complete DNA coding that it is not even 
worth mentioning. 

Jim,

Even in theory it is hard to imagine a 'mechanism' which could cause such
integrated additions to the existing coding. Scientific experiments in this
realm are useless, since the existing gene makeup would have to be understood
first and an understanding of the genetic instructions also. New genes would
have to be 'creatable'. All science has ever been able to do is tamper with
those genes which already exist. There are no scientists talking of working
'methods' of writing 'functioning genetic code'. 

> Also, please understand the difference between hypothesis, theory, and law as
> used in the scientific community.              ~~~~~~~~~~  ~~~~~~      ~~~

The theory of Evolution is built on many hypothesis, all of which contradict
the laws observed in nature by the scientific community. Please correct me
with some examples if I am wrong.
1.
The theory of Evolution is built using the hypothesis that life formed from
non-living substances.
2.
The theory of Evolution is built using the hypothesis that non-living matter 
started to function and reproduce.
3.
The theory of Evolution is built using the hypothesis that a 'mechanism' exists
which integrates new genetic coding into simpler existing coding, thereby
accounting for the 'evolving of new species', simple 1-chromosome genetic code
evolving into unfathonably complex genetic coding such as in the 46 chromosomes
of man.
4.
The theory of Evolution in built using the hypothesis that all the existing
life forms evolved from a single-celled life form with intermediate steps
from one species to another. 

Hypothesis 1 is spoken by even the most convinced evolutionists as 
'inconcievable', not to mention the micro-biologists and biologists.
Hypothesis 2 is not even fathomable.
Hypothesis 3 has claimed the existance of a 'mechanism' which has not been
discovered after 80 years of intensive searching.
Hypothesis 4 is contradicted by everyone who lives on the planet earth each 
time they see the great gaps between living life forms and confirmed by 
palentologists after over a hundred years of collected fossils.

In an article 'Missing Believed Non-existant'(The Guardian Weekly,Vol 119,22,p1)
'If life had evolved into its wondrous profusion of creatures little by little,
Dr. Eldridge argues, then one would expect to find fossils of transitional
creatures which were a bit like what went before them and a bit like what
came after. But no one has yet found any evidence of such transitional
creatures. This oddity has been attributed to gaps in the fossil record which
gradualists expected to fill when rock strata of the proper age had been found.
In the last decade, however, geologists have found rock layers of all divisions
of the last 500 million years and no transitional forms were contained in them.
   According to Evolutionist Michael Denton,
'The punctuational model of Eldridge and Could has been widely publicized but,
ironically, while the theory was developed specifically to account for the 
absence of transitional varieties between species, its major effect seems to
have been to draw widespread attention to the gaps in the fossil record.'
(Evolution, A theory in Crisis, p.194)
Rodger
    

Mark, Re.36
I thank you for your comment and the time you take to consider the things I
have said so carefully.

>   How does Rodger explain the rise of pesticide-resistant pests, and
>   antibiotic-resistant diseases?  Why are there new strains of influenza
>   *every* *year*?

I guess it is best to talk with 'Rodger himself'. 

As I have been talking about in many of my notes, there is a difference
between 'breeding' and 'new coding'. The 'breeding' has limits which cannot
explain how a simple 1 chromosome cell having only thousands of links of 
nucleotides could ever 'evolve' to billions of nucleotides, as in the 
chromosomes of man. This was discarded in the beginning of this century.
At that time they thought the additional coding might be accounted to
'accidents' in the chromosomes, thus 'creating new genes'.

You have simply taken an example of 'breeding'. Is there 'additional
chromosomal material' accounting for additional functionality? Or is it
that with millions of insects those which have greater resistance to the
poison live and breed with each other? This is no different than the
'moths of London' observances, but shows nothing concerning additional
genetic coding in the chromosomes!

If you wish to make this example a 'claim' to the support of evolution, you
will have problems with all of the best biologists since Mendel.

>    I am surprised that anyone can believe that mutations do not happen.
>    The mechanisms of mutation are fairly well understood, as I'm sure
>    any reasonable introductory genetics or biology text (or possibly even an
>    encyclopedia) could describe.  (Furthermore, the classification of

Mutations must be divided into groups. Your first example is not a genuine
mutation, leading to a new species, just as a poodle is not a mutation from a 
dog. 

Some mutations are mal-functions which happen in cell-reproduction. People
have been known to have been born twins with their bodies still joined. Cows
have been seen with a deformed 5th leg. But this is not the type of evolution
which could produce a new species.

Another mutation type is done by 'crossing'. This is being researched
extensively presently, simply because no real 'mechanism' exists. This is
no more than extended breeding, and in no way accounts for additional
genetic coding and intricated functionality. In a few cases, even new
species have been produced, where breeding with the parent is no longer
possible. But please try to see the difference, these are not 'documented 
examples' showing how some mechanism has increased the 'genetic coding'.

>    1. Evening primrose
>    While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera
>    lamarckiana, de Vries found an unusual variant among his plants.
>    O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 14.  The variant had a
>    chromosome number of 28.  These variants could not be bred with
>    O. lamarckiana.  The new species was named O. gigas.

This type of change in chromosomes was talked about on page 17 of the paper
I wrote. If you wish, please read it. 

Again, the mutation type is an 'adding' of coding which already exists. Viruses
do the same. But additional coding is not 'integrated' into the existing 
coding, which would have to happen if you wish to explain how an ape with
48 chromosomes would evolve to a man with 46 chromosomes. Not only would the
extra 2 chromosomes have to 'dissolve into' the existing 46 chromosomes, but
massive changes would have to be made throughout them all. I have heard that
the organs of a monkey are very different to a man, the organs of a pig are
much closer! Think of the massive chromosomal differences!

>    2. Streptomycin resistance
>    Lederberg did an experiment in which he grew thousands of genetically
>    identical bacteria from a single bacterium that was unable to survive
>    in the presence of streptomycin.  These colonies were divided, and

Again, just breeding!

>    3. Increased enzyme production
>    Hansche observed a mutation in yeast that doubled the gene that codes
>    for monophosphatase, enabling the mutant to obtain more organic
>    phosphate from its environment -- and advantage over nonmutant yeast.

And again duplication of code. 

Mark,

Please try to find an example of new species coming from not just breeding,
but additional genetic coding (please see pages 15 to 17 of the paper I wrote).
And once this has been determined, we can examine the mechanism which 
integrated this new coding into that which already exists. Are there some new
species through radiation or drugs, where the actual chromosomes were changed
and additional genetic coding was integrated into that which already existed?
There are myriads of experiments that were made, what were the results?

Under the topics 'Some simple analogies' and 'Are these crude tools really
adequate' I speak a lot more about 'deletions' and 'additions'. There are
also many references I can give you about the subject if you are interested.
Some are mentioned in the paper itself.
Rodger
    

>I guess it is best to talk with 'Rodger himself'. 
    Apologies -- in previous debates of this nature I've found my
    contributions to sometimes be ignored.  Since you seemed to ignore my
    first reply, I wasn't sure you were paying me heed.
    
    To take a snippet from .39 out of order:
>The theory of Evolution is built on many hypothesis, all of which contradict
>the laws observed in nature by the scientific community. Please correct me
>with some examples if I am wrong.
    If 'all' these hypotheses are contradicted by observations, you should
    have no problem identifying (1) several hypotheses and (2) the
    observations (preferrably in refereed literature, but I'll accept
    less) that contradict them.
    
    I have given citations in support of evolution.  Neither here,
    nor in your paper, have you described an observation that violated
    evolution.  (You have asserted that some things don't exist.  I have
    provided examples of some of these things.)
    
>The theory of Evolution is built using the hypothesis that life formed from
>non-living substances.
    To be technical, no.  If the first cell was made by Divine Fiat,
    evolution would still be valid.  Arguing about abiogenesis (life
    from non-life) is a different proposition than arguing about evolution
    (descent with modification).
    
>evolving into unfathonably complex genetic coding such as in the 46 chromosomes
>of man.
    It may be unfathomable to you, but it is not so to many others,
    including, I might add, a large number of Christians (e.g. most of the
    Roman Catholic church).
    
    Back to .40:
>As I have been talking about in many of my notes, there is a difference
>between 'breeding' and 'new coding'. The 'breeding' has limits which cannot
    How is the doubling of a chromosome count NOT 'new coding'?  (That
    the second set of chromosomes is identical to the first does not
    matter, since the genetic material may well be used differently, due
    to the fact that its position is different than the original's.)
    How is the change of the sequence AACCGGTT to AAACGGTT by means of a
    copy error not 'new coding'?  (Do you maintain such a change is
    impossible?)
    
>between 'breeding' and 'new coding'. The 'breeding' has limits which cannot
>explain how a simple 1 chromosome cell having only thousands of links of 
>nucleotides could ever 'evolve' to billions of nucleotides, as in the
>chromosomes of man. This was discarded in the beginning of this century.
    Please describe the mechanism that limits 'breeding.'
    
>If you wish to make this example a 'claim' to the support of evolution, you
>will have problems with all of the best biologists since Mendel.
    What do the 'best biologists since Mendel' have to do with anything?
    Most of your quotations are argument from authority.  If you are
    arguing against a position of science, you will need observations and
    evidence.
    
>possible. But please try to see the difference, these are not 'documented 
>examples' showing how some mechanism has increased the 'genetic coding'.
    Please define (operationally, in terms of the DNA) what it means to
    'increase the genetic coding.'
    
>This type of change in chromosomes was talked about on page 17 of the paper
>I wrote. If you wish, please read it. 
    
    From your paper (page 9, I think -- there are no page numbers):
>>Mutations which are sudden and random alterations in the DNA [...]
    
    Chromosome doubling is a 'sudden and random alteration in the DNA',
    says I. (Well it might not quite be *random*, but it *is* an
    alteration.)  By your own definition, this is a mutation.
    
    Furthermore, the coding that is added, while chemically a duplicate, is
    not necessarily used the same way.  (If you need to understand why this
    happens, I refer you to a book on genetics.)  This is why it is "new
    information."
    
>>    2. Streptomycin resistance
>>    Lederberg did an experiment in which he grew thousands of genetically
>>    identical bacteria from a single bacterium that was unable to survive
>>    in the presence of streptomycin.  These colonies were divided, and

>Again, just breeding!
    By 'breeding' I assume you mean artificial selection (as in man
    selecting traits in plants and animals, and propogating the
    combinations s/he desires).  If this is not your definition, I
    ask you to provide yours.  Please indicate where a human is making
    a selection in the experiment described above. (Lest you misunderstand
    the bit about dividing colonies: all the individual colonies in the
    dish are divided in two.  The experimenter does not pick which
    colonies to operate on -- all are used.)  Also, please explain how
    the experimenter got genetic variation from a single, asexual
    (no opportunity for recombination) individual by 'breeding.'
    (To argue that the experimenter picked the individual misses the point:
    he specifically picked the individual for a characteristic it lacked --
    resistance to drugs -- and performed an experiment that produced that
    characteristic.)
    
>There are myriads of experiments that were made, what were the results?
    I suppose you've never been in a major university's library?  Or
    read any peer-reviewed journals in fields related to evolution?
    That is where your results are.
    
>Under the topics 'Some simple analogies' and 'Are these crude tools really
>adequate' I speak a lot more about 'deletions' and 'additions'. There are
    'These crude tools' are the mechanisms by which man may influence the
    rate of mutation.  This says nothing about the actual cellular
    chemical processes that duplicate DNA, and what kind of errors may
    occur in those processes.
    
    Rodger, if you know as much as you claim to know about evolution,
    you'll have no problem citing three independent lines of evidence that
    evolutionary scientists claim in support of evolution.  There are
    actually five, but I don't believe you can name three.  (Yes, this
    is a test.)
    
    Mark

Re: .37 Rodger

>When directly confronted
>with Jesus I was just thinking of some of these negative points. 
>
>But when I met him directly, I saw he was so different than I had imagined,
>and I saw that it was ME who had the problem. I had something in me that was
>so strong against him, despising him, making him look as a lie. This within
>me was confronted. When he asked if I could believe, I really didn't know
>whether it was even possible, I was inwardly so strong against him.

It sounds like you had a very intense experience.  It may or may not have
been an encounter with Jesus.  But it was *your* experience, not mine.  Who
knows, if I had an experience like that it might change my thinking, either
rightly or wrongly.  But I haven't had such an experience.

>But I answered, 'I don't know if I can believe. But if you are the truth, I 
>want to believe'. This simple answer opened the direct door to Jesus himself.

And yet, the contradictions still exist.  We still have a picture of a God
of love who ordered the ancient Israelites to kill children and who sends
people to hell simply because they don't believe in him.

>    I don't know if you can understand me, but imagine that a friend of yours
>became the president of the United States(something similiar to this happened
>to me), for example Ronald Reagan. Now if you didn't know him personally and
>were with people who were continually saying terrible things about him, you
>would probably eventually start thinking and saying the same things about 
>him. But if you knew him personally, and he was one of the most faithful
>friends you had ever had, you would be able to resist believing all of the
>lies.

You might also resist believing all of the truth.  If your friend the
president were on trial you'd be disqualified from serving on the jury
because you wouldn't be expected to be impartial.  For all I know, Jeffrey
Dahmer's friends (or at least some of them) might have thought he was a
great guy.

Your defense of the massacre of Midian is scary - that's the way religious
zealots think.  That's the way the Grand Inquisitors thought.  That's the
way the Islamic fundamentalists think.  Other people need to die in order
to protect religious purity.  I completely reject that way of thinking.

Re: .38 Rodger

>The 'mechanism' which doesn't exist was between 1910 and 1920 
>'radiation'. Scientists had great hope that this was the answer of how
>all the new species evolved. ... They both CLEARLY state this failure. They
>didn't have partial success, they had NO success.

OK, what does this tell us?  Either evolution operates in some other way
that we don't understand yet, or evolution doesn't happen.  If evolution
doesn't happen then we need some other explanation to account for the
existence of species.  The creation stories in Genesis are just one, or
should I say two, possibilities.  But I think it's more believable that
species evolved from simpler life forms by means of some mechanism that we
don't completely understand than that the world was created 5,000 years
ago, was completely covered by a flood, that all land-dwelling creatures
were saved by the flood in Noah's ark, etc.

>Let's hypothesize that new 
>species do happen for every 1.000 births, with a chance of 1 in 10 in being
>one of these intermediate elephant-type creatures. Every hypothesis is so
>FAVORABLY given, each just as unbelievable as Alice in Wonderland stories,
>but there would have been 10 billion elephant-like species with so many
>elephants that the whole earth could hardly contain them all, let alone feed
>them! And the fossil record has NO evidence.

But only a very few of these intermediate species would find an ecological
niche in which to survive; the rest would be unable to compete successfully
with the original species.  Once an intermediate species did find a niche
it might rapidly evolve into a species that filled that niche even better
than the first intermediate species.

				-- Bob

    I've been avoiding commenting on Rodger's elephant scenario before now.
    Here's a somewhat more realistic presentation of it.
    
    Let's say the evolution of the elephant (from some horse-like ancestor,
    I guess) took 1 million years.  Let's say an elephant reaches sexual
    maturity at 25.  (Modern elephants have life span in the 60-70 range,
    I think.)  This means there are 40,000 generations between the earliest
    ancestor and the modern elephant. (This is somewhat more than Rodger
    is proposing, although in this example, he appears to confuse
    individuals and species.)
    
    Assume that the first ancestor has no tusk (just an appropriate bony
    part inside its mouth) and a nose of negligible protrusion.  To get to
    a tusk of 20 inches and a trunk of 60 (Rodger's numbers) would involve
    an average change per generation of .0005 inch/tusk and .0015
    inch/trunk.
    
    Now, 1 million years is not a very long time, geologically (or even
    paleobiologically) speaking.  The actual transition between these
    forms probably took much longer.  If the early elephant ancestor was
    contemporaneous with the early horse ancestor (Hyracotherium), the
    elephant history would span about 55 million years, reducing the
    average change per generation to .000009 inch/tusk and .000027
    inch/trunk.  (Note that a change of this magnitude due to genetic
    changes is likely to be swamped by enviromental changes in any
    actual observation of individuals.)
    
    All of a sudden, Alice doesn't seem to be in Wonderland anymore.
    
    Mark
    (More on some of my assumptions, for those who care)
    
    Generation time = 25 years
      Elephants are amongst the longest-lived land-dwelling creatures.  It
      is unlikely that they were previously significantly longer lived.  If
      they were shorter lived, there were more generations, and the change
      per generation is even smaller.
    Lengths of ancestral tusk and nose
      The values (neglible size of either) clearly favor Rodger's
      hypothesis.  Any greater values would bend the numbers even further
      in my favor.
    Lengths of modern tusk and nose
      I have no idea if these numbers are correct; however, they are in
      synch with Rodger's original.
    Actual elephant phylogeny
      I do not know the actual fossil record relative to elephants.  I
      believe the assumption that elephants come from a stock similar to
      that of other large African wildlife, at a similar time, is not
      unreasonable.  Even so the numbers for a 1M timescale are not
      very Alice-in-Wonderland.
    

Bob,
Thank you for your response and persistence! You seem to be very similiar
to how I used to be. Your response is so similiar to how I would have responded.
   As I said before, it was really a contradiction which I saw, God on the one
hand being a God of love and on the other hand threatening those who would
not turn to him with eternal torment. Also exactly what you said, about
God killing whole peoples, infact the whole of mankind at the time of Noah,
because of their corruptness. Where you state that my defense of the
massacre of Midian is scary, I understand totally what you are saying. In
fact, it is exactly how I saw it too. Religious wars were for me a good
reason to discard religion as not 'neutral', but negative. I saw religion
as something man-made, trying to find hope and purpose where there really
was none. Just as Marx thought, that it was 'opium for the people', so I was
convinced. It really was the last thing I would want for my life. I saw
it like 'lies which people believe for various reasons'.
    I didn't see any possibiliy in anyone convincing me otherwise. When my friend
met Jesus and started telling me about him, I thought, 'How could someone so
intelligent as him be so naive as to believe it.' I tried to show him as
clearly as possible all of the contradictions.
    The change happened through the direct contact with Jesus. I never knew that
meeting God or Jesus would be such a life-changing experience. It was like
discovering the light swith after living my whole life in darkness. And his
presence and love cannot be compared with anything I have ever known since.
God is much too great that we can comprehend him with our very limited
brain, but he has created us in such a way that we can have an ever increasing
love relationship directly with him. Even after 20 years, it has only 
increased, and as it was at the beginning, so even much more today. Before I
even met him, I saw the reality of knowing God personally as something 
'unattainable', 'too good to be true'. Once I did meet him, there has never
again been anything which could be compared to him. I know him much better
than my wife, love him more (my wife also!). 
    After meeting him, the 'contradictions' quickly disappeared, since they were
shown untrue by the reality of the relationship with him. But I still didn't
understand or have answers for them. Now I do, but I know that they cannot be
understood by people who don't love God or really want to see his perspective.

Try to have 'understanding' for God. His creation, who he dearly loves, has
chosen not to love him but lives in selfishness, pride, lust, heard-hearted.
As God reached out to help those whom he loves, as with sending Jesus, as 
soon as he was born Herod tried his best to kill him, killing every baby boy
under 2 years old in a huge part of Israel. John, who had been sent to 
prepare his way, just barely succeeded in baptizing him and shortly thereafter
was put in prison and then beheaded. Jesus, shortly after being baptized by
John, went to his home synagogue and mentioned that the Lord had sent him. 
They were immediately full of anger and tried to kill him, throwing him over
the cliff. From this time on, attempts were made again and again to kill him.
The whole of the jewish rulership met again and again, thinking how they might
best kill him. As he healed on the Sabbath he was condemned to death. When
he rose Lazareth from death after 4 days of rotting, his death became the main
goal that they had. Once they did seize him, they ripped out his beard, 
slugged his face until it was distorted, they whipped open his back, they
put thorns on his head and beat them into his head with a rod. They accused
him of everything they could think of, they cursed him, they jested about him,
they shamed him.

When God sent Jesus into the world, he knew how he would be treated. He knows
the hearts of us all. He knows the deception the world is in. He sees how
corrupt man is. Jesus was sent to 'Gods own people', where Satan didn't have
full freedom, and still this happened. The apostles experienced the same, 
the early church was being so massacred, reports show at the worst times 
of the persecution about 5000 who loved Jesus were being killed per day.
God's perspective of the world is a lot different than we might have.
God testifies that the whole world lies in the power of the devil. So long
as God's light doesn't shine into the world, there is little persecution.
But once it starts shining, even the 'good people' are moved by Satan against
the light. He has much more influence in how people think than we might give
him credit. He is the 'accuser', the 'slanderer' and one of his main weapons
is bringing men to accuse or slander, especially when the light of God shines.
At the time of Jesus it was so bad, Jesus couldn't walk any more openly amongst
the Jews. The whole country had been charged that if anyone saw him they were
to report it to the Jewish leaders, that they would then be able to sieze him.
If anyone confessed him, or spoke positive of him, their position in the
comunity was in danger and they were viewed as outcasts.

This 'God hating' trait is produced by sin. Sin makes eternity in
a love realtion with God an impossibility. And for this very purpose Jesus was
sent into this world, to save sinners, to transform them into saints, which
was God's true purpose for creating man in the first place. The whole of mankind
has become corrupted through sin, and any individuals who wish can come out of
this sin because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. 

When I experienced it, it was like an  evil force in my life being lifted,
which I wasn't even aware of. I didn't even believe in sin! But what a change 
once this was gone! Only afterwards could I have a love relationship with God.

Some people think they like sin. This force when it is in our lives is like
a power of deception which we are no longer able to see. Before it is removed,
we all think that what we believe is right. 
For alcoholics, drug addicts, and ever other vice, there is no better answer 
than being saved from sin through Jesus. But this is true for everyone!
How many people I know can testify to this! Once this force is broken, life 
is so much more beautiful. It also makes us much more aware of the beauty of the creation, seeing the handiwork of God
where before we weree totally blind. This is really what destroys the deception
of the theory of evolution.

'If you continue in my word, then you are truly my disciples, and you will
know the truth, and the truth will set you free... He that does sin is a 
slave to sin... If the Son therefore sets you free, you will be truly free.'
'For everyone that does evil hates the light, and doesn't come to the light,
otherwise his deeds will be reproved. He that does the truth comes into the
light, that his deeds may be visible, that they are wrought in God' Jesus
    

Bob,
Now to your comments on evolution.
>>They didn't have partial success, they had NO success.
> OK, what does this tell us? Either evolution operates in some other way
>that we don't understand yet, or evolution doesn't happen.
    Darwin's theory had 2 parts, sometimes refered to as the 'special theory'
and the 'general theory'. The 'special theory' refers to new species arising
in nature by the agency of natural selection. If he didn't give so much
credit to natural selection, I would pretty much agree with it. He saw, for
example, on his trip with the Beagle, finch types on isolated islands having
very much similiarity with minor differences. Some varied so much that they
might have been classified as a different species. But I personally cannot
see any connection between natural selection and the bird types. I believe
understanding the habbits of birds, clans that may form, etc. would more
clearly explain why there were these differences, just as traits of peoples,
whether Aboriginies, Red Indians, etc. was not the result of natural selection,
but more isolated colonization. The same could be said for many of the classic
examples used today for the development of new species. The herring gull and
the lesser blacked backed gull don't show better or lesser chances for
survival, but they are two different species which very strong evidence would
indicate they were once the same species.
   Because I believe God concerning the bible, the snake was originally
different than it is today, not moving on its belly, therefore having legs.
Accordingto the scriptures all snakes have the same origins. Now there are today
many species of snakes. I do not honestly believe it is scientifically sound
to give so much credit to natural selection as to how these snake species
developed. I don't know of any examples of similiar species where the
trait differences of living species show better chances for survival than
the fossil remains of those which have died out.

With God, the greatness of his creation is that much more amplified by the
variations of the individual 'types' which he originally created. How much
'less beautiful' would the world be if all dogs were almost exactly the same,
all people, all cows, sheep, ducks, and the plant kingdom! Its like the
beauty of the sun reflecting a rainbow.

The 'specific theory' without so much emphasis on natural selection as the
agent would pretty much match this variation. I am not saying that natural
selection does not happen at all, but rather it is given far too much credit.
The 'general theory' is where the difference arises. It proposes that
the variability of the changes of a species is unlimited. Here is where
'new coding' needs to be integrated into the existing coding. How, for
example, would a snake-like creature ever develope feet to stand on?
How would a horse-like animal all of the sudden have the beginnings of ivory
tusks and a trunk? The list is limitless. The anatomy would have to change
so dramatically, the feet with each little bone, the circulation of blood, the
fingernails, the joints, the type of skin, the proportional size of the feet,
the muscles for using the bones, extensions in the nervous system and the brain
for controlling the muscles, its perfect integration into the already existing
snake, the position of the legs to allow balance, etc. This is not a limited
variation, but an 'Alice in Wonderland'. For the DNA this would be an enormous
amount of coding perfectly integrated into that which already existed. Such
an increase and integration of functionality, all of which would have to happen
simultaneously to have any better chance for survival, is not longer scientific.
evolution.
> The creation stories in Genesis are just one, or should I say two,
> possibilities.

I don't know what you mean by 'two'. There aren't stories(plural), but only
part of 2 short chapters describing how God created the dimension of matter
with everything that it includes, time, stars, life, etc. all of which are
temporal.
Granting 'almost unlimited time' is only a smoke screen to the central issue.
>If evolution doesn't happen then we need some other explanation to account for
>the existence of species.

If the 'general theory' of evolution doesn't happen, yes we do need some other
explanation. Evolutionist Michael Denton says in 'Evolution, A theory in crisis'
'The intuitive feeling that pure chance could never have achieved the degree
of complexity and ingenuity so ubiquitous in nature has been a continuing source
of schepticism ever since the publication of the 'Origin of the Species'...
Is it really credible that random processes could have constructed a reality,
the smallest element of which- a functional protein or gene-is complex beyond
our own creative capacities, a reality which is the very antithesis of chance,
which excels in every sense anything produced by the intelligence of man?"

>But I think it's more believable that species evolved from simpler life forms
>by means of some mechanism that we don't completely understand than that the
>world was created 5,000 years ago, was completely covered by a flood, that all
>land-dwelling creatures were saved by the flood in Noah's ark, etc.

It took months after knowing Jesus personally before I was 'convinced' of
Noah.  It tooks years before the story of Noah made 'scientific sense'. But it
does. The flood is testified of with huge amounts of fossilized seashells in
the mountains of most every country I have been to. I found them in the 
mountains in England, in Italy, in California. I have read reports of many 
others. Maybe you personally have seen fossilized seashells while on walks in 
the mountains.

The age of the earth is recorded without a gap as 4128 years before Christ's 
crucifixion, meaning approx. 6089 years old. If you wish, I could give you the 
unbroken list.  

For yourself, or anyone else for that matter, it isn't so 
important that you believe all of the details of Genesis from day one. 
It is the relationship that is important, intellectual agreement doesn't
have very much value. If truth isn't something real in our lives, working,
it doesn't offer anything. Because of the consequences of this truth many
people WANT to believe something else rather than God. Evolution for them is
a good substitute, as it was for myself. But once I was ready to live according
to the truth, the theory fell away and I could see its deception.
    

Mark,

Sorry for taking so long to respond.

You asked me to identify several hypothesis on which the theory of evolution
is based which the laws observed in nature contradict, together with quotes
from literature. First we need to identify the hypothesis. I made a short
list of some of them in one of my last notes. To be a bit more explicit:

Hypothesis 1: Life formed from non-living substances.

You say that this is NOT technically an hypothesis on which the theory of
evolution is based. Yet the theory of evolution IS an attempt to explain
the existance of all living organisms WITHOUT the intervention of God.
Mixing the two makes the whole theory unnecessary. Is God so lame that he
could only make a cell? Do you think God has more trust in 'random chance'
than his own ability to create? If God exists, there is no need to try to
fit all contradictions into the evolution theory. In the creation we can
see his handiwork. We can see a 'reflection' of some of his very character.

The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain how species origined
through natural scientific processes. Therefore I contend with you that
the origin of life IS the first hypothesis on which the theory of evolution
is based.

This hypothesis is based on 2 sub-hypothesis. 

1. The necessary inatimate matter for a cell came together by random chance.
2. All of the individual parts of the cell started to function.

There are hundreds of books about these 2 subjects. The first one is talked
about more, probably because the second one far surpasses even our own
imagination. The uncertainity of these sub-hypothesis is so well known that
I hardly need to tell you. And of course, a theory can never be more reliable
than the weakest hypothesis on which it is built.

The quote came from one of the most convinced evolutionists, Sir Fred Hoyle.
Huxley says about the same, only with other words.

 The liklihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a 
 number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and 
 the whole theory of Evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this
 planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random,
 they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.
 (In the paper you already read)

I could find hundreds of such quotes if you wish, but I'm sure you are aware of
many of them already. Do you wish to assert that the theory of Evolution
is MORE reliable that this hypothesis on which it is built? Such an 
assertion would in no wise be a logical conclusion. The amount of 
uncertainty of each assumption on which a theory is based must be multiplied
together for a reasonable estimate of the liklihood of the theory itself.

For the second sub-hypothesis, the functioning of the parts of the cell, there
is no real way to make an estimation of its likliness. What makes enzymes
begin translating genes, creating a perfect 'RNA reflection' of these genes,
and copying these genes much more error-free that the 'Copy' command of VMS?
The myriad of functionings of the cell we are hardly able to understand.
Are such highly developed functions, far better than our computers, to be
explained as simple 'chemical reactions'? If any vital parts of the cell
cease to function, the whole cell dies. For inanimage matter to suddenly
start functioning is of a much greater impossibility than for a computer to
start functioning without electricity. 

According to Evolutionist Michael Denton:

 We now know not only of the existence of a break between the living and 
 non-living world, but also that it represents the most dramatic and 
 fundamental of all the discontinuities of nature.
(Evolion: A theory in Crisis, p.249)

Noble prize-winner biochemist Francis Crick:

 An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now,
 could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the
 moment to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would
 have had to have been satisfied to get it going.
(Life itself, p.58)

 Nothing illustrates more clearly just how intractable a problem the 
 origin of life has become than the fact that world authorities can
 seriously toy with the idea of panspermia.(Life from other planets)
 ...On the whole, the new biochemical picture has not had the effect that
 evolutionary theorists might have hoped. It has not blurred the 
 distinction between living and non-living objects. The recently revealed
 world of molecular machinery, of coding systems, of informational
 molecules, of catalytic devices and feedback control, is in its design
 and complexity quite unique to living systems and without parallel in
 non-living nature.
(Evolution: A theory in crisis: p.271)

The first hypothesis on which the theory of evolution is totally dependant
(natural processes) is so inconcievable that to believe it is anything but
logical. Since the theory of evolution is built on this hypothesis, the
theory of evolution is even more inconcievable and to believe it is even
more unlogical.

The next hypothesis is spoken in the next note.

Rodger
    

Hypothesis 2: Simple life forms evolve in nature to more complex
life forms.
This hypothesis has a number of sub-hypothesis. Some are:
1. A mechanism exists by which simple life forms may evolve into
   more complex life forms.
2. Transitional species are everywhere. In fact, all existing life forms
   are producing new life forms more complex than themselves.
3. Natural Selection is eliminating all of the species which are not fit
   to survive, thus is the answer why the almost infinite amount of 
   transitional species are missing in nature.
Is there a mechanism by which simple life forms evolve into more complex
life forms? At the time of Darwin, this question could not be understood
since they did not understand how it was related to the genetic code in
the chromosomes. Darwin correctly did notice that there were birds very
similiar with only certain traits which varied. But that was nothing new,
since breeding had shown this for milleniums. He went, however, past what
could be observed and postulated that all species resulted from this same
process, only over a much longer period of time.  This postulated theory,
often refered to the 'general theory of evolution', has become more and more
inconcievable as knowledge of species has increased. 

Concerning the second, that transitional species are everywhere:

Evolutionist Michael Denton states:

 It is a remarkable testimony to the almost perfect correspondence
 of the existing pattern of nature with the typological model that,
 out of all the millions of living species known to biology, only a 
 handful can be considered to be in any sense intermediate between other
 well defined types.
(Evolution: A theory in Crisis. P.109)

Gould has brought a whole new theory in trying to explain the lack of
intermediate steps. Isolated populations certainly offer more change
than large populations, but there are limits, just as breeding has
limits.

Concerning this problem, evolutionist Michael Denton states:

 Such major discontinuities simply could not, unless we are to believe
 in miracles, have been crossed in geologically short periods of time
 through one or two transitional species occupying restricted
 geological areas. Surely, such transitions must have involved long
 lineages including many collateral lines of hundreds or probably
 thousands of transitional species. To suggest that the hundreds,
 thousands or possibly even millions of transitional species which must
 have existed in the interval between vastly dissimiliar types were all
 unsuccessful species occupying isolated areas and having very small
 population numbers is verging on the incredible! The punctuational model
 of Eldridge and Gould has been widely publicized but, ironically, while
 the theory has developed specifically to account for the absence of
 transitional varieties between species, its major effect seems to have
 been to draw widespread attention to the gaps in the fossil record...
 After this revelation of what Gould has called "the trade secret of
 paleontology" it seems unlikely that we will see any return in the 
 future to the old comfortable notion that the fossils provide evidence
 of gradual evolutionary change.
(Evolution: A theory in crisis P.194)

Goulds punctuated equilibrium is a theoretical excuse for the absense
of the intermediate species. It is a further step into the theoretical
in an attempt to defend one of the major hypothesis of evolution, that
all life forms can be accounted for as a series of evolutionary steps,
which is so sharply contradicted by the absense of these intermediate
steps in nature and in the fossil record.

Concerning the ability of natural selection in creating these gaps, I know of
not one example of how natural selection has produced a new species
in nature. I'm not talking about a sub-species, but a new species. Such an 
example would have to show how its characteristics give it a clear advantage
of the species from which it originated. 

If random chance was to be the originator of new species, wouldn't there
have to be countless species continually developing and dying out which would
show partially-formed benefitial traits? Where are all of the 'short trunk'
elephants? What use would a 'transitional eye' have unless functional?
What advantage would a 6 inch non-functional trunk have over an animal that
didn't have to bear it? What about partially formed wings and feathers which 
don't help in flying at all, but are more of a hinderance in escaping from
a prey? The list could go on.

Darwin stated:
 If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could
 not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications,
 my theory would absolutely break down.
(Origins p.182)
There are countless examples, the avian lung, the feather, the eye, etc.
which totally demonstrate this.
 No lung in any other vertebrate species is known which in any way
 approaches the avian system. Moreover, it is identical in all essential
 detail in birds as diverse as humming birds, ostriches and hawks.
 Just how such an utterly different respiratory system could have evolved
 gradually from the standard vertebrate design is fantastically difficult 
 to envisage...(Evolution: A theory in crisis, p.211)

Concerning the eye, unless all the parts of the eye are fully developed,
it is totally useless and has no advantage in natural selection.

All the explanations of how the vast amount of gaps were bridged are so
unscientific and so very theoretical in nature that they really only
cover up the central issue.
    

Mark,

You seem to put a lot of emphasis on the 'doubling' of chromosomes. It is
like having the executable code being duplicated on a computer. This is not
in any way a 'mechanism' for increasing the genetic code for more complex forms
of life, just as the duplicated program code is in no way a more complex
program as it originally was. When I speak of additions, I speak of how
a single celled organism could undergo 'increases' which would eventually 
account for the totally integrated, extremely complex coding accounting for
the countless 10 - 1000  billion celled organisms seen everywhere in nature.
Could it be that a 'simple program' was erroneously copied and became more
complex with new functionality? Could copy mistakes accidently change the
UNIX operating system into the VMS operating system? Yet nature is full of
examples where no transitional species at all bridge the gaps in appearance 
or the genetic code or even the amount of chromosomes.

Comparing the anatomy of a monkey and a man does not show some parts still
identical (where no mutations have occured) and some parts different. There
is not a single organ which is the same, nor the blood, nor a single bone,
nor a single tooth, etc. They are two totally different 'operating systems'
with some similarities. It is like UNIX and VMS both have a copy command,
a rename command, an editor, etc. But VMS did not originate from UNIX.
At most, the ideas may have. Even though the coding is totally different,
there are still parts of the operating system with EXACTLY the same function.

With the Streptomycin resistance example, you are right, it is not just 
breeding. I stand corrected. I still, however, do not consider the
new strands an example of how an organism evolves into something more complex
than itself. I do not know enough about the example to say anything more.

>>Are there some new species through radiation or drugs, where the actual 
>>chromosomes were changed and additional genetic coding was integrated into 
>>that which already existed? There were myriads of experiments that were made, 
>>what were the results?
>I suppose you've never been in a major university's library? Or read
>any peer-reviewed journals in fields related to evolution? That is where
>your results are.

Mark, may I be more direct. Would you please find one of these many examples
where new genetic code was integrated into that which already existed resulting
in a more complex form of life, with properties totally absent in the 
original species and definitely showing the immergence of a new species.
I gave you many quotes where people 'gave up' in their attempts. Please give
me some examples of where through radiation or drugs they succeeded. Please
give one example in the insect world, one example of a reptile,
one example of a bird and one example of a mammal, since there are so many.
If the laboratory didn't produce them with purposeful intelligence trying
their best, do you think random chance given enough time would be better?

>Rodger, if you know as much as you claim to know about evolution,
>you'll have no problem citing three independent lines of evidence that
>evolutionary scientists claim in support of evolution.  There are
>actually five, but I don't believe you can name three.  (Yes, this
>is a test.)
 
Mark, do you really have to address me in this way? You mention your wish
to 'help prevent truth decay'. This is a very good desire, and the 'truth'
you know is something which I'm sure we all wish to hear, provided it is
truth. Theory has been known in the past to blind people to the truth and
I can only recommend that you be cautious of equivilating truth with theory.
To defend a theory based on impossible assumptions, which you yourself are
aware of, is something which leads to deception. Just because you are convinced
you are right does not in any way make the liklihood of the theory any greater.

Mark, I do not claim to be an authority on evolution. I know many who really
were and today could give much better answers than I can. (I can get you
in contact with someone if you like). There are hundreds of books from 
the best scientists and evolutionists which also hold the theory for very
unlikely to inconcievable. A few of these books are referred to in my paper.
There are many others. 

Rodger (continued next note)

    

Mark,

You state five independant lines of evidence, but I am not sure of the exact 
ones you are thinking of. I can think of six. They are:

1. Microevolution observances in nature.
   This includes studies showing how sub-species may eventually reach
   a new species.
2. Homology. (the hand of man resembles the hand of a mole)
   Comparative anatomy, palentology, embryology and micro-biology all
   use examples.
3. The existance of Vastigal organs. 
   Also included are such things as studies showing how up to as much 
   as 40% of the DNA coding is not used.
4. The fossil record.
   The different eras contain simpler life forms.
5. Biochemical molecular studies.
   The similiarity of protiens.
6. Population studies.

I'm sure there are more, but these are at least 3 which are used as lines
of evidence for the theory of evolution. 
If you lean on any one of them too much, they will pierce your hand!
Take the example of homology. 
Is it really logical to think that some of the genetic code of a mole
(such as the hand) is included in a modified form in the genetic code of
a man? A 'foot' of man is much more similiar to a hand of a man than that
of a mole, just as the foot of a mole is much more similiar to the hand of
a mole than to a man's hand. It would be much more logical to think that 
through some accident the genetic code of the foot was 'duplicated' and then
slowly modified over the years. But this is true with almost all of the
animal world with 4 footed animals. Is it logical to think that first a little
genetic code of the first hand 'accidently' duplicated and there were then
2 hands? Wouldn't the same thing have to have happened for the arm, the eye,
the ears, the legs, the teeth, etc. Wouldn't it be just as unlogical to 
think that both of the feet of a mole-like creature underwent the exact 
evolutionary transitional steps leading up to every existing 2 footed 
creature, the same with the hands, the eyes, the legs, the teeth, etc.
What are the odds of all of these genetic 'accidents' always happening
simultaneously on 2 separate parts of the body? And that throughout the
whole of nature without a single 'mistake' remaining?

In embryonical studies the same results were again reached. In the 
book 'Homology, an Unresolved Problem' gy Sir Gavin de Beer, British
embryologist and past director of the British Museum of Natural History,
this problem is clearly stated. 

That homologous organs originate from the same genes has been shown as
untrue by much research.  In his book:

 'It does not seem to matter where in the egg or the embryo the living
  substance out of which homologous organs are formed comes from.
  Therefore, correspondence between homologous structures cannot be 
  pressed back to similiarity of position of the cells of the embryo
  or the parts of the egg out of which these structures are ultimately
  differentiated.

There are countless other examples. Evolutionist Michael Denton states:

'The evolutionary basis of homology is perhaps even more severly
damaged by the discovery that apparently homologous structures are 
specified by quite different genes in different species'
(Evol: A theory in crisis P. 149)

Concerning the fossil record, Darwin stated:
 But as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed
 why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the 
 earth.
And again:
 the case at present must remain inexplicable and may be truly argued
 as a valid argument against the views here entertained.
(he basically says if the fossils don't have them, they didn't exist and the
 validity of his theory is in question)
And again:
 The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the
 geological record.

Those more involved in fossils realize that this is no longer the case.
All of the fossil beds being researched today are only finding the same
fossils as those which were already found. New ones are become ever more
rare. This indicates that its 'imperfection' can no longer be used as an
excuse for the 'missing links'.

Of the 329 living families of terrestrial vertebrates 261 have been found
in the fossil record, almost 80 percent! With birds almost 89 percent.
If so many of the living families have been found in the fossil record,
can we really assume that the billions of transitional forms which have
not been found ever existed? 

Macroevolution as Gould talks of is really just an 'Alice in Wonderland'
written in scientific terms, a dive into the theoretical(in this case
imaginary) and resembles the theory of Lamarck, which is so detested
by most evolution theorists of today.

Lamarck imagined the neck of a giraffe developing by the parents being
able to pass down advantages(not chance). Evolution theorist imagine the
same thing, but using totally 'undiscovered' mechanisms adding genetic
code in natural processes with the millions of other accidental 
transitional species dying out. Evolutionists claim that natural selection
is the 'agent' of the distinction of these species, but the fossil record
proves natural selection innocent. They never existed in the first place!

Rodger
    

Mark,

Just a couple words on vastigal organs and genes which seem to have no
specific purpose.

First, for a single organism to become billions, all of which vary, even to
the extreme of snakes, there must be a lot of genetic material which might
seem useless. Look at how every person on the face of the earth looks 
different! Maybe this genetic material doesn't seem useful, but I am of the
opinion that the more of which is destroyed, the less the degree of this
variability, even if the organ doesn't seem itself to function any differently
than another.

About the appendix of man:

1. Many in the medical field are not so convinced that it is totally useless.

2. The scriptures indicate that man used to live up to a thousand years. 
   As the body now is, this would not be possible. Therefore, some of the
   potential of the body was purposely 'reduced', meaning that the function
   of some organs would no longer be that for which they were originally
   created. If the appendix served in a way to help the other organs in the
   body be free of certain sicknesses or slowed down the rate by which the
   body would age, its functioning would of necessity have to be stopped.

Vastigle organs are to me more an indication of a 'decrease' which has
happened in creation, which fits perfectly with the 'Genesis' account.

Accounting the formation of organs as 'random' would dictate much more than
a few percent of vastigle organs, just as 'random' genetic changes would
account for more than 40 percent of useless genetic code. A billion years
pressing a billion letters a second for a billion monkeys on a typerwriter
with 100 keys would according to the science of probability produce at most
a sequence of 20 letters from 'Romeo and Julliet'. Think of the wasted paper!
The science of probability considers just 10 to the 48th as impossible,
how contrary to all logic it is to think that this same random process can
account for all of the species of life, much more complicated from the 
genetic coding, the single cell, the vastly different organs and their
functioning together with billions of cells in miles of blood vessels,
the heart, the brain, the lungs, the blood, etc. all functioning together
and totally dependant on each other.

As God saw that the thoughts of man were continually evil, he shortened
his life span to 120 years. Today it is probably 80. 

Concerning the complexity of the organs in the human body, former surgeon
general of the U.S.A. Dr. E. Koop states:

'I see organs of such intricacy that there hasn't been enough time for
natural evolutionary process to have developed them.'
(again, in the paper)

As Evolutionist and paleontologist Dr. Eldridge states:

'Indeed, the only competing explanation for the order we all see in the 
biological world - is the notion of Special Creation'
(again, in the paper)

Mark,

As I said before, if you wish to defend the theory of evolution, it doesn't
bother me. It will bring nothing if every evolutionist became a creationist.
The only thing which has any meaning is whether we really want to know
our creator directly. Do you want to experience him, to hear him? Does
your heart (not your mind) have a desire to know him, where you would
live in accordance to the truth he 'grants' you? Knowledge unfortunately
does not lead deceived people out of their deception, but rather a close
relation with God himself. Jesus claims to be the 'truth', and for the 
last 20 years I have again and again seen this confirmed, while other
'truth' has often been shown as deception.

Just because of the time involved, and how it tends to draw me away
from my work, I at most may be looking at this conference once every
few weeks. I will be looking for your documented examples of successful 
experiments where radiation or drugs have created new species in insects, 
reptiles, birds and mammals. I don't hold you to this, but please then state 
that you made some claims that really aren't true.

Rodger
    

    I will continue my debate with Rodger by E-mail, unless others here
    wish to see it or participate.  (The notes are getting long, and
    some of the detail is clearly off the charter of this conference.)
    
    Mark

    .51  Thank you for your thoughtfulness and consideration.
    
    Shalom,
    Richard
    

    If anyone is interested in the continued conversation between Mark and
    myself please send a mail to GYMAC::RDUSATKO and I would be pleased to
    send you them.
    
    Rodger

>                <<< Note 921.56 by FRETZ::HEISER "Maranatha!" >>>
>                  -< Einstein's Theory of Relativistic Time >-
>
>>    If you think Creation happened 6000 years ago, you would also do well
>>    to explain why we can see stars that are further than 6000 light years
>>    away without resorting to the Omphalos argument [1], or the arguments
>>    of Barry Setterfield, now discredited by most Creationist authorities.
>>    [2]
    OK, Mike.  Please elaborate on this.  How have the frames of reference
    of (1) us, and (2) the stars we see that are apparently millions of
    lightyears away, moved relative to each other over 6000 years so that
    they appear millions of light years away.
    
    Mark

        For those of you having access to WWW browsers, you might
        look into:

        	http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/

        This debate between a six-day creationist and a (Christian)
        big-bang cosmologist is too long (900 lines) to post in its
        entirety, but it can be found on the Web at:

        	http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/gish-ross-debate

        Bob

Focus on the family discussion with Hugh Ross and Duane Gish
August 12, 13 1992

Jim Dobson, the host opened the program:

Dobson: (addressing Mike Trout, the announcer) Well Mike, we're going
to do something almost dangerous today.  Dangerous in the sense that
the topic we're gonna discuss today is a controversial one that could
divide some members of the Christian community.  We certainly don't
want to do that.  I've been urged to devote a program to the topic
we're going to talk about today ... by many people including a board
member of FOF.  And that's what really brings us to this moment. The
topic is the origin of the universe and the age of the earth, which
may not on the face of it seem like a topic related to the family, but
it certainly is relevant to our faith and to scripture and to our
understanding of who we are and how we got here, and that's all of us,
certainly, within the Christian community. And that's how it came to
be that we did two previous topics on this subject and that kind of
led to what we're going to do today. Let me explain.  Astrophysics is
a hobby with me - it's not something I consider myself terribly
knowledgeable of, although I've been interested in the subject since I
was in elementary school - been reading about it all that time. So we
have done several programs on the vastness of the universe - what God
has put out there and the beauty of His creation. The heavens declare
the glory of God and it really strengthens my faith to take a look at
what we know about the universe. So we have done several programs
about that subject.  On Dec 12 and 13, 1985 we did a program with Dr.
Duane Gish and Dr. Richard Bliss, both from the ICR on the subject of
creation and how it should be taught in the schools and we got into
this broader subject in that program. In that program the guests
expressed their firm conviction that the earth is no more than about
10,000 years old and that the Genesis account of creation refers to
six 24 hour days, specifically meaning that the earth is very young
and that after that God rested and there was no further creative
activity.  Then on April 17, 1991 Dr. Hugh Ross was our guest and he
discussed his book, "The Fingerprint of God".  Dr. Ross provided
scientific evidence for the Biblical account of creation, but Dr. Ross
believes that the earth is billions of years old and the Genesis
account refers not to 6 24 hour days but to eons. That program was one
of the most popular programs of the year 1991. We just got an
overwhelming amount of mail - almost 10000 requests for the tape of
that interview and the mail was overwhelmingly positive, I might say.
On the other hand there was a small - I think about 40 or 50 letters -
but a very vociferous, angry response to that program from people who
considered Dr. Ross' view of the earth as very very old as being
unbiblical and even heretical, and there were some very emotional
reactions to it - one Christian radio station threatened to take our
broadcast off the air ... It was as though Dr. Ross was saying, "I
don't believe the Bible," to those people, and so there are these
different perspectives.  And so I had a certain amount of mail from
people asking me to deal with this issue further and to allow a
discussion of the two sides. I tried to express in my reactions to
that mail that the issue is one of Biblical interpretation, not
deliberate contradiction of basic truths, and I neither challenged Dr.
Ross when he was here or Dr. Gish when he and Dr.  Bliss were here,
because first of all I don't feel qualified in that area. I'm not a
theologian, I'm not a physicist, I'm not a biochemist, I don't have
expertise in these areas and furthermore, I don't know what's right.
Some people feel like they absolutely know - I'm not one of them.  And
so I thought the best thing we could do was to bring the guests here
again and allow them to discuss the subject...

Trout: There is an aspect to this topic that just causes people to
think and to study. That in and of itself is a healthy exercise...

Dobson: Yeah, we can call it brain food. You know, if we just get
people reading the Scriptures, we've accomplished what we wanted to do
or part of it.  I do believe that the Bible is the inspired Word and
when all truth is known there will be no contradiction within it. That
fact is not on the table today - we're not debating that. I also
believe that Dr. Ross, Dr. Gish and Dr. Bliss are equally committed to
the truth and to Jesus Christ and they simply come down on different
sides of A very thorny issue, with differing perspectives on how
important it is. So we have invited Dr. Gish and Dr. Ross here today
to debate, or at least to discuss this matter of the age of the
universe as it relates to our faith. I just ask for charity among
those who are listening, because we are trying to do what is right
here. Let me introduce the guests and then we will get on with the
topic.  Dr. Hugh Ross holds a Ph.D. in astronomy from the University
of Toronto, he's the president and director of Reasons to Believe,
located in LA.  Dr. Ross, welcome back.

Ross: Thank you, it's good to be here.

Dobson: Dr. Gish holds a Ph.D. in biochemistry from the University of
California at Berkeley and he's Vice President of ICR, also located in
Southern California...

Well gentlemen, let's get to it. Duane, I'm going to give you the
first shot.  You strongly believe in the young earth theory, you don't
believe in the big bang. You believe that creation occurred in six 24
hour days. Explain why and why this issue is so important to you.

Gish: Well yes, Dr. Dobson. My concern is not so much with the age of
things.  We keep contrasting say the young age to the vastly old age
that Hugh believes in and of course there is a difference there, but
I'm more concerned about how the universe came into existence. I
accept the Biblical account that we find in the Bible: God did create
the heavens and the earth and we read in the Bible that on the fourth
day God created the sun and the moon and the starts and that when that
period of creation was over - six days creation was finished - it has
not been continued for billions of years of time. It was not a natural
process it had to be something that was supernaturally done by God.
God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. Now Hugh in his
view - in his big bang cosmology, big bang cosmology is a natural
process that begins with this big bang, and following the big bang
then as this hydrogen and helium distributed itself throughout the
universe and as stars evolved and galaxies evolved and our solar
system created itself and so on..  That's been going on for, say, 15,
16, 17, 18 billion years.  Well in a process like that, you see, I
don't see any difference between that view and that of any atheist
cosmologist or any unbelieving cosmologist who believes in the big
bang, I can't see the difference and I don't see the agreement between
this natural evolutionary origin of the universe and the universe that
God created in the book of Genesis.  In other words certainly if
creation is not finished - Hugh believes that stars are still forming
today you see, so we still - evolutionary creation has been going on
for 18 billion years.

Dobson: Hugh, why is it necessary to remove God from the process of
the big bang if you merely describe how He may have done what He did?

Ross: Well that's my very point, that God's not at all removed. When
you solve the equations of general relativity - and we can prove that
those equations govern the universe - you discover that you are face
to face with an ultimate origin for all matter and energy and even the
dimensions of length width height and time that encompass the cosmos.
There's only one holy book that teaches a doctrine that's consistent
with that and that's the Bible. We believe in a God that's
transcendent in bringing the universe into existence. As Hebrews 11:3
puts it, the universe that we can detect was made from that which we
cannot detect. And that's why atheists in astronomy and physics have
reacted so strongly to the big bang: because it establishes this
ultimate creation event.

Dobson: For those who have not read on this subject - they may be lost
already - explain what the big bang theory is.

        ...

re Note 850.57:

        The Dr. Ross of the debate above mentions a "Facts and Faith"
        newsletter that he is apparently involved with, the above
        note also mentions that "Dr. Hugh Ross ... [is] the president
        and director of Reasons to Believe, located in LA."

        Would anyone here have an address either for the newsletter
        or Reasons to Believe?

        Thanks,
        Bob

    
    Bob,
    
    Reasons to believe
    PO Box 5978
    Pasadena, CA  91117
    
    (818) 335-1480
    
    price of newsletter (Facts and Faith) is $24 /year

      <<< TURRIS::DISK$NOTES_PACK2:[NOTES$LIBRARY]WOMANNOTES-V5.NOTE;1 >>>
                        -< Topics of Interest to Women >-
================================================================================
Note 37.552         "In the News" (clips only, no discussion)         552 of 553
IJSAPL::VISSERS "Phew!"                             112 lines  13-FEB-1995 04:54
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In New Hampshire, a movement for teaching creationism 


    (c) Copyright the News & Observer Publishing Co.

    New York Times 

    MERRIMACK, N.H. -- This town of 22,000 just a few miles north of the
    Massachusetts border, where high-tech industries have replaced farming,
    is divided over a proposal from a local Baptist pastor that the school
    board give creationism and evolution equal time in science lessons.

    State leaders, following New Hampshire's tradition of laissez-faire
    government, say it is a local decision and will not interfere. And the
    townspeople who crowded a public hearing this week on the measure,
    blame themselves for letting the proposal get as far as it has.

    "This used to be a progressive town 50 miles north of Boston," said one
    of two liberal minority members on the five-member school board,
    Charles Mower. "Now, we're just a gooberville in Arkansas."

    Mower and others say that low voter turnout among more liberal town
    residents and high turnout among conservative Christians in the school
    board election last May led to a conservative majority.

    Last fall, the new board returned a daily "moment of silence" to the
    town's high school, middle school and three elementary schools.

    Then, on Jan. 17, the Rev. Paul Norwalt, pastor of the Merrimack
    Baptist Temple, appeared before the board to urge that creationism and
    evolution be treated equally in classrooms.

    "I can't prove my model, and they can't prove their model," he said.

    Under the proposal, the board would replace its current science
    textbooks in September with those that would teach both evolution and
    creationism as "assumptions," with the Bible used as a class resource.

    At the Rev. Norwalt's urging, the two new members of the board,
    Virginia Twardowsky and Shelly Uscinski, are supporting the creationism
    proposal. The new chairman, Chris Ager, a conservative who was already
    on the board, so far has not indicated his support.

    Recently the Rev. Norwalt held meetings in the Merrimack High School
    cafeteria featuring Duane Gish, co-founder of the California-based
    Institute for Creation Research, a fundamentalist Christian group that
    argues creationism has a basis in science.

    Mrs. Twardowsky, who attends the Rev. Norwalt's church, said she
    supported the proposal "based on my belief in academic freedom."

    "I've been sitting here listening to all these evolutionists speak and
    speak and they get up and tell us evolution is an absolute fact," Mrs.
    Twardowsky said. "I'm more convinced than ever before that creation
    science has got to be taught in the schools."

    She and Mrs. Uscinski, who is a Roman Catholic, waged their election
    campaigns in favor of back-to-basics education -- reading, writing and
    arithmetic -- and against the school's health curriculum, which
    included condom distribution.

    At both the Jan. 17 meeting and one last Monday, parents and teachers
    opposing the measure scolded the board for even considering the
    measure.

    "Don't try and teach my children that creationism is a science, because
    it is not," said one parent, John Plante, who works for one of the
    area's high-tech firms.

    "We want to prepare our students for the 21st century, and they won't
    pay for a phone line so that children can use a computer network," said
    another parent, Rosemarie Rung. "I don't feel it's appropriate for the
    school board to discuss these superficial issues."

    But a parent who supports the measure, Dale Adams, said: "The children
    should be given the freedom to make up their own minds. We should be
    teaching our children not what to think but how to think."

    In 1987, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Louisiana law that barred
    the teaching of evolution unless schools also taught creationism, the
    belief that God created all life. Creationists argue that science errs
    when it goes against biblical teachings and that the literal biblical
    account of the origin of the universe can be scientifically verified.

    State education leaders say they will not intervene if the measure
    passes. The chairman of the state Board of Education, Ovide Lamontagne,
    said last Monday that he had no objection to a local district "teaching
    about creation science as an alternative to evolution" and that the
    Bible could appropriately be used in class as "anecdotal evidence" to
    support the lesson.

    Gov. Stephen Merrill, a Republican, stepped into the issue last week,
    saying through a spokesman: "There are worse things taught in our
    schools, and I will continue to support local control of education."

    The Republican chairman of the Education Committee in the state House,
    Representative Nils Larson, said he would not intervene. "If a local
    school board determines that creationism should be taught in its
    schools, then that district is answerable to its voters," Larson said.
    "That's the way we do business in New Hampshire."

    State Senator George Lovejoy of Rochester, the Republican chairman of
    the Education Committee said he supported the measure.

    "There may be a lot of things I don't understand in both theories,"
    Lovejoy said. "Why, let's remember the creation theory says God made
    the world in six days and rested on the seventh. I accept that as a
    Bible-believing Christian. I say students should be taught both
    theories in school. If I was on the local school board, I would want it
    taught in school. I would vote for it. I say even Darwin himself would
    vote for it."

    Absolutely to the last paragraph.  I wonder what people are really
    afraid of, considering evolution is based on alot of theory and alot of
    nonconfirmed science.  
    
    I understand the hubble telescope has already put the big bang theory 
    into a questionable light.  
    
    -Jack

    
    I am afraid of the Bible being used as a science text. I am afraid of
    religious convictions being taught as science. I am afraid of the
    slippery slope of theocracy in the school. I am afraid of the half
    truths and convoluted logic that argues that creationism is "science."
    I am afraid of further diluting the educational process of our public
    schools. I am afraid children will be taught there were no dinosaurs. I
    am afraid children will be taught the earth is 15,000 years old. I am
    afraid children will be taught faith equals science.

    I have no problem with creationism being taught in a religious studies
    class, however. 

    	Eric                                   

re .62

	Eric,

	I can understand your concern about the young earth teachings,
	which in my opinion gives the creation account a bad name. However,
	to teach children two different things just leads to confusion
	on their part. Creation account or evolution theory in that life
	evolved by chance? one should choose as to which, one is going to
	teach ones children. 

	If we believe that we were created, then of what benefit would it
	be to teach ones children the evolution theory?. For it will only 
	make them skeptical of a Creator or even lead to confusion and 
	distrust in not knowing what to believe in the things they are 
	being taught.

	I'm not advocating the petitioning of changing the schools curriculum,
	just that if one believes in there being a Grand Creator then it
	is the obligation of the parents to communicate this (compare 
	Deuteronomy 6:7-9). And there are ample opportunities to show ones
	children that we have a Creator, for example trips to the Zoo or
	just a walk in the park (compare Romans: 1:20) talking and
	reasoning with them that God created these things.

	Phil.

    > Both can't be right, so which is it creation or evolution?

    I respectfully disagree that the theory of evolution necessarily
    precludes the concept of a creator. I see evolution as a means by which
    creation is accomplished. The question really becomes, "Who created
    evolutionary mechanics?" 

    The ideas I express are not new, they are just dismissed out of hand
    by most creationists so they seem like new ideas each time they're
    raised. My fears still stand. In fact all the more so now that I
    realize this is a religious crusade and not a scientific dispute...
    well actually I knew that all along. :^)

    	Eric

Below is written by an evolutionist Christian from another conference.  I
    am only putting this in here to show that evolution is loaded with
    fallacies and unconfirmed science...which by the way is being taught as
    truth in the public schools.  I see most evolutionists the same way I
    see Nimrod and the tower of Babel.  A bunch of finite minded
    individuals trying desparately to determine their own past by their
    model and not by Gods.  
    
    By the way, as a creationist I affirm the existence of dinosaurs.  I
    also don't necessarily believe the original 7 days were 7 actual days.
    They could very easily have been but they may not have been either.  I
    don't like random chance being taught in the schools as fact
    either...and this is why I support creationism as being a valid POV and
    gives children a choice in what to believe.
    
    
           <<< BACK40::BACK40$DKA500:[NOTES$LIBRARY]SOAPBOX.NOTE;1 >>>
                          -< Soapbox.  Just Soapbox. >-
================================================================================
Note 64.387                         Evolution                         387 of 419
SMURF::BINDER "gustam vitare"                         6 lines  24-JAN-1995 09:18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    the big bang is going out of fashion largely due to recent hubble
    findings that indicate the ages of certain distant objects to be about
    six sagans short of what is required by the current big bang theories. 
    big bangers are at a complete loss to explain this discrepancy, and
    some have said in print that these findings cast serious doubt on the
    plausibility of the big bang.

re .64

;    I respectfully disagree that the theory of evolution necessarily
;    precludes the concept of a creator. I see evolution as a means by which
;    creation is accomplished. The question really becomes, "Who created
;    evolutionary mechanics?" 

Eric,

I think I understand where you are coming from here, many scientists profess 
to prove evolution through tests under laboratory conditions. But what they 
fail to recognise is that they use their own intelligence in conducting the 
test. 

But to clarify what I wrote, I purposely said the theory of evolution, rather 
than evolution. From what I remember from school about the "theory evolution" 
is that we all came about by chance or random. No mention of a design or designer, 
therefore the teaching excludes God all together.  

From what I have heard, there maybe evolution of sorts in certain species but
that it is restricted to their own "kind". If we have a loving Creator, then
would he not communicate the fact we are part of his creation. The Genesis 
account doesn't go into great detail but explains how man came about. That is 
God formed him from the dust (Genesis 2:7) and not that he came from other
"kinds" as taught at school.

More and more people are turning away from God. Why is this?, religious
wars such as the crusades attribute but could also teachings like the "theory
of evolution" do also. For if we are here by chance, then what hope is there
for the future and what is the purpose of life?. 

However Eric, I'm not sure how children will come up with the assumption as
yourself that there is a designer behind "evolutionary mechanics". For
at school one is taught in class that life came about by chance "evolution" 
and in another class through a designer "creation". Normally, the child would
reject one and accept the other teaching or be totally confused by the
differing teachings.

Phil.
 

    The following appeared in The VILLAGE CRIER, the weekly newspaper in 
Merrimack, NH.  It appeared in the January 24, 1995 edition.  This letter was
read, in it's entirety, to the school board at one of it's meetings.  I am
not sure of the date of that meeting.  

    The letter appeared under the title:  An Open Memorandum To The School
Board:

    Please note that the phrases I have preceded and followed by the
underscore character were actually underlines in the article.

    TO: The Merrimack School Board, also made available to the local newspapers
    FROM: The Rev. Patricia E. Henking, Vicar, Faith Episcopal Church, P.O. Box
422, Merrimack
    DATE: January 16, 1995

    Several matters pertaining to recent School Board meetings have been
brought to my attention and I offer you this response.

    First, I have been told that when the budget for psychological counseling
was cut, the services of all the pastors in Merrimack were offered.  Please
be aware that each of the clergy speak only for him or herself.  Despite
repeated attempts, we have been unable to convene a meeting of all the clergy
of Merrimack churches.  Please also be assured of my availability in such
emergencies as the death of a student -- times when having the pastors
present in the schools may be invited by the administration as they judge our
presence of help to the situation.  Otherwise, I must restrict any counseling
I do to individuals who come to my church and who make appointments with me as
the pastor of my congregation.  Since I am not certified as a clinical
counselor, the specific instructions of my insurance company prohibit
offering my services beyond this sphere.  Indeed, referral to an appropriate
psychologist, social worker or psychiatrist is a goal of much of the
counseling I do undertake.

    Secondly, I have been told that my absence from discussions on such
matters as the teaching of Creationism is construed as an agreement with one
or the other side of the argument.  No such assumptions ought to be made.  I
rarely see a given issue as a simple one, am not given to black-and-white
understandings of complex things, and prefer teaching methodologies which
stimulate students' investigatory and thinking skills.  With respect to the
issue of Creationism, sincere, believing Christians who claim Jesus as Lord
and the Scriptures as the Word of God do not agree.  As long as our
scholastic methods are according to disciplines, I believe each discipline
must have integrity with regard to its quest for truth.  Science therefore
must be accorded the integrity of its own methods and understandings, and any
decisions made regarding the science curriculum must respect the integrity of
science.  

    Although my highest allegiance is to God, my allegiance is also to this
country and its governance.  The separate of Church and State is a strong
principle -- though a debated one -- in this country.  Religious ideas and
Scriptures, then, when taught in our public schools, must be taught
objectively and, most likely, either as literature, philosophy or within the
studies of world cultures.  The academic freedom of both teachers and
students must allow room for the exploration of religious thought.  However,
no one religious text or idea can hold priority over others _in public school
settings_, so, for example, the creation stories of all the world's religions
would need to be taught if any of them were.  Families who want their
children to have _religious_ education must see to its provision in the home,
at church, temple, or mosque, or by choosing private schools for their
children.

    Finally, I grew up singing the folk song, "They'll know we are Christians
by our love."  _This_ is the witness that _can_ be made in Merrimack's public
schools and throughout the community:  more than theories and information,
how we care for one another and treat one another as the infinite treasures I
believe God created us to teach our children their values.  The present debates
have been full of heat, but I see little radiance of the love of Christ in
what I have heard or read of them.  I don't think our children or young
people do, either, and thus I am deeply saddened.  I leave you with the
familiar Prayer attributed to St. Francis:

    "Lord, make us instruments of your peace.  Where there is hatred, let us
sow love;  where there is injury, pardon; where there is discord, union;
where there is doubt, faith; where there is despair, hope; where there is
darkness, light; where there is sadness, joy.  Grant that we may not so much
seek to be consoled as to console; to be understood as to understand; to be
loved as to love.  For it is in giving that we receive; it is in pardoning
that we are pardoned; and it is in dying that we are born to eternal life.
Amen."

				Patricia E. Henking

    But much of evolution is based on theory just as Creation is to alot of
    people...a foundation of faith if you will.  To not teach creation as a 
    valid possibility just as evolution is deprives the student of teaching
    first of all.  Secondly, you present the student with one choice and
    censor any other possibilities.  I believe humanism sees creationism as
    a threat and this is a big reason the teaching of this perspective is
    often shelved in the classroom.
    
    -Jack

re Note 850.68 by MKOTS3::JMARTIN:

>     But much of evolution is based on theory just as Creation is to alot of
>     people...a foundation of faith if you will.  To not teach creation as a 
>     valid possibility just as evolution is deprives the student of teaching
>     first of all.  

        There is a difference between "teaching creation as a valid
        possibility" and teaching a particular creation theory.

        There are many creation theories held throughout the world. 
        Clearly the schools cannot teach all of them.  Which one
        should schools teach?  Perhaps they should rotate:  Christian
        this year, Hindu next year, Zoroastrian the next.

        Is this what people want?  I don't think so.  I think what
        the pro-creation-teaching folks want taught in public schools
        is Christian doctrine.

>     I believe humanism sees creationism as
>     a threat and this is a big reason the teaching of this perspective is
>     often shelved in the classroom.
  
        I believe that humans (myself included) see the teaching of
        creationism as science as a very real threat to public
        attitudes towards science.

        Bob

    Then let's make it easy.  Let's offer students a variety of choices,
    including a class called "Secular Humanism."  In this class, the
    students can be taught the theories of how we evolved from a one celled
    amoeba.(Sp?)  To continue to teach Darwins evolution of man as fact is
    criminal.  It is teaching a flawed theory as fact.  I took Anthropology
    in 1978 and this is how it was presented to me!
    
    -Jack

.61 MKOTS3::JMARTIN "You-Had-Forty-Years!!!"

Jack,

The big difference is that if observations begin to cast doubt on the big bang
or evolution, scientists will begin to search for alternative explanations, and
will dump the theories.

On the other hand, I believe that no matter how overwhelming the evidence
against them may be, creationists will never take an honest look at other
theories.

.65
    They could very easily have been but they may not have been either.  I
    don't like random chance being taught in the schools as fact

Jack, until you realize that evolution does NOT teach random chance, you will
never be able to argue persuasively, as all you do is show your lack of
understanding of the basic theories involved. 

    But much of evolution is based on theory just as Creation is to alot of
    people...a foundation of faith if you will.  To not teach creation as a 

No, no NO! You show a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific process.
There is a foundation of facts, observable, quantifiable facts. There are
predictions made by the theory, predictions which can then be measured against
observable results. Is the underlying foundation 100% solid? No. Do the
predictions turn out to be 100% correct? No. That is why it is called a theory,
rather than a law. Do both give a reasonable explanation, with methods to test
it, of how this might have occurred? Yes. Creationism, on the other hand, is
pure assertion. I have never seen anyone attempting to defend creation on its
own merits, all I have seen are attempts to discredit evolution. These attempts
are welcome, that is what scientific debate is all about. But putting forward
your theory with no proof, no predictive mechanism, and no real answer to some
of the observable facts that form the basis of evolution is pure assertion and
has no place in a science classroom.

Steve

    Creationism is religion, not science *period*. 

    We can discuss the various theories of evolution, but your disfavor of
    Darwinism doesn't make creationism science. It is a slippery slop... I
    don't think you want to open that box, my dear Pandora! Just think of
    it for a moment, Jack... Do you want the NEA, ( those liberal pinkos
    :^) ), interpreting your message of creation.

    I am still afraid...

    	Eric

Creation or Evolution??

	As parents we are responsible for the teaching of our children.  When 
the school systems teaches something that is not according to God's Word, it is 
our responsibility to properly teach our children what is right.

	The main problem comes with the lack of understanding of what God"s 
Word says on the subject of creation.  I was taught for many years you must 
believe what is written.  God says "In the begining God created the heavens and 
earth."  End of subject.  I had many questions about this for many years until 
one of my friends shared God's Word on the subject.  Some of the questions 
I had were:
	1.  What about dinosores??
	2.  Cave men
	3.  If we evolued from apes or monkeys, why can you not breed monkeys 
and humans and get offspring??

	My friend started off by saying if he could divide Genesis 1:1 and 
Genesis 1:2 in to new paragraphs he would.  This would get rid of a lot of 
confusion regarding the time frame between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2.  No one knows 
the lenght of time between verse 1 and 2; but it is known something 
catastrophic had happened in the heavens and earth.  In the begining when God 
created the heavens and earth, all the creation was in perfect condition.  II 
Peter 3:5-7 gives us more details.

II Peter 3:13 says that there will be a new heaven and earth.  Thus the Bible 
designates three periods of time in referring to heaven and earth.  The first 
one is in Genesis 1:1, the secon one is from Genesis 1:2 to the last judgement, 
and the third heavean and earth after the last judgement.

When God created the heaven and earth in the begining, He did not create them 
in chaos found in verse 2.

Genesis 2:1  And the earth was without form and void: and darkness was upon the 
face of the deep.  And the Spirit of God move upon the face of the waters.

One must look closely at the word "was" in this verse.  Why is the first "was" 
 not italicized and the second "was" is?  (Did you know why words are 
italicized in the KJV?  The translators added them.)  The first was should of 
been translated became instead of was.  (I have not been able to find the verb 
"to be" in Hebrew or Estrangelo Aramic.)

The words "form and void" are a figure of speech called {paronomasia}, meaning 
"similar in sound but not in sense or meaning." {reference Figures of Speech in 
the Bible by EW Bullinger.}  The Hebrew word are "tohu va bohua".

Isaih 45:18 and Jeremiah 4:23 point out that the heavens and earth were not 
created tohu va bohu.  God did not create the heavens and earth tohu va bohu, 
the condition in which it was found in Genesis 1:2.  The whole creation was 
originally prefect.  Isaiah tells more aboput how the earth became without form 
and void.  Isaiah records that in the begining, sometime before Genesis 1:2 , 
God created angels, spirit beings.  When He created these angles, He put all 
the angles under three heads:  Gabreil, Michael, and Lucifer.  But celestrial 
strife ensued, with Lucifer and a third of the angles trying to usurp the 
throne of God.  Consequently these spirit beings were dispelled from heaven and 
became known as the fallen angels, the enemies of God.  

Ezekiel 28:15 speaks of Lucifer who was at one time the angel of light.  
Whatever happened between Genesis 1;1 and 1;2 was such a ctatclsmic nature that 
a perfectly created eath became tohu va bohu.  When Lucifer rebelled in heaven, 
the whole creation rocked and reaeled.  Romans 8 says that even until today the 
whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain.

One must read the first three chapters of Genesis very carefully and pay 
attendtion to what is written.  In Genesis 1:3 God said let there be light: and 
there was light.  Did God create light at this time??  Why did God not have to 
create light?  Because whatever light is composed of already existed.  God had 
created in the begining, and now simply needed to be put together. 

Another interesting verse to look at is Genesis 1:11.  This tells us that we 
did not come from monkeys or any other thing.  This gets rid of the evolution 
theory.

The last verse I want you to look at is Genesis 1:28  Here God told Adam and 
Eve to be fruitful, and multiply and REPLENISH the earth.  If they were going 
to replenish the earth, it must have been plenished before.  In the peroid 
between Genesis 1;1 and 1;2.  In that period of time was prehistoric man.  When 
scientists find bones of so called animals, including man, there is no problem. 
 In putting ancient bones together and conculding it to be man or another type 
of animal, scientists deduce that these findings represent man as he was 
evolving into the present day man.  This deduction is Biblically inaccurate.  
Scientists have never seen what type of life mobilized those bones and in 
Genesis 1:21 is where God created man as it is presently known.


S.I.T.
Tom

	I think the problem lies in trying to force the spiritual truth
of the Hebrew Bible to fit the mold of scientific truth and vice versa.

Shalom,
Richard

.73 FABSIX::T_PLAHM
 Title:  creation or evolution

Tom,

You can boil your whole argument down to "I belive this book, period". That's
okay for you, but please don't try to represent this as scientific in any way,
shape or form.

If you want to argue it, ALL of the observable facts belong to the
evolutionists. There is some doubt about some of the theories (for which we are
grateful to the creationists, i.e. the theory has gotten a more rigorous workout
than most and still stands up fairly well), but there are (as nearly as I can
tell) ZERO facts backing up the creationist stories.

Steve