Evolution 2

[JoeC]

Hey, this is continuing the subject from the topic "Evolution" (started in the main forum).

My friend (Snoopy, aka Daniel Arant) and I were talking about evolution over email and we thought we'd bring the discussion to an open forum environment, so anyone could chip in. The next three posts are the copies of our emails to bring you up to date - and then it's all open.

This will be a contuing forum and I am doing a term project for Philosophy 123 (Critical Thinking) on the subject of evolution & creationsism. SOme people in my class really don't know what to think about the two and I'm praying/hoping that my report might make them second guess their scular indoctrination.

I'll bring more information to the table as I come across it. Feel free to chip in your opinions and what you know! :blabbermo

[JoeC]

*cracks nuckles*

Well, I've done alot of lesiurly study on Creation science.

Just remember that Evolution is NOT logical. It is the most illogical thing ever conceived by man. Here is a perfect example...

In Texas a few years back a flood tore off a whole layer of limestone on the bed of the Paluxy River near Glenn Rose, Texas. In the layer of limestone beneath they found dinosaur AND human footprints side by side, and in some cases on top of one another. This is obvious evidence that humans and dinosaurs co-existed. However, evolutionists refused to believe that this was possible because they "know that dinosaurs went extinct x million years ago, and homo sapiens have only been around for a quarter million". Essentially, they were saying "If we didn't know any better we would say that dinosaurs and humans lived at the same time." That's one example where evolution gets in the way of common sense science. In fact, two prominent evolutionists were seen in the river bed with an iron bar defacing some of these prints.

Evolutionists believe something that is scientifically impossible. Not only is there no proof, all existing "proof" is exactly contrary. Almost every field of science offers some kind of refute. Biology teaches that chromosomes cannot be added to a creature's DNA, no matter how long it is around. Therefore it never could evolve. Most evolutionists (in light of this well-known fact) have changed the theory of evolution to include something called "punctuated equalibrium". This is the idea that over loooong periods of time, eventually an organism will mutate, causing a new species to develop. Evolutionists, however, fail to realize that so far, not one mutation observed (an only the observable can be classified as science) has ever been beneficial. Mutation reflects the corruption of data, not the addition of it.

As you can see, and as your research will begin to uncover, evolution is the greatest hinderance to enlightened thought that has ever been concocted. It has absolutely NOTHING to do with logical analyzation. It is a belief system. Remember, though, that the earth is quite obviously very very old, and nobody will take you seriously if you tell them you believe in a young earth. Bro. Branham even said that the earth was billions of years old, and science has proven it, mostly through astronomy (consider stars that are billions of lightyears away. In order to see the light from these stars, the earth would HAVE to be billions of years old).

Here is a perfectly delightful quote by a prominent evolutionist. It illustrates my point even better than I could. Shoot THIS at your evolutionary friends:

"Evolution is accepted not because it can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."

----Dr. D.M.S. Watson
"To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of special creation."
----Prof. E.J. Corner Cambridge University

"A myth, says my dictionary, is a real or fictional story that embodies the cultural ideals of a people or expresses deep, commonly felt emotions. By this definition, myths are generally good things – and the origin stories that paleoanthropologists (people who study man like fossils) tell are necessarily myths."
-----Dr. Matt Cartmill

"Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory."

Isn't that rich? Don't worry, my friend, you have nothing to worry about...

Here are some helpful links:

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/taylor-trail.htm (talks about dino/human footprints)

http://www.drdino.com/downloads.php (here you can stream kent hovind's seminars. While he is a young earther, he is extremely good at making evolution look like the ridiculous fraud that it is.)

[JoeC]

Daniel,

First of all I want to thank you for your offer to critique my rough draft. I will most certainly take you up on it as well as any other qualified individual who was the time to review it.

I'd like to hear the problem with my purpose statement from the start. If it's just grammatical, I can live with that. It will get revised. If it is incoherent with science or arguable on its premise, that's another matter, and though I'm sure I'll revise it as I understand the controversy more, I would like to know whatever potential problems exist with it from the start.

Now. Two problems with the below e-mail:

1.
A seemingly minor statement, but a major concern in the Evolution vs. Creationism debate is your statement "... only the observable can be classified as science." According to this, we cannot classify evolution OR creationism as science - because the original circumstances are neither observable nor repeatable.

Thus developed the proposal of distinguishing between origins (or historical) science and operational science (e.g. mechanical physics, medicine research), put forth by Geisler & Anderson in their book Origins Science: A Proposal for the Creation - Evolution Controversy. This point is also elaborated in Sarfati's book Refuting Evolution 2 on pgs. 23 - 26 (though a young earther, I would highly recommend him). Here Sarfati asserts that "operational science deals only with repeatable, observable processes in the present, while origins science helps us to make educated guesses about the origins in the past." He goes on to say that while operational science relies heavily on observation (among other things), origins science uses the principles of causality (everything that has a beginning has a cause) and analogy (e.g. we observe that intelligence in needed to generate complex coded information in the present, so we can reasonably assume the same for the past)." Without these distinctions, either side can determine the science of their side and the opposing side merely by their own chosen semantics - it is easy to see how the controversy could degenerate into a mudslinging contest (and in many cases it has!).

2.
The Paluxy Footprints. Unfortunately, the fossil evidence just isn't that clear cut and anyone who informed you other wise was either strongly biased or uninformed. Evolution 2 sums this up pretty well, so I'll just quote: "Some prominent creationist promoters of these tracks have withdrawn their support. Some of the allegedly 'human footprints beside tracks' may be artifacts of erosion of dinosaur tracks obscuring the claw marks. There is a need for properly documented research on the tracks before we would use them to argue the co-existence of humans and dinosaurs. (However, there is much evidence that dinosaurs and humans co-existed)."

Now I'm not trying to refute the tracks, I'm just saying that I don't believe we, as sound minded creationists, need to result to dubious claims that are questioned by both sides of the scientific fence - especially when we have such a wealth of clearly valid evidence. The below quote from an evolutionist on Epinions.com (click for full article) shows what the scientific community expects for a validation of a find like this (which, apparently, the Paluxy Tracks didn't pass):

"...If there really were human footprints and dinosaur footprints mixed together in fossils from Paluxy this would be a momentous biological discovery. The process of validation would follow the same pattern I described for Annie's experiments. Every possible check would be
carried out to ascertain, first, that what seemed to be dinosaur footprints were indeed dinosaur footprints, second, that what seemed to be human footprints were indeed human footprints, and third, that the two sets of prints were, in fact contemporaneous.

How should you do this? The first and most obvious thing to do would be to look at a sample of fossils of human footprints that all authorities agree are human footprints---Do such fossils exist?---and compare them with the features of the Paluxy fossils that look like footprints.

If you could prove not only that the features looking like footprints existed in tracks as the dinosaur footprints existed in tracks, that they appeared in some places to be on top of dinosaur tracks, and in others to be beneath dinosaur tracks, that they were of the appropriate size and shape, and revealed the slipping and blurring to be expected from walking or running over mud, the next thing you would do would be to write a paper based on the evidence and submit it to _Nature_, a scientific weekly magazine that publishes the hot news in science. The paper would then be sent out to independent referees who would scrutinise the
contents, decide if the evidence presented supported the conclusions. Almost certainly the paper would be rejected, and the reasons for the rejection would be explained to you, just as I rejected Annie's experiments at first, and explained to her what I thought she was doing wrong.

You would be annoyed, as she was, go back, collect more evidence, seek more advice, improve your techniques, and eventually submit another paper answering the objections of the referees. This too might well be rejected.Then you might begin to ask yourself if there could be any other possible explanation for the marks that you have taken to be footprints. Do the marks have _all_ the necessary properties that fossil footprints are bound to have? And if they have, you would collect more evidence, rewrite the paper once again, submit,
rewrite, until at last you accepted you were mistaken, gave up, or the paper was published. Of course giving up is the least satisfactory outcome; but you would have the consolation that times change, and if your
conclusions are correct, another scientist could make them, and publish them at some future, more propitious time.

I don't know what the outcome of such an exploration would be. However,that is the way to participate in the scientific dialogue. I will say this though: If at last you overcame all objections you would be welcomed as a hero of science."



Though I doubt that they would really accept you as a hero of science! ;-)


Now, Snoop, on a personal note. I really find this topic quite fascinating. If you're interested, I'd like to go into depth with you on it in an open forum environment, like that at the YQ site, where others might contribute content as well. Please let me know. Though, if you want, we can just keep it to private email.

Cheers!
- JC

[JoeC]

I would be very skeptical of the claim that scientist on "both sides of the isle" are doubtful of the Poluxy footprints. It is also interesting to note that Poluxy was not the only discover of its kind. Kent Hovind mentions several more which I can't think of off the top of my head. It certainly isn't the best evidence for dinosaurs and humans being contemporary, it is merely demonstrating the mindset of evolutionary scientists that "the evidence must be bent to fit our theory" rather than the other way around.

There is other evidence that dinosaurs are still alive, or at least, were until very recently. Many aquatic long-necked dinosaur carcasses have been found by fishermen from various parts of the world, and many of them were photographed.

One more thing, if you can prove the truthfulness of the Bible that gives you a springboard from which to launch more successful attacks against evolution. This is a little off topic for a debate setting and would be much more useful in witnessing, but it is a slap in the face to any evolutionist who wants to claim that the Bible is a bunch of fables.

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/red_sea_crossing.htm

That site has some of the most amazing pictures. There's a whole documentary on the exodus...

Anyway, more later,
Snoop

[JoeC]

OK, that catches everyone up to date :rolleyes:

[JoeC]

I would be very skeptical of the claim that scientist on "both sides of the isle" are doubtful of the Poluxy footprints...

...Many aquatic long-necked dinosaur carcasses have been found by fishermen from various parts of the world, and many of them were photographed...

...One more thing, if you can prove the truthfulness of the Bible that gives you a springboard from which to launch more successful attacks against evolution...

For material that establishes the authenticity of the Bible, check out author Lee Strobel, he is a former antheist and investigative journalist (a prominent one). One of his greats is "The Case for Christ."

Now, as far as the Poluxy Footprints, I wasn't saying anything, I was quoting a book, a creationist book, that basically said the Poluxy prints didn't have enough research behind them to use in an argument with evolutionists - not that they are absolutely illigitimate. We need to stick with the well established arguments.

Which brings us to the long necked dinosaurs. It sounds like you are referring to the cases of the plesiosaur findings - most prominently that of the Japanese Trawler Zuiyo-maru caught near New Zealand in 1977.

Unfortunately, establishing the case for dinosaurs and humans co-existing is not as easy as all that. The supposed plesiosaur was the rotting carcass of a basking shark, which resembles a plesiosaur when decomposing. This is again recognized by both evolutionists and creationists (see sources at bottom). The many other findings you mentioned is probably the same thing - I have seen at least one of the kinds of pictures you're talking about (and really, you should quote your sources instead of making broad references - preferably print sources as anyone with half a mind post something on this internet with their own twist).

Now, I'm not trying to argue with you that evolutionists can be illogical, but there really are some arguments that shouldn't be used, and we really should familiarize ourselves with these arguements - otherwise when arguing with an even semi-knowledgeable evolutionists we will not be taken seriously.

I'll post more as I research more. God bless!

Sources:
P. Jerlstrom, "live Plesiosaurs: Weighing the Evidence," TJ 7(1):2-42, 1993.

Jerlstrom & B. Elliot, "Letting Rotting Sharks Lie: Further Evidence That the
Zuiyo-maru Carcass Was a Basking Shark, Not a Plesiosaur, TJ 13(2): 83-87, 1999

P.S. TJ is the creationist peer-reviewed journal put out by http://www.answersingenesis.org/ (http://answersingenesis.org/)

[Snoopy]

I'll try to cite my references from now on, but the problem is I'm hearing most of this second hand and I don't keep track of where other people get it. In addition, I don't have time to find where these facts are located. If I had more time I would do some more detailed and thorough research on the topic...

I just looked up some facts about the Zuiyo Maru plesiosaur to see if I could put some of the pieces together myself. I assume you have seen pictures of this "basking shark" carcass. From a layman's point of view it looked nothing like a shark. It is also interesting to note that before any of them had so much as examined the evidence, evolutionists around the globe had already renounced the claim that it was a prehistoric animal. All they had to go one was a photograph, and if a basking shark carcass and a plesiosaur carcass (of which we have no examples) look similar, how could these "scientists" possibly determine which it was based on a photograph? One "expert" zoologist even said that "it is instantly recognizable as a sea lion." This scientist did not know that chemical tests that had ruled out all possibilities of it being a mamal. The panel of Japanese scientists agreed that heard the account from the fisherman who measured it agreed it could not be a fish (and, therefore, not a shark) because the spine was too thick and the neck was too long (1.3 meters). In addition, the man who measured the carcass and sketched it said that he measured its head. The head is considerably small in relation to the rest of the body, which is uncharacteristic of basking sharks.

Basically, the impression I get from the article I read is that the only scientists who thought it was NOT a plesiosaur were those who had not examined any of the evidence beyond the photograph. Willfull ignorance.

I was reading about carbon dating to get a handle on its credibility. Every creationist I've ever heard strongly denounces it as myth. Since you are so keen to shoot down poorly backed up arguments, Josiah, I figured I should do some investigating of my own. I had somewhat of a handle on the science of it, but I wanted to make sure. Radiometric dating methods are the ONLY evidence of the age of fossils. If you can shoot down radiometric dating, you can shoot down the theory that dinosaurs are millions of years old and extinct.

On average, one can only find 1 carbon-14 atom for every 1 trillion normal carbon atoms. The half-life of carbon 14 is 5,730 years. That means that if something was only 5,730 years old there would be a mere 1 C14 isotope to every 2 trillion C12 atoms. How could one possibly hope to measure levels of carbon-14 in such small quantities? Consider the difficulty of measuring such small quantities of ANYTHING with any accuracy! According to the article (and I have heard similar accounts from various sources), carbon-14 dating is only accurate to the last 3000 to 3500 years. You may well recall the living mollusk discrepancy.

There was also the case of the coelacanth found off the coast of madagascar. This creature was thought to be extinct for millions of years. They probably determined this by testing the fossils for carbon-14 or some other radiometric dating method.

I would write more but it's getting late. I'll really have to do more research when I have time.

Aren't you proud of me? I'm citing my sources...

(I did a ton of cross-referencing about the plesiosaur, but this is the main source. It is also important to note that this is not just some wahoo posting on the internet. This was first published as a magazine article in 1977.)

(This gives an explanation of the general science behind carbon-14 dating. It is obviously biased, but no more so than any other scientist who would argue to the contrary.)
http://www.gennet.org/facts/nessie.html

http://www.contenderministries.org/evolution/carbon14.php

[JoeC]

What you say about the carbon dating sounds true. I still have yet to review that, but apparently the RATE project just released their findings this year in the very technical books Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volumes I & II. Apparently, it's based on practically unrefutable science. Being so early, evolution proponents haven't released a counterarguement. Though I get the distinct impression that they are using the ostrich method.

The layman's version of these books is the video and book Thosands... Not Billions" by D. DeYoung. I'm planning to buy it cheap of Amazon. Check out Institute For Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/ ) website for mor info on these publications.

What you say about the evolutionists being so quick to proclaim the flasity of the carcass is certainly a good example of their all-to-willingness to refute claims that compromise their position. Interesting stuff!

[collegegirl]

I have nothing to add, because you both took all of my resources from me, especially the dr. dino thing.

[Snoopy]

Evolutionists are poo-heads. (2 Daniel 1:21)

[MarieLenora]

well, then, there's not much more to say about that, is there?

http://www.yqnews.org/forums/images/icons/icon10.gif
Talking

[collegegirl]

It's true, there is nothing more to say about evolutionists, but that doesn't mean that they will go away because we call them that. It also doesn't mean that they will not try to force their way of believing on you. I have had people try to tell me that the way I believe is wrong, that the Bible doesn't mean what is says. It was about my long hair, and wearing skirts. We were in a computer lab working on a project with all of the others, and he kept telling me that I was wrong. I even looked the scriptures up online and showed him, but he told me that his uncle was a deacon in a church, and his wife never wore skirts, and cut her hair. He just didn't get it. And on top of that, he turned around and asked another guy that was in the lab, and the other guy agreed with ME, and told the first guy that he (the first guy) believes what he believes, and I believe what I believe, and that he (the first guy) can't make me believe what he believes. (Did that make sense?)

[blessed]

Sure it does make a lot of sense. i realise that with this message u can't make other ppl understand what u believe unless the Lord opens their eyes or else u will just have one argument after another. We are truly a blessed people that the Lord has given us the grace to believe this message

[collegegirl]

What we really should do is live a life so salty that they will want to know what we believe, and why we believe it, and what makes us different, rather than arguing whether we are wrong or not.

[ancy]

What we really should do is live a life so salty that they will want to know what we believe, and why we believe it, and what makes us different, rather than arguing whether we are wrong or not.
I totally agree!!!!!!!!!!!!!
That's the only thing that really works. Be a light in darkness!

[collegegirl]

What is the Bible verse that reads, "let my life so shine before men that they may see my good works and glorify my Father, which is in heaven."?

[JoeC]

Sure it does make a lot of sense. i realise that with this message u can't make other ppl understand what u believe unless the Lord opens their eyes or else u will just have one argument after another.

Yes, however I think it is helpful to know some counter-evolutionary tactics. Especially if you plan of raising kids in this world - for their sake you need to know where you stand (as with everything else).

Also, the Bible says to be as "wise as serpents... gentle as doves."

[collegegirl]

Oh sure. Just like when you drive, you can't drive FOR everyone else, but you have to be consciencious, (however you spell that) of how you drive, how they drive, and how to counteract what they are doing to make it safe for you and whoever else happens to be in the vehicle.

[Christian-Samurai]

My brother did a whole sermon series on Evo and it was quite intersting.

[blessed]

i once had a teacher who believed in evolution, i was about 16 at that time and he was 33 i think and we used to disagree all the time, eventually he gained great respect for me by the light that God helped me to shine. I think he is still and atheist though i wish the Lord will take the scales off his eyes to believe

[Unregistered]

Evolutionists are poo-heads. (2 Daniel 1:21)

hmmmm Where is the book of 2 Daniel ???

[collegegirl]

Good question. Did you just mean the book of Daniel?

[JoeC]

Snoopy was joking. You will not find a REAL Bible verse saying "evolutionists are poo-heads."

:)

[DMCNCUSA]

Musical Memory

2 Chronicles 7:6a

And the priests attended to their services; the Levites also with instruments of the music of the Lord, which Kind David had made to praise the Lord, saying, 'For His mercy endures forever,' whenever David offered praise by their minis

Are you a musician? From the standpoint of evolution, human musical ability serves no purpose. Assuming that the laws of nature could even invent musical ability, they would have no reason to do so. However, from the standpoint of creation, music serves to praise our Creator.

Unfortunately, some who enjoy music cannot carry a tune, while other people can play or sing a piece without even looking at any music after hearing it once. The scientific study of musical ability has become an important area of study as a result of some recent discoveries. Researchers have discovered that it's true that some people have natural musical ability and some don't. They have found that some people have perfect pitch, even if they have no musical training, while those who are tone-deaf remain tone-deaf despite musical training. Studies show that only about one person in 2,000 has perfect pitch.

Researchers were shocked to find solid evidence that musical ability is genetically inherited. Studying musical ability in both musically trained and untrained families, they found that musical ability follows a dominant inheritance pattern. Sons or daughters have a 50% chance of inheriting the gene from a parent who carries it.

How could mindless evolution develop a gene that codes for musical ability? Even evolutionists appear to be puzzled by this. But those of us who believe in the Creator praise Him whether we have musical ability or not!

References: Genetic key to perfect pitch. Minneapolis Star Tribune,Nov. 20, 1990.

[JoeC]

Update:

I delivered my origins speech. I do believe I received an A - the teacher requested me to come back next semester and present it to her next class.

Instead of delving into which side is right and which is wrong, I took the non-partisan approach. The presentation was on giving people the tools to research the controversy for themselves. A couple seemed genuinely interested. My hope is that the truth will unfold to them as they search it out for themselves and that God my use the opportunity to speak to their hearts.

[collegegirl]

That is wonderful. Do you think that you could put it somewhere where we could read it? Also, along those lines, I have a research project that I did about families and the TV, and I got an A on it also, and I would like for it to be available to anyone who cares to read it.

[JoeC]

Unfortunately, the only thing I have is a power point presentation - and it really wouldn't make any sense without the presenter. :)

Do upload your paper onto the web somewhere, though. :thumbup:

[blessed]

well u can do a video and post the link

[NeedGod]

i have noticed that when you tell people the word without mentioning anything about branham, they agree with you and praise you on your insight, then mention the prophet and everything goes downhill. they even want to question what they had believed before

[Unregistered]

joe,
There is a fabulous book at the Family Christian Bookstore called CASE FOR THE CREATOR. It is just full amazing facts (like those already mentioned) that you might enjoy reading. Also there is a great speaker on this subject--he is a baptist so you sort of have to apply the token to a few of his opinions...but otherwise absolutely great--named Kent Hovind. There are books, tapes and videos out of his that I know you would love. In addition to being a scientist, he is a regular laugh a minute! You are welcome to borrow my copy of CASE FOR.... or the creation vs. evolution audio tapes just give us a jingle. Good stuff.
God bless,
jennie L