The creation-evolution controversy is entering a critical, perhaps even climatic stage. Not only does this vital subject have great public visibility due to extensive media coverage of the various trials and hearings of the past, as well as the debates on the subject., but more and more scientists holding evolutionary views are begining to take the creationists' scientific challenge seriously for the first time. The eventual result may well be a major change in the way the subject of origins is taught in our schools and universities.

However, there continues to be widespread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what *creation science* is. Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of closemindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.

Is it possible that there could be *evidence* of creation?

The evolution model assumes that the universe is self-contained, and that the origin and developement of all its complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc..) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy. Theistic evolutionists do mnot stray far from this belief except to say that it was God who chose to create this way.

The creation model maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present.

One or the other of these two philosophies (or models, as they are frequently called) must be true since these are really the only two possibilities. That is--either all things can or cannot--be explained in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes. If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained--at least in part--by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created.

If one denies a Creator--then the existence of life proves evolution! Is that very convincing to you?

In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities and differences--similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.

This is, of course, exactly what we do find. Everything in the world of living organisms correlates, naturally and easily, with a creation order. Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at the submicroscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handywork of their creator.

The evolution model, on--the--other--hand, could not even *predict* the simplest living thing, since there is no known natural process that can generate organized complexity. All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organization to disorganization, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death.

A Creator eliminates the need for evolution in the macro-sense. And the fossil record does not support such a theory.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004

Answers

The creation-evolution controversy is entering a critical, perhaps even climatic stage. Not only does this vital subject have great public visibility due to extensive media coverage of the various trials and hearings of the past, as well as the debates on the subject., but more and more scientists holding evolutionary views are begining to take the creationists' scientific challenge seriously for the first time.

{You mean the 19th Century didnt count for anything?}-Zarove

The eventual result may well be a major change in the way the subject of origins is taught in our schools and universities.

{Doubtful unless real usable sicnific work is doen in creation theory, rather than what is usually presented...}-Zarove

However, there continues to be widespread misunderstanding in the scientific community concerning just what *creation science* is.

{Thats because most "Creation Scientists" are ministers who dotn even have icnece degrees wo use misinformaiton and bad arguments, like the snd Law of Thermodynamics arguments, to ty to discredit evoltion rather than prove special creaiton...}-Zarove

Many have considered it to be simply religion in disguise and have chosen to shun it altogether, even to the point of refusing to examine any scientific creationist writings. ]

{Not quiet, they see it as religious dogma in disguis form a Minorital standpoint,a nd shun it because the creaitonisst offer no viabke sicntific reason to suppor theor claims... and usualy recycle old, alreayd refuted argumnts...}-Zarove

This situation is regrettable and exhibits a degree of closemindedness quite alien to the spirit of true scientific inquiry.

{If evidence and real research where done, it owidl be listened to...however, repeatignt he claims of other creaitonsts and makign attakc sbase don Pseudo-sicnce and a lack of undertsanding of real sicnce is not in the best intrest of he creationist and results int eh shunning...}-Zarove

Is it possible that there could be *evidence* of creation?

{If there is , then present it, otherwise, yur wastign everyoens time...}-Zarove

The evolution model assumes that the universe is self-contained, and that the origin and developement of all its complex systems (the universe, living organisms, man, etc..) can be explained solely by time, chance, and continuing natural processes, innate in the very structure of matter and energy.

{No, it dorsnt... th eolutionary modles we use currently are actually reatircted to only the Earth as a closed system, and soemtimes use the Solar System ... never do they hold the ideal that the whoel Univrs eis closed, icne that si betind the scipe of evolutionary Biology.}-Zarove

Theistic evolutionists do mnot stray far from this belief except to say that it was God who chose to create this way.

{Aside form the fact that the model of evolutionary thoguth you present is false, but theistic evolution is merely evoluiton guided by God, rather than chance, this part I sort of agree with...}-Zarove

The creation model maintains that the universe is not self-contained, but that it must have been created by processes which are not continuing as natural processes in the present.

{No no no! You are makign a common Creatioist fallacy of assumign the frmation fo th Universe is part of the evoluitonary theory! there not the same! Creationism AND evolution deal SOLEY with li eon earth!}- Zarove

One or the other of these two philosophies (or models, as they are frequently called) must be true since these are really the only two possibilities.

{No there not...heck I can think of at elats ten, most arent beelived but I can think of them... such as an open Universe, as speculated by many uantum Ohysisists, in which the Universe is not fixed, the laws of Physics not ficed, the past, preasent, and futre not fxed, and the ability to spontaneously change is accepted...Or the ancient Pagan Modle with may gods emergign form Chaos to form the world as we see it now...}-Zarove

That is--either all things can or cannot--be explained in terms of a self-contained universe by ongoing natural processes.

{eolution doesnt predict if the Universe i self contained or ongoing, it doesnt deal in that area...}-Zarove

If they can, then evolution is true. If they cannot, then they must be explained--at least in part--by completed extra-natural processes in a universe which itself was created.

{You asusme "Open universeal system" as oppsoed to "Closed Universal System" means Evoution is false? Again, do you even knwo hat evlution is? Decent with modification can happen in EITHER Universl model you porpose, and is in fact MORE liekly int he open model than the closed model snce nw energy can alwas be added tot he matrix!}-Zarove

If one denies a Creator--then the existence of life proves evolution! Is that very convincing to you?

{How? If I deny the existance of a creator, I woidl be an ahtiest, hwoever, amny athists at oen time rejecte the natural decent of man form other forms of animals through evolution,a nd soem stull do! Life doesnt prove either God made evedrythign or evolution...}-Zarove

In the creation model we would expect to see a great array of complex functioning organisms, each with its own system of structures optimally designed to accomplish its purpose in creation. Different organisms would exhibit an array of similarities and differences-- similar structures for similar functions, different structures for different functions.

{OK...?}-Zarove

This is, of course, exactly what we do find. Everything in the world of living organisms correlates, naturally and easily, with a creation order. Every creature is a marvel of creative design, and the endless variety and beauty of things, even at the submicroscopic level, is a continual testimony to the handywork of their creator.

{Or else is a testamony of how ove time organisms developed a co- dependancy on each other, really this sit proof of a creator, and I am a Christtain! Please coem up wuth better arugmes for Creation!}- Zarove

The evolution model, on--the--other--hand, could not even *predict* the simplest living thing, since there is no known natural process that can generate organized complexity.

{Yes there is, its called "Chaos thory"... also, note how amny compelxe natural thigns happen, such as star formation...}-Zarove

All real processes tend to go in the opposite direction, from organization to disorganization, from complexity to simplicity, from life to death.

{Not nessisarily, nly in a closed system, whihc we arne t in, I remind you.}-Zarove

A Creator eliminates the need for evolution in the macro-sense. And the fossil record does not support such a theory.

{The ssil record is the best evidence for evolution and DOES indeed support the theory... just asserting it doesnt doesnt mzke it so.}

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 19, 2004.

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.

At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue- green algae)

Fossil links are also missing between numerous plants, between single- celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones), between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.

In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Here Is Living Proof That Evolution Is Real:

CREATIONISM
CREATION
CREATIVE
REACTIVE
ACTIVE
EVICT
EVICTION
EVOTION
DEVOTION
DEVOTIONAL
DEVOLUTION
EVOLUTION

..............................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

The above example also reflects the Genesis story. You just have to squint real hard and elaborate just a tad more.

:)

...............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.

The problem is, this sin true.

Firts off, the fossil record is understood to be incompelte. Very few animals fssilise, and we DO NOT anticipate findign a speciman form every pseicies that eved lived. Base don demographic studies, we expect zround 10% of all animal spoeicies that ever lived to be preasentf in the fossil record, the remainign 90% to be lost. Tjis fact alone renders the " Signs of contenuous change" idea to be irrelevant and false, since the theory and current undertsanding prdicts the opposite.

Likewise, yoi ar eoperaitgn under a flase model. I mean, relaly, do yuo think ALL evolutionisst beelive in slow, gradual, constant change? what about Punctuated equilibrium theory, formulated and championed by the Late Steven J. Gould? It predics that speicies will remain vitually the same for countelss thousands, posisbely millions, of years, until seperation and a chang ein climate woidl nessesitate adaptiosn that are better suited o the new environemtn and evolutioin in spurts. rapid change over a sort perod of time followed by long periods of little to no development. This too is supporte dby the fissil record.

Evolutionary mechanics sint a statc model of constant Darwinian style change over time, and disproving this model in and of itsself doesnt disprive the whoel Evolutionary theory. least of all sicne most Sicnetists alreayd reject it!

At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue- green algae)

Which is wholly cinsistant wihtthe idea that evlution increases gemetrically. the more compelxe a life form, the more rapidly it can evolve into a greater diversity of other forms. The corrolery is howeve that the ability to adapt lessens with greater ocmpelxity, but not the ability to adapt through evlution, whic gorws strigner with subsequent generations.

Think of it liek a Number thread. If you have only 4 beads, you can only arrange tm in a limited way. !,2,3,4.4,3,2,1,.1.3.2.4.ect...

The more beads toyu have, the greater the ability to rearrange them.

Fossil links are also missing between numerous plants, between single- celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects, between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones), between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and mammals, between reptiles and birds, between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.

Which, as I explaiend, is expecte din an incompelte fossil record that neither has been fully discovered nor cully preserved...

In fact, chains are missing, not links.

This is blatant dishoensty which can be disproven by simpley gpign over tot he discovery Channel website and seeign several "Cains" from Archeopteryx to Modern Birds, from early eliphant type creatures to modern elephants, an form Homonids to Modern man...

The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly it is safe to conclude these gaps are real; they will never be filled.

Problem is that they ARE filled, and we O have intermediate forms. I remind you gain of the Hominids...

Or Archeopteryx.

Or any of a dozen others I can hink of right off...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 19, 2004.

Faith--

When something is "missing", it implies that it must first exist if it is "missing". I wonder. Did Pluto exist during the days of Christopher Columbus? Or, was it just "missing"? When Bruno was burned at the stake, was the knowledge that the earth orbits the sun "missing" or was it the truth that the earth was the center of the universe?

Just because something is "missing" does not mean that it does not exist. It only means that it hasn't been "found" yet. There are many theories that can have a devasting affect on reality, but they are still theories. The Atomic Bomb falls into such an example.

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Really Zarove.,wow!

Archeopteryx to Modern Birds??

Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds. Of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks. Some say the six Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world.

But the story behind this alleged half-dinosaur, half-bird is much more interesting than its fancy, scientific-sounding name or the details of its bones. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory.

Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries. Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.

If Archaeopteryx did not have a few perfectly formed, modern feathers, clearly visible on two of the six known specimens, Archaeopteryx would be considered Compsognathus. The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are certainly not suitable for flight, because no specimen shows a sternum (breast bone) which all birds, and even bats, must have to anchor their large flight muscles. But why would Archaeopteryx have modern, aerodynamically perfect feathers if it could not fly? Finally, Archaeopteryx should not be classified as a bird.

The two fossils with feathers were “found” and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s theory and book, The Origin of Species (1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts thought the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen. (In the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were common in that region of Germany.

Evidence of an Archaeopteryx forgery includes instances where the supposedly mating faces of the fossil (the main slab and counterslab) do not mate. The feather impressions are primarily on the main slab, while the counterslab in several places has raised areas with no corresponding indentation on the main slab. These raised areas, nicknamed “chewing gum blobs,” are made of the same fine-grained material that is found only under the feather impressions. The rest of the fossil is composed of a coarse-grained limestone.

Some might claim that Archaeopteryx has a wishbone, or furcula—a unique feature of birds. It would be more accurate to say that only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula. It is a strange furcula, “relatively the largest known in any bird.” Furthermore, it is upside down, a point acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movement—T. H. Huxley (Darwin’s so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated,

It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity.

Feather imprints show what have been called “double strike” impressions. Evidently, feather impressions were made twice in a slightly displaced position as the slab and counterslab were pressed together.

Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser- grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphous paste” also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found. Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.

Fossilized feathers are almost unknown, and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Had a feathered Archaeopteryx been buried in mud or a limestone paste, its feathers would have had a three- dimensional shape, typical of the curved feathers we have all held. Indeed, the only way to flatten a feather is to press it between two flat slabs. Flattened feathers, alone, raise suspicions.

Also, there has been no convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. One difficulty, which will be appreciated after reading about liquefaction is the low density of bird carcasses. Another is that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, as explained on pages. Therefore, to be buried in limestone, the animal must lie on the seafloor—unusual for a dead bird.

Significantly, two modern birds have been discovered in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx. In Argentina, many birdlike footprints have been found which evolutionists say preceded Archaeopteryx by at least 55 million years. Therefore, according to evolutionary dating methods, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds. True fossilized birds have been found that evolutionists believe lived shortly after Archaeopteryx. This has forced some to conclude that the distinctly different Archaeopteryx was not ancestral to modern birds.

When an evolutionist claim popularized by the media is later shown to be false, retractions are seldom made. National Geographic, which originally, and erroneously, reported the discovery in China of “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds,” has provided one refreshing exception. (Actually, the fossil was a composite of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s tail, faked for financial gain. Details were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigator at the request of National Geographic’s editor. The report was summarized as follows:

It’s a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.

Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.

Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery. Unlike the Piltdown hoax, which fooled leading scientists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years. Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud.

The British Museum (Natural History) gave life to both deceptions and must assume much of the blame. Those scientists who were too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework also helped spread the deception. Piltdown man may soon be replaced as the most famous hoax in all of science.

Birds have many marvelous and unique features: flight, feathers, energy efficiency, navigational abilities, brittle eggs, amazing eyesight, and lightweight construction. If birds evolved, from where did they come? Evolutionists try to solve this recognized dilemma by claiming birds evolved from dinosaurs or that they are “cousins.” Archaeopteryx is a prime exhibit for both views. Yes, dinosaurs have some features in common with birds, especially aspects of their bone structure, but birds have many unique features.

Another possibility is that a designer gave both birds and dinosaurs some common features, because each had similar needs. For example, gears are common to cars, bicycles, windmills, and watches. Everyone knows they were designed. No one teaches, advocates, or even considers that windmills turned into cars or watches. Efficiency dictates design similarities. How could anyone think dinosaurs evolved into hummingbirds? Time, mutations, and natural selection?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Ah! once again, you beat me to the punch, Zarove.

Darwin claimed that he was "forced" into the Evolution idea. He was thinking that thing changed--"gradualism". Cheetham subscribed to "Punctuated Equilibrium". Niles Eldredge and Stephen Gould introduced the new idea in 1972. I think it dealt with the study of the Bryozoa fossil record--a coral-like animal.

.........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

"Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement."

A: And this fooled everyone because, you see, professional paleontologists can't tell the difference between sedimentary rock and manmade cement! :-)

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 19, 2004.

"No one teaches, advocates, or even considers that windmills turned into cars or watches. Efficiency dictates design similarities. How could anyone think dinosaurs evolved into hummingbirds? Time, mutations, and natural selection? "--Faith.

Hmmmm? But, in reality, cars become junk. The metal is recycled to make other things, but not always another car. I've seen rail-cars turned into resturants. Hey, I've lived long enough to see the nice Le Mans muscle car turn into a wimpy econo-box "car". So, why can't a dinosaur turn into a hummingbird? Those little horsies in museums turned into big stallions.

But, Faith, you are using your Person Incredulity as the bases of your immediate argument. It reminds me of the man and his child sitting on the buckboard heading home in the middle of the night:

Father: "What's you lookin at son?"

Son: "The moon, Paw."

Father: "Tis bright..."

Son: "Let's go there sumday, Paw."

Father: "Ha..ha.. you're crazee boy. Ain't no way any man will go thar."

Son: "Why not?"

Father: "It's impossible! Don't you know it's made of cheese? And besides, It's too far; we ain't got a bird big nuff to fly us there."

Son: "Oh....."

Personal Incredulity.

.....

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Paul,

Are you surprised?

Read on...

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, and yet, it was in textbooks for more than 40 years.

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakeye and others in a form resembling part of the human jaw. Ramapithecus was just an ape.

The only remains of Nebraska “man” turned out to be a pig’s tooth.

Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thigh bones of apes found in the same area.

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man. Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created.

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportionsk and should never have been classified as manlike.

The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between man and living apes. Another study of their inner ear bones, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity with those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences with those of humans. Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans.

One australopithecine fossil—a 31/2-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called “Lucy”—was initially presented as evidence that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show this is very unlikely. She probably swung from the trees and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees. The australopithecines are probably extinct apes.

For about 100 years the world was led to believe Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This erroneous belief was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets. Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today. Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ depictions of them, especially of their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence.

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable. Morris/Parker

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Ok, Faith. Here's one you may also wish to ignore:

With a Fundamentalist view point, let's try to consider Adam's task. Adam was allowed to name all of the animals. All of the animals? You say that they were all created at the same time. Well, God gave Adam the task of naming the all. I read that there are between 10 and 100 million species of living organisms today, as we speak. I also read that if Adam thought up a name a minute for 16 hours a day (earth time), it would take him between 30 and 300 years to name them all. Hmm....this opens the door to more questions:

1. How long was a "day" in the beginning?

2. How many animals were there in the Garden?

3. Did Adam name all of them, really?

4. Did all of the animals exist together at one time, really?

5. Did all of the animals also include the "57 Heinze Variety", too?

6. Is it rational to believe that the Genesis account a metaphoric account of creation?

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Hey, it once took me about 3 days to name one of my dogs--"Chacho".

.......................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Then, it took me about 30 seconds to rename her--"Chacha".

........................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Really Zarove.,wow!

Yes...really...

read on...

Archeopteryx to Modern Birds??

Not exaclty. Archeopteryx is considered the FIRST Modern Bird...read on...

Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds.

Once again, Dinosaurs are asusmed to be reptiuels... and on no other proof than your say so.

No, Modern thought doesnt say Archeopteryx is a transition between Dinosaurs ( or reptules) and Birds, rather, it says the distinction between Dinosaurs and Birds is artifiicial, and not real. Burds ARE Dinosaurs, not merley decended form them...

Again, oen needent even beleiv ei Evolution to beleive that Dinosaurs where warm-b looded and feathered...

Of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks. Some say the six Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world.

there are 8 now...

But the story behind this alleged half-dinosaur, half-bird is much more interesting than its fancy, scientific-sounding name or the details of its bones. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory.

No it woildnt. Archeopteryx is o ly ONE of the many transitional forms. ( Many, not few faith...)

Likewise, the Theory of evolution has been around since 1859, Archeopteryx wasnt discovered until 1860, and not identified as havign feathers till much, much later. ( I think the 20th century.)

The theory of evolution doesnt rst on Arvheopteryx, or even the Dinosaur-Bird conneciton.

indeed, if it did then why was evlution NOT devistated by the LACK of connection made between dinosaurs and Birds in the 19th and early 20th Century, mist of which until aroudn the mid 1980's typified the dinosaurs as sluggish, slow witted, swamp dwellugn reptiles? And dint even connect Archeopteryx with Dinosaurs except as living at th same time?

Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries. Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.

Who makes these claims, exaclty? Do you want me to take your word for it without indeoendant verification?

Weekly world News claism many of our US Senators are actually ZOMBIES! Do I beelive them at face value?

If Archaeopteryx did not have a few perfectly formed, modern feathers, clearly visible on two of the six known specimens, Archaeopteryx would be considered Compsognathus.

Though similar to compsognathus, the skeleton alone differs in over 100 places...

Arm lenth, skull size and shape, breast deign... I mean relaly... I will look omnlien for a comparrison chart, btu this I know is a flat otu lie. I have a book right in front of me.

The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are certainly not suitable for flight, because no specimen shows a sternum (breast bone) which all birds, and even bats, must have to anchor their large flight muscles.

Strnslgey, his sint true...recent discoveries revear a Keel bine... and even strnager a Young Earth Creationist group ised the existance of the Keel to prove evolution false becaue Archeopteryx had oen thus wa a Bird and not a dinosaur ( which they also clas as cld-blooded reptiles.)

Frm Answers in Genesis ( though legit news has i as well)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1239.asp

Relevant quote.

"This fossil cannot be an ancestor of birds, since Archaeopteryx, a true bird with fully formed flight feathers and a wishbone, is dated by evolutionists at 15 million years before this fossil. "

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp#flying

More on Arhceopterys form berkely.Futs site I cmae to.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

No wishbone indeed...

But why would Archaeopteryx have modern, aerodynamically perfect feathers if it could not fly? Finally, Archaeopteryx should not be classified as a bird.

SZee above. Feathers ( oh thats right, soem unnamed peopel back int he 80' said they wher fake) wishbone, common concnesus of lfight, and thr added fsct that nto all MODERN Birds can cly ( OStreches and emus... penguines, ect...)

Why SHOULDNT Archeopteryx be seen as a Bird?

The two fossils with feathers were “found” and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s theory and book, The Origin of Species (1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts thought the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen. (In the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were common in that region of Germany.

Not wuiet the hisotyr btu will let it slide as its sclose enough... one of the two newer dicoveries liekwise have feather imprints...

Evidence of an Archaeopteryx forgery includes instances where the supposedly mating faces of the fossil (the main slab and counterslab) do not mate. The feather impressions are primarily on the main slab, while the counterslab in several places has raised areas with no corresponding indentation on the main slab. These raised areas, nicknamed “chewing gum blobs,” are made of the same fine-grained material that is found only under the feather impressions. The rest of the fossil is composed of a coarse-grained limestone.

and toy can erify this claim...?

Some might claim that Archaeopteryx has a wishbone, or furcula—a unique feature of birds. It would be more accurate to say that only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula. It is a strange furcula, “relatively the largest known in any bird.” Furthermore, it is upside down, a point acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movement—T. H. Huxley (Darwin’s so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated,

Thi is anatomiclalt false... the clavical is smaller proportionally than average and adjacent, not upside down, and is nrmal for flat- decay rate...

It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity.

How did they make compsognathus's skulllarger and rounder, arms longer, and ankle joins wirk better for climbing than running?

Cmpsognathus doesnt look exacltiuy idential to Archeopteryx minus the feathers!

Indeed, comp. May have HAD feathers!

And if thdre is no diference between compsignathus and Archeopteryx, then how do we know the other 4 fossil archeopteryx are Archeopteryx since we don fnd the Keel boine or feathers? if they looekd identical save these features woidlnt socntists think that the others are CXompsognathus?

Feather imprints show what have been called “double strike” impressions. Evidently, feather impressions were made twice in a slightly displaced position as the slab and counterslab were pressed together.

I woidl relaly love to see the eivdence for this... I relaly would... I guess we have to belive or claim at face vlaue...

Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser- grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphous paste” also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found. Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.

Im sorry, but not findign this anywhwre, can you site a source?

Preferabley no a crationist website or book?

Fossilized feathers are almost unknown, and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Had a feathered Archaeopteryx been buried in mud or a limestone paste, its feathers would have had a three- dimensional shape, typical of the curved feathers we have all held. Indeed, the only way to flatten a feather is to press it between two flat slabs. Flattened feathers, alone, raise suspicions.

This is false... if compressed beneith sifficient wiehgt, the whole animal woidl be flatteed, whiuch is what we find!

Also, there has been no convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. One difficulty, which will be appreciated after reading about liquefaction is the low density of bird carcasses. Another is that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, as explained on pages. Therefore, to be buried in limestone, the animal must lie on the seafloor—unusual for a dead bird.

Which is why fossils are rare... unuusal, but it ds happen even tiday!

Significantly, two modern birds have been discovered in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx. In Argentina, many birdlike footprints have been found which evolutionists say preceded Archaeopteryx by at least 55 million years. Therefore, according to evolutionary dating methods, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds. True fossilized birds have been found that evolutionists believe lived shortly after Archaeopteryx. This has forced some to conclude that the distinctly different Archaeopteryx was not ancestral to modern birds.

No, they find soem evidence of earluer Bird developent, not fll specimans, before Archepteryx, except one speciman of earluer, ground based animals... which i will ge tino later as the name eludes me, which CORROSPONDS to Archeopteryx.

When an evolutionist claim popularized by the media is later shown to be false, retractions are seldom made. National Geographic, which originally, and erroneously, reported the discovery in China of “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds,” has provided one refreshing exception. (Actually, the fossil was a composite of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s tail, faked for financial gain. Details were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigator at the request of National Geographic’s editor. The report was summarized as follows:

It’s a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.

If memory serves, this was ove ra new speciman, not Archeopteryx.

Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.

Why?

Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery. Unlike the Piltdown hoax, which fooled leading scientists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years. Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud.

At leats aocrding to your unnamed sicnetists and a lot of false informstion...

The British Museum (Natural History) gave life to both deceptions and must assume much of the blame. Those scientists who were too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework also helped spread the deception. Piltdown man may soon be replaced as the most famous hoax in all of science.

No, it wont... as its nt a hoax.

Birds have many marvelous and unique features: flight, feathers, energy efficiency, navigational abilities, brittle eggs, amazing eyesight, and lightweight construction. If birds evolved, from where did they come? Evolutionists try to solve this recognized dilemma by claiming birds evolved from dinosaurs or that they are “cousins.” Archaeopteryx is a prime exhibit for both views. Yes, dinosaurs have some features in common with birds, especially aspects of their bone structure, but birds have many unique features.

Which is expected with evolutionary theory...New features evolved over itme hat predessessors lacked...

My computer has feaurs an old commoore 64 lacks, btu developed form th same tehcnology...

Another possibility is that a designer gave both birds and dinosaurs some common features, because each had similar needs. For example, gears are common to cars, bicycles, windmills, and watches. Everyone knows they were designed. No one teaches, advocates, or even considers that windmills turned into cars or watches. Efficiency dictates design similarities. How could anyone think dinosaurs evolved into hummingbirds? Time, mutations, and natural selection?

And the pitn t this is?we are all christaisn here Faith... As for the last queatsion, we can beelive it as the (real) evidnece shwos it...

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 19, 2004.

The only one doing any ignoring is you rod.

You are now going to begin your mad dash at screwing up the threads so that my posts get lost in the shuffle and no one who might want to respond can see them anymore?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 19, 2004.

Wrong, again, Faith. I am answering to your comments. You just don't get my points; that's all. I'm sure some will get both my humor and message. It's all there for those who can see it. Some may not see it yet, but they will evolve to my humor, or lack of, in time.

You didn't answer my Adam task. Because.....you can't!

LOL

:)

See? Who's mad??

...........

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Your arguments for Creation-Science are based on Personal Incredulity, faulty evidence, lack of evidence, faith, customized definition of Science, Philosophy, and wishful thinking. I have yet to see any real evidence to support your claims that Creation-Science is a legitimate "science". Creation-Science cannot be supported by defuncting Evolution. It must have its foundation based on hard evidence or strong theory. You haven't provided either one.

..................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

Dont forget my counerargumen Faith...

Here are a couo other AIG linsk for you on the "Forged" arhaeopteryx...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

It also shows the Midnset of the Creationists you quote form so much.

-- (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COMzarove), November 19, 2004.

Give me the evidence I need to believe that Creation-Science is a viable endeavor. I want to see authentic artwork of prehistoric man harnessing a dinosaur across the great plains. I want to see a seagull fossil dating as far back as the beginning of Creation. I want to see a cockroach imprisoned in petrified tree sap dating millions of years that looks exactly like the ones we squash today. I want to see prehistoric apes in their fossilized remains alongside fossilized humans. I want to see a complete DNA trail leading all the way back to Adam. I want evidence that Noah embarked with all the pairs of every animal, without having to build extra dingies. I want to know why viruses become immuned to modern medicinal curatives/drugs. I want to know why man progressed from stone age to high technology age . That's just for starters.

................

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 19, 2004.

rod,

It would seem that you are not paying attention.

For one thing, cockroaches were bigger back in the begining. In fact, everything was bigger. This is because things also lived longer. We find giant cockroaces fossilized. We find oversized vegetation fossilized as well.

Asking about Noah, when I am telling you that Creation Science is not a study of the Bible--is silly.

Due to a variation within the species, even cockroaches would have changed some.

Before the fall, one should expect that things were better. The enviroment was better and things lived longer and better lives. Even after the fall, it took time for things to reach the absolute devestation and decay rates of today.

Neanderthal man is likely a man from Genesis who lived an average of 300 years or so. That explains their boney overgrowth condition and even their arthritis and rickets! But that's another book.

And viruses do not *become* immune. Viruses cannot be treated as of yet, not really. We have some anti-viral drugs--but nothing to really kill them. Antibiotics only handle bacterial infections. Some bacteria has become drug-resistent. But that is not evidence of evolution, not even close! Drug resistent bacteria doesn't even demonstrate the production of favorable mutations.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 20, 2004.

Someon forogt soemthing...

Really Zarove.,wow! Yes...really...

read on...

Archeopteryx to Modern Birds??

Not exaclty. Archeopteryx is considered the FIRST Modern Bird...read on...

Evolutionists claim that Archaeopteryx is a feathered dinosaur, a transition between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds.

Once again, Dinosaurs are asusmed to be reptiuels... and on no other proof than your say so.

No, Modern thought doesnt say Archeopteryx is a transition between Dinosaurs ( or reptules) and Birds, rather, it says the distinction between Dinosaurs and Birds is artifiicial, and not real. Burds ARE Dinosaurs, not merley decended form them...

Again, oen needent even beleiv ei Evolution to beleive that Dinosaurs where warm-b looded and feathered...

Of the relatively few claimed intermediate fossils, Archaeopteryx is the one most frequently cited by evolutionists and shown in most biology textbooks. Some say the six Archaeopteryx fossils are the most famous fossils in the world.

there are 8 now...

But the story behind this alleged half-dinosaur, half-bird is much more interesting than its fancy, scientific-sounding name or the details of its bones. If Archaeopteryx were shown to be a fraud, the result would be devastating for the evolution theory.

No it woildnt. Archeopteryx is o ly ONE of the many transitional forms. ( Many, not few faith...)

Likewise, the Theory of evolution has been around since 1859, Archeopteryx wasnt discovered until 1860, and not identified as havign feathers till much, much later. ( I think the 20th century.)

The theory of evolution doesnt rst on Arvheopteryx, or even the Dinosaur-Bird conneciton.

indeed, if it did then why was evlution NOT devistated by the LACK of connection made between dinosaurs and Birds in the 19th and early 20th Century, mist of which until aroudn the mid 1980's typified the dinosaurs as sluggish, slow witted, swamp dwellugn reptiles? And dint even connect Archeopteryx with Dinosaurs except as living at th same time?

Since the early 1980s, several prominent scientists have charged that the two Archaeopteryx fossils with clearly visible feathers are forgeries. Allegedly, thin layers of cement were spread on two fossils of a chicken-size dinosaur, called Compsognathus. Bird feathers were then imprinted into the wet cement.

Who makes these claims, exaclty? Do you want me to take your word for it without indeoendant verification?

Weekly world News claism many of our US Senators are actually ZOMBIES! Do I beelive them at face value?

If Archaeopteryx did not have a few perfectly formed, modern feathers, clearly visible on two of the six known specimens, Archaeopteryx would be considered Compsognathus.

Though similar to compsognathus, the skeleton alone differs in over 100 places...

Arm lenth, skull size and shape, breast deign... I mean relaly... I will look omnlien for a comparrison chart, btu this I know is a flat otu lie. I have a book right in front of me.

The skeletal features of Archaeopteryx are certainly not suitable for flight, because no specimen shows a sternum (breast bone) which all birds, and even bats, must have to anchor their large flight muscles.

Strnslgey, his sint true...recent discoveries revear a Keel bine... and even strnager a Young Earth Creationist group ised the existance of the Keel to prove evolution false becaue Archeopteryx had oen thus wa a Bird and not a dinosaur ( which they also clas as cld-blooded reptiles.)

Frm Answers in Genesis ( though legit news has i as well)

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1239.asp

Relevant quote.

"This fossil cannot be an ancestor of birds, since Archaeopteryx, a true bird with fully formed flight feathers and a wishbone, is dated by evolutionists at 15 million years before this fossil. "

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/0128feathered.asp#flying

More on Arhceopterys form berkely.Futs site I cmae to.

http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/birds/archaeopteryx.html

No wishbone indeed...

But why would Archaeopteryx have modern, aerodynamically perfect feathers if it could not fly? Finally, Archaeopteryx should not be classified as a bird.

SZee above. Feathers ( oh thats right, soem unnamed peopel back int he 80' said they wher fake) wishbone, common concnesus of lfight, and thr added fsct that nto all MODERN Birds can cly ( OStreches and emus... penguines, ect...)

Why SHOULDNT Archeopteryx be seen as a Bird?

The two fossils with feathers were “found” and sold for high prices by Karl Häberlein (in 1861 for 700 pounds) and his son, Ernst (in 1877 for 20,000 gold marks), just as Darwin’s theory and book, The Origin of Species (1859), were gaining popularity. While some German experts thought the new (1861) fossil was a forgery, the British Museum (Natural History) bought it sight unseen. (In the preceding century, fossil forgeries from limestone quarries were common in that region of Germany.

Not wuiet the hisotyr btu will let it slide as its sclose enough... one of the two newer dicoveries liekwise have feather imprints...

Evidence of an Archaeopteryx forgery includes instances where the supposedly mating faces of the fossil (the main slab and counterslab) do not mate. The feather impressions are primarily on the main slab, while the counterslab in several places has raised areas with no corresponding indentation on the main slab. These raised areas, nicknamed “chewing gum blobs,” are made of the same fine-grained material that is found only under the feather impressions. The rest of the fossil is composed of a coarse-grained limestone.

and toy can erify this claim...?

Some might claim that Archaeopteryx has a wishbone, or furcula—a unique feature of birds. It would be more accurate to say that only the British Museum specimen has a visible furcula. It is a strange furcula, “relatively the largest known in any bird.” Furthermore, it is upside down, a point acknowledged by two giants of the evolutionist movement—T. H. Huxley (Darwin’s so-called bulldog) and Gavin deBeer. As Fred Hoyle and N. Chandra Wickramasinghe stated,

Thi is anatomiclalt false... the clavical is smaller proportionally than average and adjacent, not upside down, and is nrmal for flat- decay rate...

It was somewhat unwise for the forgers to endow Compsognathus with a furcula, because a cavity had to be cut in the counterslab, with at least some semblance to providing a fit to the added bone. This would have to be done crudely with a chisel, which could not produce a degree of smoothness in cutting the rock similar to a true sedimentation cavity.

How did they make compsognathus's skulllarger and rounder, arms longer, and ankle joins wirk better for climbing than running?

Cmpsognathus doesnt look exacltiuy idential to Archeopteryx minus the feathers!

Indeed, comp. May have HAD feathers!

And if thdre is no diference between compsignathus and Archeopteryx, then how do we know the other 4 fossil archeopteryx are Archeopteryx since we don fnd the Keel boine or feathers? if they looekd identical save these features woidlnt socntists think that the others are CXompsognathus?

Feather imprints show what have been called “double strike” impressions. Evidently, feather impressions were made twice in a slightly displaced position as the slab and counterslab were pressed together.

I woidl relaly love to see the eivdence for this... I relaly would... I guess we have to belive or claim at face vlaue...

Honest disagreement as to whether Archaeopteryx was or was not a forgery was possible until 1986, when a definitive test was performed. An x-ray resonance spectrograph of the British Museum fossil showed that the finer-grained material containing the feather impressions differed significantly from the rest of the coarser- grained fossil slab. The chemistry of this “amorphous paste” also differed from the crystalline rock in the famous fossil quarry in Bavaria, Germany, where Archaeopteryx supposedly was found. Few responses have been made to this latest, and probably conclusive, evidence.

Im sorry, but not findign this anywhwre, can you site a source?

Preferabley no a crationist website or book?

Fossilized feathers are almost unknown, and several complete, flat feathers that just happened to be at the slab/counterslab interface are even more remarkable. Had a feathered Archaeopteryx been buried in mud or a limestone paste, its feathers would have had a three- dimensional shape, typical of the curved feathers we have all held. Indeed, the only way to flatten a feather is to press it between two flat slabs. Flattened feathers, alone, raise suspicions.

This is false... if compressed beneith sifficient wiehgt, the whole animal woidl be flatteed, whiuch is what we find!

Also, there has been no convincing explanation for how to fossilize (actually encase) a bird in the 80% pure, Solnhofen limestone. One difficulty, which will be appreciated after reading about liquefaction is the low density of bird carcasses. Another is that limestone is primarily precipitated from sea water, as explained on pages. Therefore, to be buried in limestone, the animal must lie on the seafloor—unusual for a dead bird.

Which is why fossils are rare... unuusal, but it ds happen even tiday!

Significantly, two modern birds have been discovered in rock strata dated by evolutionists as much older than Archaeopteryx. In Argentina, many birdlike footprints have been found which evolutionists say preceded Archaeopteryx by at least 55 million years. Therefore, according to evolutionary dating methods, Archaeopteryx could not be ancestral to modern birds. True fossilized birds have been found that evolutionists believe lived shortly after Archaeopteryx. This has forced some to conclude that the distinctly different Archaeopteryx was not ancestral to modern birds.

No, they find soem evidence of earluer Bird developent, not fll specimans, before Archepteryx, except one speciman of earluer, ground based animals... which i will ge tino later as the name eludes me, which CORROSPONDS to Archeopteryx.

When an evolutionist claim popularized by the media is later shown to be false, retractions are seldom made. National Geographic, which originally, and erroneously, reported the discovery in China of “a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds,” has provided one refreshing exception. (Actually, the fossil was a composite of a bird’s body and a dinosaur’s tail, faked for financial gain. Details were explained on a few back pages of National Geographic by an independent investigator at the request of National Geographic’s editor. The report was summarized as follows:

It’s a tale of misguided secrecy and misplaced confidence, of rampant egos clashing, self-aggrandizement, wishful thinking, naive assumptions, human error, stubbornness, manipulation, backbiting, lying, corruption, and, most of all, abysmal communication.

If memory serves, this was ove ra new speciman, not Archeopteryx.

Such fiascoes are common among those seeking rewards and prestige for finding fossils of missing links. The media that popularize these stories mislead the public.

Why?

Archaeopteryx’s fame seems assured, not as a transitional fossil between dinosaurs (or reptiles) and birds, but as a forgery. Unlike the Piltdown hoax, which fooled leading scientists for more than 40 years, the Archaeopteryx hoax has lasted for 125 years. Because the apparent motive for the Archaeopteryx deception was money, Archaeopteryx should be labeled as a fraud.

At leats aocrding to your unnamed sicnetists and a lot of false informstion...

The British Museum (Natural History) gave life to both deceptions and must assume much of the blame. Those scientists who were too willing to fit Archaeopteryx into their evolutionary framework also helped spread the deception. Piltdown man may soon be replaced as the most famous hoax in all of science.

No, it wont... as its nt a hoax.

Birds have many marvelous and unique features: flight, feathers, energy efficiency, navigational abilities, brittle eggs, amazing eyesight, and lightweight construction. If birds evolved, from where did they come? Evolutionists try to solve this recognized dilemma by claiming birds evolved from dinosaurs or that they are “cousins.” Archaeopteryx is a prime exhibit for both views. Yes, dinosaurs have some features in common with birds, especially aspects of their bone structure, but birds have many unique features.

Which is expected with evolutionary theory...New features evolved over itme hat predessessors lacked...

My computer has feaurs an old commoore 64 lacks, btu developed form th same tehcnology...

Another possibility is that a designer gave both birds and dinosaurs some common features, because each had similar needs. For example, gears are common to cars, bicycles, windmills, and watches. Everyone knows they were designed. No one teaches, advocates, or even considers that windmills turned into cars or watches. Efficiency dictates design similarities. How could anyone think dinosaurs evolved into hummingbirds? Time, mutations, and natural selection?

And the pitn t this is?we are all christaisn here Faith... As for the last queatsion, we can beelive it as the (real) evidnece shwos it...

Dont forget my counerargumen Faith...

Here are a couo other AIG linsk for you on the "Forged" arhaeopteryx...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4254news3-24-2000.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i4/birds.asp

It also shows the Midnset of the Creationists you quote form so much.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 20, 2004.

All that I see in your links--is creation scientists willing to reconsider their analysis of the evidence. That is something that evolutionists never seem to do. The fact remains though--that arhaeopteryx is still not a link between dinosaurs and birds. This is what science is all about Zarove--examining the evidence. Creation Scientists do exactly what evolutionary scietists are suppose to do.

Some Creationists still believe it was a forgery. In any event--the creationist is closer to the truth than the evolutionist--who has been left out of the debate altogether!

“The ‘Archaeoraptor’ fossil, once proclaimed as a key intermediate between carnivorous dinosaurs and birds but now known to be a forgery, is a chimaera formed of bird and dromaeosaur parts.” Zhonghe Zhou et al., “Archaeoraptor’s Better Half,” Nature, Vol. 420, 21 November 2002, p. 285. u Xu Xing, “Feathers for T. Rex?” National Geographic, Vol. 197, No. 3, March 2000, Forum Section.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 20, 2004.

All that I see in your links--is creation scientists willing to reconsider their analysis of the evidence. That is something that evolutionists never seem to do.

{yOU MUST BE KIDDING. EOLUITONARY SICNETISTS RE-EVALUATE THE EVIDENCE ALL THE TIME. tHE DIFFERENCE IS, IF THEY DO, AND REJECT A FORMER THEORY IN FAVOUR OF A NEWER ONE,C REATIONISST LIKE TO CLAIM THEY ARE TRYING IN DESPERATION TO COVER UP THER ERROR AND BAD RESEARHC ONLY CEATIONISM CAN SOLVE.

Ive seen it dozens of times. Creationists note a new theory has replaced an ld, or sicntists reconsider soem old find, and impart new data, bolster the fact that the icntistss admited they where wrgn, and pronounce evolutuon dead once again.

However, evolutionary aicnece HAS changed consierabel in its veiws. heck the Bird Dinosaur link is part of it. Dinosaurs wher eonce classed as reptiels, now there not. They wher eonce classed as completley extinct, now there not. revision after revision comes into play as evolutionary researchers attemt to understand the past.

On the other hand, creationsts are still using outdated argumens form the 50's...}-Zarove

The fact remains though--that arhaeopteryx is still not a link between dinosaurs and birds.

{Or so you claim. This sin relaly a fact bu an asertion, and one hat 99.5 percent of all researchers disagree with you on.}-Zarove

This is what science is all about Zarove--examining the evidence.

{which craitonist claim evolutionust don do, while ignorign most of it themselves...}-Zarove

Creation Scientists do exactly what evolutionary scietists are suppose to do.

{No, they dont. Just becaue you say evlutionary scientists don examine the eidence and revise theories, doesnt make it so. And itsz a known fac tthat creatiomsist seldom if ever re-examine an existign position.}-Zarove

Some Creationists still believe it was a forgery.

{Only because they WANT to beleive it, as they cant stand Archeopteryx, as it IS a transitional form, and oen of ther mantras is " There are no transitional forms".}-Zarove

In any event--the creationist is closer to the truth than the evolutionist--who has been left out of the debate altogether!

{We are discussing it now lassie. And no, creationisst are far form the truth, especally the oens you site who class Dinosaurs as reptiles and who think that any connection ebtwen Birds and dinosaurs is evolutionary, andwho ignroe facts while smearign evolutionists, as you do above.}-Zarove

“The ‘Archaeoraptor’ fossil, once proclaimed as a key intermediate between carnivorous dinosaurs and birds but now known to be a forgery, is a chimaera formed of bird and dromaeosaur parts.” Zhonghe Zhou et al., “Archaeoraptor’s Better Half,” Nature, Vol. 420, 21 November 2002, p. 285. u Xu Xing, “Feathers for T. Rex?” National Geographic, Vol. 197, No. 3, March 2000, Forum Section.

{Yes. proclaiemd a forgery the SAME YEAR it was discovered. Unlike the 125 year old Arheopteyx finds. Which number 8. Which havent been discredited.

By the way, if Archeopteryx and Compsognathus look exaclty alike asid fom the feathers. how did htye classifty as archeopteryx as Archeopteryx in the specimins where the feathers wherent prserved? Or do you at least admit thee are differences int he Skeletons and they are seerate, though similar, Genus?}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 20, 2004.

The Elephant in the Living Room Writer George V. Caylor interviewed Sam, a molecular biologist. George asked Sam about his work. Sam said he and his team were scientific “detectives,” working with DNA and tracking down the cause of disease. Here is their published conversation.

G: “Sounds like pretty complicated work.”

S: “You can’t imagine how complicated!”

G: “Try me.”

S: “I’m a bit like an editor, trying to find a spelling mistake inside a document larger than four complete sets of Encyclopedia Britannica. Seventy volumes, thousands and thousands of pages of small print words.”

G: “With the computer power, you can just use ‘spell check’!”

S: “There is no ‘spell check’ because we don’t know yet how the words are supposed to be spelled. We don’t even know for sure which language. And it’s not just the ‘spelling error’ we’re looking for. If any of the punctuation is out of place, or a space out of place, or a grammatical error, we have a mutation that will cause a disease.”

G: “So how do you do it?”

S: “We are learning as we go. We have already ‘read’ over two articles in that encyclopedia, and located some ‘typo’s’. It should get easier as time goes by.”

G: “How did all that information happen to get there?”

S: “Do you mean, did it just happen? Did it evolve?”

G: “Bingo. Do you believe that the information evolved?”

S: “George, nobody I know in my profession truly believes it evolved. It was engineered by ‘genius beyond genius,’ and such information could not have been written any other way. The paper and ink did not write the book. Knowing what we know, it is ridiculous to think otherwise. A bit like Neil Armstrong believing the moon is made of green cheese. He's been there!”

G: “Have you ever stated that in a public lecture, or in any public writings?”

S: “No. It all just evolved.”

G: “What? You just told me — ?”

S: “Just stop right there. To be a molecular biologist requires one to hold on to two insanities at all times. One, it would be insane to believe in evolution when you can see the truth for yourself. Two, it would be insane to say you don’t believe in evolution. All government work, research grants, papers, big college lectures—everything would stop. I’d be out of a job, or relegated to the outer fringes where I couldn’t earn a decent living.”

G: “I hate to say it, Sam, but that sounds intellectually dishonest.”

S: “The work I do in genetic research is honorable. We will find the cures to many of mankind’s worst diseases. But in the meantime, we have to live with the ‘elephant in the living room’.”

G: “What elephant?”

S: “Design. It’s like the elephant in the living room. It moves around, takes up an enormous amount of space, loudly trumpets, bumps into us, knocks things over, eats a ton of hay, and smells like an elephant. And yet we have to swear it isn’t there!”

George V. Caylor, “The Biologist,” The Ledger, Vol. 2, Issue 48, No. 92, 1 December 2000, p. 2. (www.ontherightside.com)

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 21, 2004.

You failed to address my queastions.

Ill make it simple. A list.

1: if Compsognathus and Archeopteryx look identical except Compsognathus didnt have feathers, how where the fossil Archeopteryx identified as Archeopteryx that also lacked preservation of feathers? Surley they woudl have been assumed to have been Compsognathus, since no trace of feathers existed on 4 of the 6 specimans, and Compsognathus was Identified formt he SAME location.

2: What Scentistsis actally declared Archeopteryx a hoax, and why is it that even most Creation sceintitsts accept Archeopteryx as NOT a hoax?

3: You claim that evolutionists never revise there position, in light of new evidence, whereas Creation Sceintists do. You likewise claim that Creationists do what evolutionists are suppose to do. Then why is it that Creationists are renown for their use of old, outdated arguemnts, and never, ever revis there arguems or out fourht new theories, when evolutionists do all the time? Likewise, how do you acocunt for the several revisions in recent years form evolutionists? Creationists use these revisions in the theory of evolution to show how weak the theoiry is since it needs adjustment! dispote the fac that a;most all sicnetific theories neeed adjustment over time!

Can you prove that evolutionists DONT revisw there standigns and thories an creaionits do?

4: If dinosaurs were warm blooded, does tis relaly prove evoluiton? Likewise, if cold blooded, woidl it prove creation? why cant one be a creaitonist and accept dinosaurs as warm Blooded?

5: Coerrellary to 4, why cant one be a creationist and beleive that Dinoaurs where Birds. Note: I didnt say evolved into Birds, I said WHERE Birds. with over 86000 known Bird types currently in existance, and seveal knwon Ground Biurds, why is it out of the wueasion for veociraptor to have been a Bird?

6: why, if dinosaurs where cold-Blooded reptiles, are tey build for speed and aflity? surley you realise that laerge-bodies animals like Velociraptor, who stiod 4 feet high and was 6 feet long, or Deinonychus, which was about the same height, would have had to spend long periods of time resting and movign lowly since they oudl lakc the energy reserves, yet there bodies, withhtere legs posiitoned directly beneigth there bodies, and there streamline shape, seems to suggest they where built for locomotion. why build an animal with a ody that woudl require a massive energy reserve, only relaly possible in a warm-blooded animal, then makw them cold-Blooded?

7:what evidence do you have that they where cold-blooded? Histeological evidnece shwos Harvestan canals that appear in abouthte same number as wrm blooded animals for the Theropods, even as adults. ( Unlek Hadrosaurs which seem to have warm-blooded harvestan canals as juvoniles and cold-blooded style as they grew older.)

8: Why do you insist that evolutionits are only trying to do away woth God as the creator, and try to mak this a batle between Atheism and Theism? I mean, surley you ralise that all the posters here are Christain, and a good many accepg evolutionary theory. rght or wrong, the theory is not intrensically Ateistic, and arguing agaisnt ateism and claimign Athesim is the only reason people beleive in eolution seems incompatable withhte many devout beleivers who accept evolution. So why do you beleive evolution is nessisarily atheistic?

Note: I am not askign for a long diatribe on evltion-eliminating-a- creator, nor on various religions, nor on other claims about how it is an exitant theory designed to eliminate God, just how you account for the number of Christains who accept evolution and are clealry not Atheists.

9: why is it you post either incomplete or irrelevant information? When asked for evidence OF Creationism, you wither post things thta yweild no real benefit to the discusion ( such as the interiew above) or else resort to an attack on evolution. The only creation evidence you have yet displayed has been so vuge and lackign in detail as not to be convencing, sicne we dont know WHAT rocks you where speakign of.

Can you show actal evidence of Creation? wihtout it just beign an attakc on evolution?

10: You d realise that attacjing evilution doesnt help, right? let me expalin. Mist of hwat you have doen is to try to prove evolution is false, this by default woidl prove Crationism in your lien of thought. The toruble is, this is a false meathod of proving anyhting. even if evolution where disproven, the theory of special Creation woudl not be proven. There are alternatives to these two options you know. So, ratr than expend energy tryign o disprove evolution soley, why not try to prove Creationism. especially sicne you claim that Creationism explaiusn the Data better. Please show me HOW it explaisn the data better.

11: Gradualism in eoluiton is no th eonly form of evolutionary thory or thought. why is it, then, that you seem ignorant, dispite repeated mentions of the current undertsanding of evoution, of this fact? why is it that you asusme slow, steady change with time is the whoel of evoltionary theiry, so that you can point to the fossil record with peicies seemignly static for millions of years, and claim that this proves evolution did not happen? Surley you realise that this is anticipated by Punctuated equilibrium, which is the curent model, in which transitional forms appear after generatiosn of stasis in any given speicies. since the gradual evolution that is ongoing is not rellay what current evolutionary thought predicts, why is it that you continue to use it as if disproiving Darwinian Fradualism disprives ecolution, while not accountign for the fact that mosy iilogists no longer hodl to this veiw?

12: Gid Said to seek knowledge and Undertanding, yet al you seek to do is prove a preconcieved notion. Thi also is spoken agaisnt in the Bible.

How much of evolutionary theory do you relaly know? even without beeliving it, you shoudl at leats reaD UP ONT HE SUBJECT BEFORE SPEAKIGN OF IT.

So, I ask again, how much do you know of evoltioanry theory? readign boosk by creationists doesnt give you a hgood broad base of undertsanifng.

-- zarove (ZAROFF3@JUNO.CM), November 21, 2004.

And do try to actuaslly ANSWER these quatsions, or else a shorter list of the cvial queatsiosn wll be repeated until you do.

These are the baisc qeasosn you cause to arise by your speaches that you never seem to answer or address.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.

Hi Zarove and Faith.

I've asked similar logical questions. Why won't Faith answer them? The main question that keeps "bugging" me is the one that deals with the justification (by Faith) of Creation-Science as a "viable science" based on a person's incredulity focused on destroying Evolution Theory, instead of independant evidence as the basis.

Faith, you claimed that things were much better back then, implying that things are now not. You seem to embrace some sort of faith in "Devolution", mentioned earlier by Max comment on "Devolution". Well, if it is true--stone age man living his primitive life without modern medicine, modern infrastructures, modern technology, modern art, modern agriculture, modern society, modern organized religion, modern Playstaion 3--, then it stands to reason that your "Evolution/ Creationis" clock runs backwards. That is a convenient way of destroying "Evolution".

God did destroy the world. Surely, He did not destroy a "better" evolved Man in view of what we have today--a "lesser" Man.

Uh.....I wasn't paying attention to what?

..............

-- rod (elreyrod@yahoo.com), November 21, 2004.

{Edited for clarity and to ake sure you dtn skip mien and go striahgt ot rods.}

You failed to address my questions. Ill make it simple. A list.

1: if Compsognathus and Archaeopteryx look identical except Compsognathus didn’t have feathers, how where the fossil Archaeopteryx identified as Archaeopteryx that also lacked preservation of feathers? Surely they would have been assumed to have been Compsognathus, since no trace of feathers existed on 4 of the 6 specimens, and Compsognathus was Identified form the SAME location.

2: What Scientists actually declared Archaeopteryx a hoax, and why is it that even most Creation scientists accept Archaeopteryx as NOT a hoax?

3: You claim that evolutionists never revise there position, in light of new evidence, whereas Creation Scientists do. You likewise claim that Creationists do what evolutionists are suppose to do. Then why is it that Creationists are renown for their use of old, outdated arguments, and never, ever revise there arguments or pit fourth new theories, when evolutionists do all the time? Likewise, how do you account for the several revisions in recent years form evolutionists? Creationists use these revisions in the theory of evolution to show how weak the theory is since it needs adjustment! despite the fact that almost all scientific theories need adjustment over time! Can you prove that evolutionists DONT revise there standings and theories an creationist do?

4: If dinosaurs were warm blooded, does this really prove evolution? Likewise, if cold blooded, would it prove creation? why cant one be a creationist and accept dinosaurs as warm Blooded?

5: Corollary to 4, why cant one be a creationist and believe that Dinosaurs where Birds. Note: I didn’t say evolved into Birds, I said WHERE Birds. with over 86000 known Bird types currently in existence, and several known Ground Birds, why is it out of the question for velociraptor to have been a Bird?

6: why, if dinosaurs where cold-Blooded reptiles, are they build for speed and agility? surely you realise that large-bodied animals like Velociraptor, who stood 4 feet high and was 6 feet long, or Deinonychus, which was about the same height, would have had to spend long periods of time resting and moving slowly since they would lack the energy reserves, yet there bodies, with there legs positioned directly beneath there bodies, and there streamline shape, seems to suggest they where built for locomotion. why build an animal with a body that would require a massive energy reserve, only really possible in a warm-blooded animal, then make them cold-Blooded?

7:what evidence do you have that they where cold-blooded? Histological evidence shows Harvestan canals that appear in about the same number as warm blooded animals for the Theropods, even as adults. ( Unlike Hadrosaurs which seem to have warm-blooded harvestan canals as juveniles and cold-blooded style as they grew older.)

8: Why do you insist that evolutionist are only trying to do away with God as the creator, and try to make this a battle between Atheism and Theism? I mean, surely you realise that all the posters here are Christian, and a good many accept evolutionary theory. right or wrong, the theory is not intrinsically Atheistic, and arguing against atheism and claiming Atheism is the only reason people believe in evolution seems incompatible with the many devout believers who accept evolution. So why do you believe evolution is necessarily atheistic? Note: I am not asking for a long diatribe on evolution-eliminating-a- creator, nor on various religions, nor on other claims about how it is an extant theory designed to eliminate God, just how you account for the number of Christians who accept evolution and are clearly not Atheists.

9: why is it you post either incomplete or irrelevant information? When asked for evidence OF Creationism, you wither post things that yield no real benefit to the discussion ( such as the interview above) or else resort to an attack on evolution. The only creation evidence you have yet displayed has been so vague and lacking in detail as not to be convincing, since we don’t know WHAT rocks you where speaking of. Can you show actal evidence of Creation? without it just being an attack on evolution?

10: You do realise that attacking evolution doesn’t help, right? let me explain. Most of what you have done is to try to prove evolution is false, this by default would prove Creationism in your lien of thought. The trouble is, this is a false method of proving anything. even if evolution where disproven, the theory of special Creation would not be proven. There are alternatives to these two options you know. So, rather than expend energy trying to disprove evolution solely, why not try to prove Creationism. especially since you claim that Creationism explains the Data better. Please show me HOW it explains the data better.

11: Gradualism in evolution is not the only form of evolutionary theory or thought. why is it, then, that you seem ignorant, despite repeated mentions of the current understanding of evolution, of this fact? why is it that you assume slow, steady change with time is the whole of evolutionary theory, so that you can point to the fossil record with species seemingly static for millions of years, and claim that this proves evolution did not happen? Surely you realise that this is anticipated by Punctuated equilibrium, which is the current model, in which transitional forms appear after generations of stasis in any given species. since the gradual evolution that is ongoing is not really what current evolutionary thought predicts, why is it that you continue to use it as if disproving Darwinian Gradualism disproves evolution, while not accounting for the fact that most biologists no longer hold to this view?

12: God Said to seek knowledge and Understanding, yet all you seek to do is prove a preconceived notion. This also is spoken against in the Bible. How much of evolutionary theory do you really know? even without believing it, you should at least read UP ON THE SUBJECT BEFORE SPEAKING OF IT. So, I ask again, how much do you know of evolutionary theory? reading books by creationists doesn’t give you a good broad base of understanding.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.

Some words for all of us to her thohg.

Titus chapter 3 Verse 9.

But avoid foolish questions, and genealogies, and contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and vain.

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 21, 2004.

And the theory of evolution is profitable to the cause of God? Do you realize how many peaopl give up on God because they think evolution must be true and they recognize that the theory cannot be harmonized with their faith? These people are at least smart enough to recognize that--but it's very damaging to their eternal destiny.

Theistic Evolutionists are those who Christ would call *lukewarm.*

They are neither hot or cold for Him. I just hope He doesn't decide to spit them out on that last day!

You really can't compromise God's Holy written Word to us.

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 23, 2004.

And the theory of evolution is profitable to the cause of God?

{it is the pursuit of Knowledge, which God also commanded of us. Otherwise, ti si a sceintific thory, and serves only that end. It czn be used for good, evil, or neutral purposes.}-Zarove

Do you realize how many peaopl give up on God because they think evolution must be true and they recognize that the theory cannot be harmonized with their faith?

{Do you relaise how many peopel do, in fact, harmomise it to there faith and don't mind it? do you realise how unaffected many,many peopels faith is by this thory?}-Zarove

These people are at least smart enough to recognize that--but it's very damaging to their eternal destiny.

{But they aren't smart enough to check the facts and realise that evolutionary theory can and has been harminised tot here faith? Really lass, this is insanity, people can accept both.}-Zarove

Theistic Evolutionists are those who Christ would call *lukewarm.*

{So now you presume to judge the faith and devotion one holds. and th level of obedience to God through Christ one possesses, based sley on a singular facotor, and thta being rather or not they happen to be creationists? This is absurd! Many devout, dedicated, intellegent Christains are Theistic evolutionists, and yet champion the cause of orthodox beleifs, storng morals, and socal justive! Many likewise spend several hours a week in prayer and seek the counsil of God, read scriptures dailly, and focus a lot of time and attention to there relationship wothhtere creator! And they are lukewarm becasue they arent creationisst? Realy you presume too much.}-Zarove

They are neither hot or cold for Him.

{This is a lie. Many are burnign wihthte flames of devotion, and you dismiss htem based upon your arogance and bias. Just simpley being a Theistic evolutionist doesnt make oens faith Luke Warm.}-Zarove

I just hope He doesn't decide to spit them out on that last day!

{Be warned of prideful judgement of anothers soul, especially when based on notions you have that may themselves be in error. Assumign only creatioist are devut and tehostic evolutionists are not is unacceptale slander.}-Zarove

You really can't compromise God's Holy written Word to us.

{I dont, but you do by such arogance and presumpton, which God often critisises in his word.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 23, 2004.

"Many devout, dedicated, intellegent Christains are Theistic evolutionists"

This is "not" true...

There is no such thing as a Christian who is a "theistic evolutionist"...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 24, 2004.

Sorry Kevin,

But it is true. You obviously have no real basis for saying it isn't true, except that is what you would like to believe. I on the other hand personally know many scientists who are devout, uncompromising followers of Jesus Christ. In fact, I sometimes attend a monthly meeting of Christian Health Care Professionals, primarily medical researchers of various kinds, for prayer and discussion of various issues. Not one of these Christian men and women would compromise their faith for any reason. Yet, not one of these scientists and physicians is afraid of accepting whatever truth is plainly revealed by scientific evidence. Real truth cannot conflict with real truth. Therefore there is nothing to fear.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 24, 2004.

Evidence is not scientific.

How we study the *evidence* left behind, can be called a science--but it isn't the evidence itself that is scientific. We all have the same fossils and earth in which to examine.

Some believe the evidence confirms what God has revealed about his creation---and others have decided that the evidence confirms a man- made theory--and then they try to harmonize it with God's Word by declaring that God's Word is really just one big poem and can't be taken literally.

I think that when God wants us to interpret His Word symbolically or allegorically or as a poem--He makes it quite clear. Genesis doesn't fit those categories--I'm afraid : (

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 24, 2004.

"Some believe the evidence confirms what God has revealed about his creation---and others have decided that the evidence confirms a man- made theory"

A: The problem Faith is that personal interpretations of God's Word are also "man-made theories". The fact that the Word of God is what you are theorizing about doesn't make your interpretations authoritative or correct. Therefore what it boils down to is one manmade theory about science made by one person with no scientific background, based on personal interpretations of a non-scientific source, vs. another manmade scientific theory made by actual scientists, specialists in their field, based on years of collective study of actual scientific evidence.

"I think that when God wants us to interpret His Word symbolically or allegorically or as a poem--He makes it quite clear"

A: Yes He does, through His Church, the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Surely 450 years of ongoing fragmentation and doctrinal chaos should be sufficient evidence to demonstrate that personal interpretation of Scripture cannot and does not yield truth.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 25, 2004.

Paul wrote, "Sorry Kevin, But it is true."

No, it is not true...

Paul wrote, "You obviously have no real basis for saying it isn't true, except that is what you would like to believe."

The proof is in the word of God which states the days of creation had an evening and morning which are literal 24 hour days.

Paul wrote, "I on the other hand personally know many scientists who are devout, uncompromising followers of Jesus Christ."

You claim that these "scientists are devot" and are "uncompromising followers of Jesus Christ" however if they hold to the doctrine of "theistic evolution" they are not Christians.

Paul wrote, "In fact, I sometimes attend a monthly meeting of Christian Health Care Professionals, primarily medical researchers of various kinds, for prayer and discussion of various issues."

Just because you attend a "meeting" and they "pray" does not make them Christian.

Paul wrote, "Not one of these Christian men and women would compromise their faith for any reason."

These men and women "claim" to be Christians however for the most part I can guarantee you this is not true... One can claim they are a Christian all they want however, they are not of Christ (a Christian) unless they have obeyed the gospel of Christ.

Paul wrote, "Yet, not one of these scientists and physicians is afraid of accepting whatever truth is plainly revealed by scientific evidence. Real truth cannot conflict with real truth. Therefore there is nothing to fear."

We do not need "scientific evidence" to prove what has already been revealed to us in God's word. You and many people like the Gnostics want to go (and have gone) beyond what God has plainly revealed in His word.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 25, 2004.

Paul wrote, "Sorry Kevin, But it is true." No, it is not true...

Paul wrote, "You obviously have no real basis for saying it isn't true, except that is what you would like to believe."

The proof is in the word of God which states the days of creation had an evening and morning which are literal 24 hour days.

{12... and again its more than likely a poetic cuplet, whihc osnt reduce it all to a big poem if you understand the way the anients used suhc to convey compelxe ideas for memerisation.}-Zarove

Paul wrote, "I on the other hand personally know many scientists who are devout, uncompromising followers of Jesus Christ."

You claim that these "scientists are devot" and are "uncompromising followers of Jesus Christ" however if they hold to the doctrine of "theistic evolution" they are not Christians.

{Are you to judge another mans soul based on what you percieve ot be an error? Can not, even if evolution is not true, these peopel be sincere in a mistake? even chruhc of christ members, suhc as I once upon a time, beleive in evlution. It is not a matter of rather or not one is a Chrisain but rather or not you agrreee withthem. You do not, but you have no right to relaly assert the condition of there soul or the level of commitment to Christ they have.}-Zarove

Paul wrote, "In fact, I sometimes attend a monthly meeting of Christian Health Care Professionals, primarily medical researchers of various kinds, for prayer and discussion of various issues."

Just because you attend a "meeting" and they "pray" does not make them Christian.

{And what would? Is beleif in creaitonism rellay a requisite? Christ said " Repent and be Baptised, and fllwo me", he did nto say " and likewise be creationists."}-Zarove

Paul wrote, "Not one of these Christian men and women would compromise their faith for any reason."

These men and women "claim" to be Christians however for the most part I can guarantee you this is not true...

{No, you cant. Leats of all base don a single theory you dsagre wiht them on.}-Zarove

One can claim they are a Christian all they want however, they are not of Christ (a Christian) unless they have obeyed the gospel of Christ.

{But no wher ein repent, be baptised, and actily live for Christ, is found the notion that one must be a Creationist! No wher ein he Gosp;el of Sa;vation is this ttruely discovered. You contend agaisnt he faiht and divide on isuses not relevant, placign yourself as judge of there ouls based upon your own perceptions.}-Zarove

Paul wrote, "Yet, not one of these scientists and physicians is afraid of accepting whatever truth is plainly revealed by scientific evidence. Real truth cannot conflict with real truth. Therefore there is nothing to fear."

We do not need "scientific evidence" to prove what has already been revealed to us in God's word. You and many people like the Gnostics want to go (and have gone) beyond what God has plainly revealed in His word.

{so have you, by judbing there sul and level of commitment wihtout even meeign them, based upon a single notion. A notin, I may add, you fisregard yourself when conveneint.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 26, 2004.

"{12... and again its more than likely a poetic cuplet, whihc osnt reduce it all to a big poem if you understand the way the anients used suhc to convey compelxe ideas for memerisation.}-Zarove"

That is your opinion Zarove and it does not agree with what has been revealed to us in God's word.

I wrote, "You claim that these "scientists are devot" and are "uncompromising followers of Jesus Christ" however if they hold to the doctrine of "theistic evolution" they are not Christians."

To which Zarove replied, "{Are you to judge another mans soul based on what you percieve ot be an error?"

Not based on what I perceive, but based on what God has revealed in His word. There is no such thing as "evolution" taught in God's word and since this is the case, I am correct in judging them to be in error. God says in 1 Corinthians 6:2, "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world?"

Zarove wrote, "Can not, even if evolution is not true, these peopel be sincere in a mistake?"

Yes, they can be sincere in a mistake however this does not correct their error. There are many who "claim" to be followers of Christ however they are liars. (see Matthew 7:21-23).

Zarove wrote, "even chruhc of christ members, suhc as I once upon a time, beleive in evlution."

One cannot read the Bible sincerely and believe in evolution at the same time.

Zarove wrote, "It is not a matter of rather or not one is a Chrisain but rather or not you agrreee withthem."

I merely responded to what you wrote, when you said "Many devout, dedicated, intellegent Christains are Theistic evolutionists" and this is not true.

Zarove wrote, "You do not, but you have no right to relaly assert the condition of there soul or the level of commitment to Christ they have.}-Zarove"

Why just because you say so Zarove??? One cannot believe in "theistic evolution" and be a Christian for this is not possible.

Zarove wrote, "{And what would? Is beleif in creaitonism rellay a requisite? Christ said " Repent and be Baptised, and fllwo me", he did nto say " and likewise be creationists."}-Zarove"

The Apostle John said in 2 John 9, "Whoever transgresses and does not abide in the doctrine of Christ does not have God. He who abides in the doctrine of Christ has both the Father and the Son."

I wrote, "These men and women "claim" to be Christians however for the most part I can guarantee you this is not true..."

To which Zarove replied, "No, you cant. Leats of all base don a single theory you dsagre wiht them on.}-Zarove"

Yes, I can... I wasn't discussing the "theory" when I made that statement... Go back and re-read what Paul wrote... and then read my response...

I wrote, "One can claim they are a Christian all they want however, they are not of Christ (a Christian) unless they have obeyed the gospel of Christ."

To which Zarove replied, "But no wher ein repent, be baptised, and actily live for Christ, is found the notion that one must be a Creationist! No wher ein he Gosp;el of Sa;vation is this ttruely discovered. You contend agaisnt he faiht and divide on isuses not relevant, placign yourself as judge of there ouls based upon your own perceptions.}-Zarove"

Go back and re-read 2 John 9... The doctrine of Christ includes a literal creation account just as given in the book of Genesis...

I wrote, "We do not need "scientific evidence" to prove what has already been revealed to us in God's word. You and many people like the Gnostics want to go (and have gone) beyond what God has plainly revealed in His word."

To which Zarove replied, "{so have you, by judbing there sul and level of commitment wihtout even meeign them, based upon a single notion. A notin, I may add, you fisregard yourself when conveneint.}-Zarove"

Please explain how I have "gone beyond what God has plainly revealed in His word" Zarove??? Please also explain how I "disregard" this notion myself when it is convenient??? I don't have to meet someone to judge whether or not their doctrines are in accordance with the word of God.

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 28, 2004.

Let me explain myself a little further...

It is possible for one's belief to be in error even if they are a Christian for God says in Hebrews 12:5-8, "5 My son, do not despise the chastening of the LORD, Nor be discouraged when you are rebuked by Him; 6 For whom the LORD loves He chastens, And scourges every son whom He receives. 7 If you endure chastening, God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom a father does not chasten?"

However, once the Christian has been exposed to the truth, they must change their belief to this truth...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 28, 2004.

The torubel is, you cannot demonstrate that creationism is true, and thus tehsitic evolutionists can be sincere inthis beleif,and correct, wiht you beign the oen in error.

That said, and since it is not na issue pertainigng to mrolaity or of slvation, I say one can be a chrisyain no matter hwat ones vewis on origins are, sicne Chrisyains follow Christ, and most assuredly one can follow christ and hold to Theistic evolution.

As to by what right I have to say this, the Bibel says not to be concerned with these matters that divide, and nto to judge the stae of others souls, do you disagree?

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 28, 2004.

"The torubel is, you cannot demonstrate that creationism is true, and thus tehsitic evolutionists can be sincere inthis beleif,and correct, wiht you beign the oen in error."

Sorry Zarove, I am not in error as you allege...

Faith in God's word is enough to "prove" that creationism is true. Evolution is only a recent invention of man so those who believe in "theistic evolution" even though they may be sincere in their belief, are incorrect.

"That said, and since it is not na issue pertainigng to mrolaity or of slvation, I say one can be a chrisyain no matter hwat ones vewis on origins are, sicne Chrisyains follow Christ, and most assuredly one can follow christ and hold to Theistic evolution."

Not if they learn the truth that "theistic evolution" is not in accordance to what has been revealed in God's word. The Bible knows nothing nor does it teach anything concerning evolution, much less "theistic evolution"...

"As to by what right I have to say this, the Bibel says not to be concerned with these matters that divide, and nto to judge the stae of others souls, do you disagree?"

The matters that divided were matters of the "old law" and have nothing to do with the topic we are discussing. Is the matter of "instrumental music" a matter that can put one's soul at risk???

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 29, 2004.

Paul,

What you still fail to understand is just *what is creation science?*

Claim8ing that evolutionists are true scientists is just that--a claim. But true science must be able to be observed, repeated., and debated. Creation scientists are every bit as true in their work, and the evidence better supports their model.

What you also fail to understand is that we are all men interpreting God's Word--including your church hierarchy.

Jesus fully expected u8s to be able to understand God's Word and calls us to do so. He also had a problem with religious leaders who distorted the truth in favor of their man-made tradition--sound familiar?

-- (What is Creation Science?@thinktank.com), November 30, 2004.

"The torubel is, you cannot demonstrate that creationism is true, and thus tehsitic evolutionists can be sincere inthis beleif,and correct, wiht you beign the oen in error." Sorry Zarove, I am not in error as you allege...

{My statement said you may be in error, not that you where, are you so confedent i your arrogance as to Damn peopel to Hell for a disagreement not related to salvation?}-Zarove

Faith in God's word is enough to "prove" that creationism is true.

{I have Faith in God's word, and am not a Crreationist.}-Zarove

Evolution is only a recent invention of man so those who believe in "theistic evolution" even though they may be sincere in their belief, are incorrect.

{Not so, the theory is actually quiet ancent, but modern evolutionary thdrt is recent. However, the idea ofprogressive change is rather old.}-Zarove

"That said, and since it is not na issue pertainigng to mrolaity or of slvation, I say one can be a chrisyain no matter hwat ones vewis on origins are, sicne Chrisyains follow Christ, and most assuredly one can follow christ and hold to Theistic evolution."

Not if they learn the truth that "theistic evolution" is not in accordance to what has been revealed in God's word. The Bible knows nothing nor does it teach anything concerning evolution, much less "theistic evolution"...

{It does if you use the Furst chapter of Genesis as a geenral pattdern, and not as a set of days.}-Zarove

"As to by what right I have to say this, the Bibel says not to be concerned with these matters that divide, and nto to judge the stae of others souls, do you disagree?"

The matters that divided were matters of the "old law" and have nothing to do with the topic we are discussing.

{No, thy wheren't. The passage spacificlaly mentioend Geneologies, and variosu social customs. Ill show oyu but am in a hurry now.}- Zarove

Is the matter of "instrumental music" a matter that can put one's soul at risk???

{No, unless we allow this trifle to divide us.}-Zarove

-- ZAROVE (ZAROFF3@JUNO.COM), November 30, 2004.

I wrote, "Sorry Zarove, I am not in error as you allege..."

To which Zarove replied, "{My statement said you may be in error, not that you where, are you so confedent i your arrogance as to Damn peopel to Hell for a disagreement not related to salvation?}-Zarove"

I never stated that anyone was going to "Hell" for disagreeing with me now did I Zarove??? You assume that I made that statement however, if you go back and re-read my posts, I never made any such claim... If you are going to claim that I am "arrogant", I would like to suggest to you that you get your facts straight... If I did such a thing, then I will be quick to apologize and If you can quote my words to this effect, I will do it... If not, then I expect you to refrain from putting words in my mouth...

I wrote, "Faith in God's word is enough to "prove" that creationism is true."

To which Zarove replied, "I have Faith in God's word, and am not a Crreationist.}-Zarove"

Ok, I don't understand how you can not believe in the literal creation account when evolution is only a recent invention of man...???

I wrote, "Evolution is only a recent invention of man so those who believe in "theistic evolution" even though they may be sincere in their belief, are incorrect."

To which Zarove replied, "{Not so, the theory is actually quiet ancent, but modern evolutionary thdrt is recent. However, the idea ofprogressive change is rather old.}-Zarove"

Yea, and they are still looking for the missing link right Zarove???

Zarove wrote, "That said, and since it is not na issue pertainigng to mrolaity or of slvation, I say one can be a chrisyain no matter hwat ones vewis on origins are, sicne Chrisyains follow Christ, and most assuredly one can follow christ and hold to Theistic evolution."

I would agree with you only to a certain point on this issue... Yes, we are to study to show ourselves approved to God... and when we realize that our beliefs are in error and not in accordance with God's word, then one must change their beliefs...

I wrote, "Not if they learn the truth that "theistic evolution" is not in accordance to what has been revealed in God's word. The Bible knows nothing nor does it teach anything concerning evolution, much less "theistic evolution"..."

To which Zarove replied, "{It does if you use the Furst chapter of Genesis as a geenral pattdern, and not as a set of days.}-Zarove"

It is obvious that our conversation has not changed your mind... The only thing I can recommend is that you look at the following website: Free Studies of Bible Teaching Related to Origins: Creation vs. Organic and Theistic Evolution

Zarove wrote, "As to by what right I have to say this, the Bibel says not to be concerned with these matters that divide, and nto to judge the stae of others souls, do you disagree?"

I have not judged your soul concerning this matter Zarove...

I wrote, "The matters that divided were matters of the "old law" and have nothing to do with the topic we are discussing."

To which Zarove replied, "{No, thy wheren't. The passage spacificlaly mentioend Geneologies, and variosu social customs. Ill show oyu but am in a hurry now.}- Zarove"

Yes it was about the "old law" and here is the passage: "But avoid foolish disputes, genealogies, contentions, and strivings about the law; for they are unprofitable and useless." (Titus 3:9).

I wrote, "Is the matter of "instrumental music" a matter that can put one's soul at risk???"

To which Zarove replied, "No, unless we allow this trifle to divide us.}-Zarove"

I respectfully disagree with you on this point... It all boils down to a matter of authority...

-- Kevin Walker (kevinlwalker572@cs.com), November 30, 2004.