Chatting with an Evolutionist

Chatting With an Evolutionist
By Matthew Torres with Lance Hook contributing (updated Sept 25th, 2005)
See also Creation Corner and Where Science Meets Religion

I am not an evolutionist. You are not "chatting" with me. This page is designed for those who end up chatting with an evolutionist. It demonstrates common tactics used and addresses main points that they attempt to use in defense of evolution or in attack against creation. The articles linked to from this page are not mine but have been made freely available to the public. I have simply created an outline of comments and have linked to many pertinent articles that allow a greater and more in-depth study for anyone seeking further information.. If anyone should feel the need to comment on any or all of this, there is a link to a message board near the bottom of this page. Please be sure to read the rules of the board, as I am not the Operator (but merely a moderator) of this message board and the rules are very specific regarding behavior. Also, any text in Red can be "clicked" for more in-depth information.

The Problem with Definitions.

Evolution is a word that means many things to many people. To some, it is all encompassing. It means everything to literally everything. It if exists, evolution is why. To others, evolution is the defining term for the variation (usually thru mutation) we see in any given population. Some take it a step further to speculate that this variation, given enough time, would give us totally different organisms that, in no way, resemble its ancestors.

For the sake of this discussion, evolution is everything from the big bang to life from non living material (abiogenesis) to the development of all life in it's complexity we have today.

How can I say that evolution is all those things? Very simple. It is taught that way in the public schools. Now, it wouldn't be a problem if it were limited to colleges and/or private schools where people have to pay to learn these theories, but it's in the state sponsored schools, making it a state sponsored problem. Don't believe me? Pick up any public school science textbook and check for yourself. The proof is in the pudding, as they say.

Now don't get me wrong. For those who feel that evolution is merely the variation thru mutation, we are mostly in agreement regarding what is observable fact and what is theory. I would also agree that the definition I've chosen to use for evolution isn't really fair to you, but the stigma remains and, therefore, the stigma needs to be addressed. Either that or the evolutionary teachings within the textbooks needs to be completely reworked and redefined. Since that isn't going to happen very soon, we must place the burden of the stigma on those who are proponents of the variation theory and insist on using the term "evolution".

Evolution vs. Creation?
(or Having Your Cake and Eating it Too!)

Here's further support for my definition of "evolution". It is hotly debated against 'creation', aka 'Intelligent Design'.

The 'creation' aspect of things deals with how we came into being. How life got here. What started this whole thing. It doesn't deal with mutations/adaptations to ones environment. That's all a part of the design. I deal with this a little further on, but for the most part 'creation' does not conflict at all with what the armchair evolutionist thinks. In fact, most evolutionists try to avoid how all life started all together.

But if they aren't polar opposites, why do people debate the topics? That's not apples and oranges, that's apple trees and orange fruit. At first they seem related, but by some definitions, they are not.

They are debated because the average evolutionist knows, even if they try to deny the association, that origins does have its place in evolutionary theory. They try to deny "God", yet refuse to discuss any kind of alternative. They would have you just accept that life has been going on and that mutations have brought us from particles to people without any kind of intelligent driving force behind it.

Sorry, I don't buy it. The simple fact that they do debate with creationists (and sometimes actively seek out this kind of debate even), shows that they acknowledge, on some level, that abiogenesis is a part of evolution. They don't want to address it, they just want everyone to accept it.

The 5 Lies that make up Evolution

Without falsifying these 5 points, evolution simply wouldn't work. These major points are usually the focus of an evolutionists argument. Once you have an understanding of the facts, evolution doesn't seem quite like the watertight theory that some would have you believe. What are the 5 lies? Here they are:

1. Evolution is observable

2. Evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of Thermodynamics

3. Transitional fossils are abundant and support evolution

4. Intelligence is not necessary for life to "evolve"

5. Evolution is a proven fact

Evolution the Religion?

Some people would try to tell you that evolution, as taught in the public schools, is a religion. I would have to agree. What is "religion"? That depends on what dictionary you happen to have handy and what definition you choose to look at. When you take all the definitions and boil them down, you get a simple statement. Religion is simply a theory that defines how we came to be and for what purpose we exist. Most religions get all muddled in the details about the purpose for being here. Muslims and Christians both avidly feel one of their purposes is to convert others to their way of thinking, sometimes even by violence. Evolution defines "how" as purely random and by chance and "what" as being an organism in perpetual change adapting to ones environment.

I'm not asking or forcing anyone to accept my definitions of either evolution or religion, but I do believe that society, by and large, has defined these words this way and that is the way I choose to use them here.

What are the tactics?

There are several things the armchair evolutionist does to try to promote his/her religion. One of the first things is to take creation science, elevate it from a "belief" status to a "fact" status, knock it back down to "belief" status (where it started in the first place. No rational creationist will ever claim that the creation viewpoint is a provable fact, but then again, no rational evolutionist will claim their viewpoint is a fact either.) and then claim some form of victory, all the while ignoring the main point that evolution is a belief, not a fact. As if, by "debunking" creation, they've somehow validated their theories.

This is known as a logical fallacy. A logical fallacy is basically a way to win an argument without having to really support your position. Using this method is quite unethical, but if you don't believe in a God, ethics seems to be relative.

Unfortunately for the evolutionist, this tactic is basically an admission of two things. The first that evolutionary theory is still exactly that, a theory. A far cry from a "fact" like they would have you believe. This is made obvious in the direct attack to any person(s) who would try to discuss any form of alternative. If their pet theory were indeed an undisputed fact, then they would not have to resort to attacking the competition. This leads us right into the second admission built into this argument.

The other admission is that creation science is the only feasible alternative to evolutionary theory. Since they cannot defend their "fact", they must attack and attempt to discredit the only opposition in the field that is any real threat to their doctrine and beliefs. (click HERE* to see what their doctrine entails. It's really quite humorous. (*Anyone who knows where this site went to, please tell me! It's worth looking over! Until then, check these out. 1, 2) How far will they go? This far.

Basically, their tactics boil down to this. You make a statement, they take it to an absurd level and laugh, you defend your statement, they take your defense to an absurd level and laugh and so on and so on.....

Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, is on to these techniques. Apparently he corresponds with people who want to debate topics with him. In his "Dilbert Newsletter 33.0" he says:

"Induhvidual Debating Technique
------------------------------

Lately I have found myself in e-mail discussions with Induhviduals who employ debating tactics that are very similar. I suspect they are learning these methods in some sort of top-secret Induhvidual training facility.

The Induhvidual debating technique involves four steps:

1. Exaggerate your opponent's statement into an absurd absolute.
2. Make an inappropriate analogy.
3. Change the topic to something easier to defend.
4. Claim victory.

For example:

Me: Vegetables are good for you.

Induhvidual: That's ridiculous. If you ate a truckload of vegetables all at once you would die.

Me: No one eats a truckload all at once.

Induhvidual: Let me give you an analogy. If you tried to swim across the ocean, and you didn't know how to swim, and you had no arms or legs, you'd never make it. Surely you can agree with that.

Me: Um...that's different.

Induhvidual: Ha! So now you agree with me that swimming is good exercise!

The worst part is that not only will you be frustrated at your inability to make your point, you will be branded as the person who thinks swimming is bad exercise."

Granted, he doesn't address the topic of evolution, but his analysis accurately describes the insane tactics of someone who isn't concerned about the actual data but is more concerned about "winning", even though the win occurs only in their own mind.

Invariably I will now be accused of plagiarism. I have copied articles (or sections of articles) and used them in discussions, hoping to use DATA to support a stand (or belief). Instead of examining the information presented, most people like to cry that I am just plagiarizing other peoples work. They usually have a hard time getting off of that point once they start.

Quite simply, plagiarism is trying to pass off someone else's work as your own for personal gain (not necessarily monetary). In each instance I have given full credit to the source of the information and have not charged the person(s) in any way. If you ever run into this situation, be sure to let the recipient know that the information you are offering is free. No strings attached.

Be sure also to give credit where credit is due. I'm quite sure that most of the people I've chatted with have not been the archaeologist that discovered the fossils in question. I would doubt that theirs was the professional analysis that is given accolades in the scientific community. It's just another example of missing the forest for the trees.

Roman 1:22 "Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools."

Another tactic they tend to use involves getting you to explain how their theories are not fact. For example, in a discussion online, an evolutionist ask me that, if evolution is not true, then how is it that fossils are found stratified biologically? In other words, how come fossils are found buried in the order that evolution expects to find them? (For those of you interested, here are some interesting sources for information that is a 'monkey wrench' to this argument. (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8))

They are trying to set the terms of the debate. There are two ways to approach this. The first would be to have THEM do their own dirty work. Explain to them that you do not accept their theories as credible and they need to be proven completely and thoroughly first. In other words, sort out the assumptions built into their argument. Most will usually balk at this with some bravado about how you would ignore science and believe in a flat earth or something to that effect. They are like the schoolyard bully. When pushed back, they run away. A good book that explains this tactic is called "Darwin On Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson. Mr. Johnson is a lawyer who's function is to pick apart opposing arguments and separate the truth from the misleading assumptions being presented as proof. He does this with the theory of evolution in this book. It's an excellent read.

The second would be for YOU to demonstrate how their theories are full of holes. This usually entails a good deal of work on your part. These amateurs require endless amounts of references and data, almost to the extreme of holding them by the hand, so to speak. Their whole argument is usually based on assumption AND they don't want to discuss any anomalies/enigmas surrounding their pet theories. These problematic areas are usually ignored or disregarded as a "creationist distraction".

How do you deal with this? Simple. Before you even attempt to answer their question, you analyze their question and pick out the assumptions from the actual facts. You'll find, if you have a calm demeanor and know what to look for, that you can pick apart any question they may throw at you and put them on the defense constantly. Using the example above, one could ask "What does 'stratified biologically' mean? Has it been determined that they are truly buried this way?" or "Are you sure they aren't buried by order of mobility?" or even "Aren't fossils found buried in the same perspective that they are found alive today? (Sea animals at the bottom, land animals next, birds on top)".

By your answering the questions without questioning the questions, you are, in essence, saying that the question you have been asked is credible and without flaw, all the while the question is full of evolutionary assumptions that you will have to address sometime anyway. If you just proceed with answering the question, you are giving ground that you don't need to give. Make them answer for everything they try to "push" on you. Don't allow any undeserved foothold or they'll walk all over you.

Related Links:
The Cryptozoologist - Science can tell us all about our past, but can't explain these animals.....
Mokele-mbembe - A modern day brachiosaur?
In Search of Living Dinosaurs - at About.com
The B.C. Scientific Cryptozoology Club Homepage
More Cryptozoology

Further reading:
Forbidden Archaeology by Michael Cremo and Richard L. Thompson
"Strange Artifacts" & "Neglected Geological Anomalies" both by William Corliss available thru the Sourcebook Project

Yet another tactic is much more subtle. It's simply the use of technical terms and specifics in an attempt to make the creationist feel inferior in some way. Most times, technical terms and trivia are thrown around in an attempt to be passed off as knowledge. They know a few details and keep the focus on their arena of knowledge. If you are able to bring substantial proof against their pet detail, then they move on to another in an attempt to keep you grasping at straws. That leads us to our next point.

Before engaging in a contest of "proofs" (or evidence), you should ask what the end result will be. In proving their details wrong, are they willing to accept that alternate solutions are worthy of consideration? Ask, "What will it change if I can prove my point?" "Will you accept my position if I can validate it?" "Are you willing to concede to the facts in lieu of your pet theories?" Most times, there will be no change in the evolutionists viewpoints no matter how much information you throw at them. They will just move on to the next item on the list. They intend to wear you out and waste your time. Unless you have some undecided observers in on the conversation, it's probably best to end the conversation and save your ammo for a real target. One that is able to actually hear what you have to say and decide for themselves.

"Evolution is a Fact"?

One of the first things I did upon seeing this statement was to ask for proof of this "fact". This really brings out the zealots. After a few rounds of going back and forth, the evolutionist will usually come back with "define evolution" and/or "define fact". Once again, we run into a problem with definitions. When pressed, these amateurs will redefine "evolution" to not include many of the problematic areas of their theory and twist "fact" from the 'proof required' realm into something that is more fitting for horseshoes and hand grenades. Unfortunately, close doesn't count. In fact, one would do well to look up the word 'inference' and check the context in the following quote

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Evolution's erratic pace'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(5), May 1977, p.14. (apparently some of my "fans" don't like this quote and claim it is out of context, but have provided no explanation.)

If their theories are, for all intents, fact, then why do they have this great need to misrepresent them? For example, when asked for proof of life from non-living material, the common response is "that's abiogenesis, not evolution"(1). Other "specialists" will want to argue in their field of interest. Quite simply, most of these armchair experts don't feel the need to "prove" their "facts", but want to make you feel inferior if you question them. Should they be questioned? I think so. How? Look here.

One young lady wanted to argue human origins. She didn't want to discuss the faults with the dating methods(1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and the best one 6) used on her fossil examples nor did she care to discuss just how much of any given fossil was actually found. She wanted to set the terms of "how do you explain all these 'ancestor' fossils that man has?". In other words, "let's fight on my turf by my rules". Even so, below are some related articles to this young lady's fight.

Related Articles:
The 'Scientific Fact' of Evolution - rebuttal by Dr Jonathan Sarfati, Answers in Genesis–Australia
Five MAJOR Evolutionist Misconceptions about Evolution (also listed at the start of this article)
Funny Stories About Your Supposed Ancestors
Article on Ancient Man

Further Reading:
The Revised Quote Book by Dr Andrew Snelling - Quotes that put things in a proper perspective

Incidentally, if evolution theory is such a "fact", then why has there been a need to reorganize it because of new data or, more amusingly, present an entirely new theory about how it happened (This one is also amusing). What a flexible "fact"! More here: (2, 3)

Someone even shared with me an article lately that challenges the previously believed dinosaur-bird link. I wonder what the "facts" will be next year.....

Here's the newest "fact". Apparently mammals didn't exist with dinosaurs, but they managed to find a mammal that ate a dinosaur. Article.

No bones about it.

Another misconception is that when an organism is found fossilized, that it is found whole and intact. Nebraska Man was created from a tooth. An artists misconception gave an entire half ape, half man image, created a spouse AND an environment! The only problem with this cute little "missing link" is that this tooth was discovered to have come from a pig! There's also the Piltdown Man Fraud to contend with as well.

Speaking of missing links, some of these evolutionary enthusiasts will try to tell you that there have been MANY intermediary fossils found and examined. I would be skeptical. Ask for references. As recently as 1980, Stephen Jay Gould said the following (and HE has a few degrees under his belt!).

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed or inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobioloby, vol. 6(1), January 1980, p.127.

"All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." Stephen Jay Gould (Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University), 'The return of hopeful monsters'. Natural History, vol. LXXXVI(6), June-July 1977, p.24.

Whether an honest mistake or an attempt at sleight of hand to promote their doctrine, errors do occur when studying fossils. For example, an error came to light when National Geographic, a well known and highly regarded magazine, recently (10-15-99) published an article on "a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds". THEN, on 2-3-2000, they printed a retraction of sorts when further investigation revealed it to most likely be a composite fossil and a hoax. Apparently not all fossils are what they seem and beyond being tampered with. Answers In Genesis have a follow up article that you may be interested in. Also, ICR has a relevant article.

Two things to bear in mind. The first is that these errors could be an "honest error" (although, sometime not 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ). A non-intentional mistake made by a scientist who is looking thru evolution colored glasses. The other thing to remember is that these are just a few examples of the mistakes that were detected! How many more have not been detected and taught as fact when they are flawed from the word go.

What about Vestigial Organs?

What is a vestigial organ? Quite simply they are organs (or other parts of the body, IE tailbone) that appear to have had a function, but no longer do. The key word is "appear". Some define it as something that no longer has a necessary function, a castoff from our evolutionary ancestors.

For example, some would say the appendix is a vestigial organ. Is it really? What about that tailbone? Anyone who is truly knowledgeable about human biology will tell you that there are no vestigial organs. Even if there were vestigial organs, what would it prove?

For more articles, click 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.

Are Creationists reputable?
(or "no REAL scientist believes in creation!")

When it becomes evident that the evolutionist is losing the logical battle, they usually go after the source. This is manifested in attacks on the credibility of the people who have done actual research (unlike most of the amateurs promoting their doctrine in chat rooms). Usually the researchers degree is claimed to be invalid or that their research is biased toward creation. The one thing they don't bother to acknowledge is that this doesn't change the facts one bit. The data presented is still there, no matter who brings it to light or what they believe. It can be written in a scientific journal or on toilet paper and it will still be unarguable data.

Usually, if you were to present some data or research by someone who IS a scientist, the claim will be made that he or she is biased toward creation and that invalidates their research. It boils down to this, the statement that "no real scientist believes in creation" can be confidently made by evolutionists because, if someone DOES believe in creation, they are automatically not a scientist anymore in their eyes. Another example of redefining the terms for the sake of the battle.

The question is raised, though. Are there any scientists (people with some degree or another) who actually believe in a young earth creation? Click Here for a list of such scientists (Another list). How about historical figures? Have there been any of these scientists that have published in scientific journals? One thing to keep in mind. When reading anti-creationist literature that attacks the credentials of creationists directly, their list of creation scientists (as far as I have ever seen) is nowhere near as long as the list of scientists in the above links. The most on any given list I have seen that they choose to attack have been about a dozen. Your experience may be different and any feedback is appreciated.

A good book to read is "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation", edited by John F. Ashton, PhD. Taken straight from the preface, "In this book, 50 scientists explain their reasons for this choice. All the contributors have an earned doctorate from a state recognized university in Australia, the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, South Africa, or Germany. They include university professors and researchers, geologists, zoologists, biologists, botanists, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, medical researchers, and engineers."

Was that the best they could do? Is that all the scientists they could gather? I don't think so. There's also a sequel called "On the Seventh Day: 40 Scientists and Academics explain why they believe in God"

By this point, you may have noticed that I've used several articles from the Institute for Creation Research (ICR). I've heard some complaints from evolutionists that this organization and it's researchers are unreliable. These accusations come from someone without any credentials of their own and never are given with any evidence supporting their claims. However, I don't want anyone thinking that I depend on any one source for information. If anyone has a problem with the articles listed, I'm sure they can find confirming research in the resources listed below. Oh yeah, here's the credentials of the ICR staff.

Interestingly enough, if you ask for the credentials (experience, degrees, etc..) of your average chatroom evolutionist, they will attempt to misrepresent that as well. One fellow I was chatting with said he was "Stephen Jay Gould trained". Translation: He read quite a bit of Mr. Gould's writings. Looks more impressive the way he said it, but, like cotton candy, it's mostly air. I can't ask this question enough: If your arguments are so airtight, why do you feel the need to misrepresent either them or yourself? That alone sends up a few warning flares.

Another distracting tactic is done by attacking the way some Christians USED to believe hundreds of years ago and then blame it on modern day Christians. Two problems here. The first is implying that all Christians are in agreement all the time in all of history and the second is blaming God for the faults of man. At this point I am quite ready to hold whoever I am chatting with at the time responsible for mistakes made by pro-evolution scientists. Either that or for conflicting views within the framework of evolutionary theory. They usually see my point right away.

One example of blaming the present for the past is the belief that early Christians believed in a flat earth. Creation science has been referred to as a "flat-earther's club" or other derogatory names like that. They go one step further and claim that, if Christians believed it, the Bible must teach it. This argument is pure fiction. Read the truth here.

The order of Evolution

Let's now take a look at the way evolution is taught in the public schools and the problems with these alleged facts.

The Big Bang / Millions (or Billions) of Years
Since neither of these are either observable nor testable, we can automatically remove them from the "fact" column. The beginning and age of the universe is merely speculation. In fact, there is a great deal of evidence that supports the concept of our earth only being thousands of years old, not millions or billions. (young earth also 1, 2, 3)

Life from non-living material (aka abiogenesis)
We've touched on this a couple of times. This is the "Achilles heel" of evolution because science has never been able to demonstrate this, therefore it is not a fact, but an impossible theory and they know it. Any time science "creates" life, they do it from previously living material, never from inert matter.

Stanley Millers work in the 1950's was applauded as creation of life in the lab. (What was it really?) Here are some more links to problems to the evolutionary theory in this area:

Did scientists create life ...or did the media create hype?
Loopholes in the evolutionary theory of the origin of life
Q&A: Origin of Life

The Problem of Complexity

Evolutionary theory teaches that, once life was jump started, "simple" life adapted thru mutation and environment stresses to develop things like limbs, organs, etc.. to make them more efficient or "fitter" to survive. This happens either one of two ways (it hasn't been decided which, but it's still a fact!) according to the teachings of evolution. Either things changed impercievably slow over time (which gives us the problem of missing links) OR happened in major jumps with a long period of no change between these jumps called "punctuated equilibrium" (which addresses the problem of missing links, but conveniently leaves no proof behind).

In order to accept this, we need to face something called "irreducible complexity". What this means is that there are a bare minimum of components for things like the eye, the kidney, the digestive system, the reproductive system, etc.. for them to function properly. This bare minimum of parts is still so complex that it makes the concept of random and unintelligent processes being the controlling and developing forces behind them seem quite absurd!

Let's take the eye for example. An extremely simplified examination would tell us that we need at least one focused orb (two working together adds a whole new dimension of complexity and problems) with sensors that are able to take what light they receive and convert that signal to electrical impulses. The eye also has a self lubricating system (tears) and an automatic light level adjuster (iris). There also needs to be a bundle of nerves that connect exactly at each point of conversion at the eye and take that signal to the exact spot on the brain that is able to convert these electrical impulses into something it understands. Oh yeah, it also has to turn the image upside down automatically since our eye sees things inverted from the way they really are already.

Now consider this, the brain, our most complex organ, already has to be in place and have an appropriate connection spot for the eye already! Also, even if we were to substitute a "simple" light sensor instead of a clearly focused and color image, most of what we've discussed still would need to be in place all at once for even the most simple eye to be functional. All that, and it has to happen quite by accident. Unbelievable to the extreme.

Variation Exceeding its bounds

Just recently, I was presented with "evidence" for evolution. In regards to the grasshopper that is about to be mentioned, the genus was not given to me, nor any other information in great detail, but I don't feel that the lack of this information affects what the person was trying to say and I have no reason to doubt the example he/she gave. The example goes as follows:

A specific European grasshopper was brought over to America's east coast. Thru migration, this grasshopper eventually spread across the entire United States. Upon examination, it was found that the west coast grasshoppers would not (or could not) breed with the east coast grasshoppers. This was given as evidence of evolution. It was then suggested by the example giver that they could reasonably assume that further changes would occur and the grasshoppers would "evolve" even further apart. The funny thing is, after all these years, they're still grasshoppers.

Now let me give the same example using different objects. I'm going to use a rubber ball to represent variation in a population. If I drop a ball down a flight of stairs, it will start bouncing downward. I can demonstrate this over and over again. We can see the same thing in any given population of animal or plant. Here's the magic part. It is now reasonable for me to assume, having observed a downward trend, that it will continue going down until it gets to the center of the earth. I can even use well accepted theories like gravity to support my hypothesis. What are the odds that I'm right?

The problem with the example given is that it is assumed that there are no built in limitations. Just as my ball will stop when it gets to the bottom of the stairs, any organisms populations divergence will stop when it reaches certain limits. The evolutionist will observe "movement" (or variation) in a certain direction and just assume it's never ending. Just like the ball, variation will have it's limits, otherwise, it would be possible for selective breeding to give us a dung beetle the size of an elephant, a poodle the size of a brachiosaur, or a grasshopper the size of a komodo dragon. So far, science has not been able to do that. They don't even have the excuse of the environment not being able to support that size animal. Each example given has real animals given as the before and after category.

We don't even have dogs the size of a Clydesdale. We have quite a variety of dogs, mainly the cause of selective breeding for various reasons, but we've hit limits of size, both big and small. We don't have any dogs the size of a small lizard either. We have built in limiters in our variance. We can diverge, but that is by no means proof that divergence doesn't have limits.

Selective breeding brings out desirable traits, but, in doing so, causes other traits to be "filtered out". This is a loss of information in the genetic code of any organism. Now I've been accused of believing that things getting larger AND smaller is a loss of information. The trick here is the way the accusation is worded. Give me an example of something that gets BOTH larger and smaller and we'll talk. What my point is, is that when you selectively breed things to be EITHER larger OR smaller, you are causing a bottleneck in the gene pool. You are reducing the information that will be available to the descendants. By doing this, the long term change to either larger or smaller is a reduction in genetic information that is irreversible. If you don't agree, try to breed Saint Bernards and get some the size of a toy poodle.

Here are some links on mutations and their problems:
The Problem of Information for the Theory of Evolution
Are Mutations Helpful?
Not By Chance! Shattering the Modern Theory of Evolution

What do the fossils really say about our past?

Most evolutionists will tell you that they have evidence of many populations in transition from one type to another (dinosaurs to birds, for one example). They will give you examples of fossils found where the organism has traits of two general types of populations and place them "between" these populations and say this is evidence of these populations mutating between the bounds we just talked about.

The trouble is, once again, many assumptions went into their "facts" and conclusions. Let's suppose that I were to find a fossilized platypus, how would I react? Let's also say I've never heard of their existence (and since I'm so smart, if I don't know about them, they must not exist). Let's also say I am an avid believer in evolution. The conclusion I would come to would be along the lines of believing I have discovered that otters spent so much time in the water that they evolved into ducks and this is a transitional fossil of that event happening. It's obvious to anyone with two eyes and a brain! I should be famous for my discovery and evolution is further cemented as a scientific fact!

It would be embarrassing when the platypus is found alive and well in Australia but the ":facts" can be altered to fit with reality as we know it and life (and evolution) will go on.

Some "transitional fossil" links:
Are there any Transitional Fossils?
When is a whale a whale?
Should we expect to find transitional forms in the fossil record?
There are no transitional fossils

Another problem with the fossil record is the assumption that any given fossil is a good example of a large population worldwide.

Firstly, for something to become a fossil, there are some very specific circumstances that need to occur. I don't want to get into too much detail here, but I would recommend that you research how fossils are made. Basically though, the organism needs to be rapidly buried so that no (or minimal) decay occurs. Rapid burial isn't enough. There also needs to be a mineral rich water table. I do believe that circumstances are VERY exact and specific before one can hope for a fossil. Most everything does decay, but what is left is either an imprint in a rock or the bones (or other hard materials such as shell, etc.) absorb minerals and these minerals gradually replace the organic material in the same pattern it found, thus replicating the bone with rock.

For this to happen, any given organism needs to be in an area that is conducive (or agreeable) to fossilization. This usually doesn't occur in populated areas. What's the point? Simple. What are the odds that someone in New York City is going to be fossilized upon death? Oh sure, we bury our dead, but in caskets and in "regular" soil. They usually (if ever) are buried in such a way that would promote fossilization.

Fossilization happens way out in the "wild". Places where we have pigmies, or aborigines or other such tribal populations. Populations that still use "primitive", or simple, tools. Would a fossil from one of those populations be a fair representation of the population of men worldwide today OR would it seem that man was still living very primitive and was on the border of becoming a farming type environment straight from being hunter/gatherers? Depends on what you want to take into consideration and also if you've got your "evolution" colored glasses on or not.

Are Some Evolutionary Groups
Counter-Productive?

There are a lot of environmentally conscious groups that actively promote evolutionary concepts. These groups educate people about how we are polluting the environment, destroying animals habitat and things like that.

They also avidly protect endangered species. Species that, according to evolutionary teaching, would be "weeded out" as unfit to survive. They would not succeed in the "Survival of the Fittest" aspect of nature and should, by all rights, be eliminated from this planet. Protecting those that are not able to survive on their own.

Now, evolutionary theory doesn't teach anywhere where it is mans obligation to steward over nature and prevent these organisms from going extinct. Some would have you believe that man is destroying habitat and is responsible for these organisms, yet history is ripe with remains of extinct plants/animals that have never encountered man, at least according to the evolutionary timeline.

It all boils down to this, evolution teaches that the fittest will survive, yet deep down we all realize that the preservation of organisms is important, so we do what we can to preserve them. This is very counter-productive to the "natural" process, yet we still do it. The groups most deeply entrenched in evolutionary thought still fight its core concepts when it means the extinction of any given population.

Makes one think....

Why didn't our mind evolve?

According to evolutionary theory, organisms adapt to their environment. There are many "stresses" or pressures on any given population that would encourage an evolutionary jump to take place. This now begs the question, why didn't our mind evolve to certain stresses?

For example, many sociological troubles still cause all kinds of undue stress on people. Muggings, rape, and other types of emotional and/or physical abuses occur on an everyday basis since time recorded. So why haven't we evolved to adapt to this? Why does it still, after all this time, damage us? Where are the protective mechanisms?

The truth of the matter is that we were not designed to handle these stresses and, regardless to how much time you give "evolution", we will never be capable of handling such traumas.

Who is the Free Thinker?

Most places you look, you'll find some sort of "free thinkers society" or something like that. Their name implies that they've broken free from conventional thinking and are able to make conclusions for themselves by impartially looking at whatever evidence is available to them. Let's put this to a little scrutiny and see if this holds true.

What do the public schools teach?   Evolution.
What do the most "popular" scientists teach and advocate?   Evolution.
What is presented as fact in nearly every scientific institution around the world?   Evolution.
What is presented as fact in nearly every museum around the world?   Evolution
What is taught as fact on nearly every nature show around the world?   Evolution

It seems to me that someone who is breaking from the mold and thinking alternatively to mainstream society would be challenging what mainstream society is thinking. In case you missed it, mainstream society teaches evolution.

Now let's look at people a lot like myself. We don't believe what mainstream society teaches as fact. We receive criticism at best, insults and ostracism are the norm. We are the subject of slander and gossip. And they think THEY'RE the free thinkers?!?!

Miscellaneous Stuff:

This is the area where I will put the information that didn't really fit into the flow of the page, but I've heard quite a bit of noise about in the chat rooms.

One point people try to make is that I am "parroting" other creationists on this page. If they mean "parroting" in the mindless repeating sense, then they are wrong. If they are implying that I am saying things that others say as well, then I would have to say that is true. I have done absolutely no work in the field or the lab either in support of evolution or intelligent design (creation). I would challenge those accusing me of this to the same point. What work are they presenting that is an original "them"? What research have THEY done?

Having said that, let's look at some of the distracting details that evolutionists have used lately that somehow validate evolution.

How about that new four winged dino/bird transitional fossil found lately?

The Eye - Bad design? (another article)

Is it possible to be a Christian and an evolutionist?

Dating using Tree Rings / Ice Layers

The gospel evidence for Creation

Should Genesis be Taken Literally?

Does the Bible Really Claim that Insects Have Only Four Legs? (Leviticus 11:21,22)
(another related article)

Evolutionist Quotes - admissions of lack of evidence

Dinosaurs and the Bible - As if attacking/debunking the creation story will validate evolution!

Is Distant Starlight a Problem? - More articles (1, 2)

Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study

General Evolutionist Refutations by Technical Journal - A menu of common topics and tactics

Getting the Facts Straight: A Viewer's Guide to PBS's "Evolution"

See Dr. Kent Hovind's video seminar online HERE.

Here is an Exchange between an evolutionist and a creationist friend of mine. See the holes in their arguments.

Conclusion:

I cannot stress enough, scientific creation is a theory (or belief). I am not saying that it is proven fact. What I am saying is that evolution falls into the same category and anyone who claims differently is either misleading or misled. There is a substantial amount of evidence that will either support the young earth creation model (1, 2, 3) or will simply fit with either theory without adding or taking away from it. Speaking of a young earth, my cousin recently sent me an article about the age of trees. It refers to the oldest trees being younger than originally suspected. Like I've said before, there is a prevailing trend in science. It has to continually update itself, whereas the Bible has to do no such thing. It's no wonder so many will trust God's word over man's opinion.

When chatting with an evolutionist, most times you will get nowhere. This is not because you have no "legs to stand on", but because of their inability to accept anything outside of their religion. In a chat environment, it is sometimes useful to "chase them down" on different subjects, not for their benefit, but for the benefit of the others that are able to view the conversation. It is the rare circumstance that you will get a die hard evolutionist to listen in a private conversation and most times this kind of exchange is a waste of time. It is advantageous for you, the creationist, to have at your disposal a handy arsenal of data and evidence that shows just how rocky evolution is for those occasions that a crowd of any size is able to hear an exchange and see the true spots of the leopard.

[2 Peter 3:3-5] Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, and saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water"

Even as important as evidence is a calm demeanor. You think much better if you are calm and composed. Never let the devil rattle you, no matter what means he tries to get to you. Remember that the person you are chatting with is not the enemy, they are being USED by the enemy. They need your love and your prayers more than ever before. Besides, you are proclaiming God's word, not man's. You don't have to prove anything. Given enough time, the evolutionist will tip their hand with their lack of evidence and intolerance of other views.

[Luke 6:27, 28] But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.

[Luke 6:35, 36] But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil. Be ye therefore merciful, as your Father also is merciful.

I pray this page is useful to you and I will hear any suggestions you may have for the content and structure. "Hate mail" will not even be acknowledged as I don't have the time to deal with mindless drivel. Counter points should be sufficiently referenced and, if found to be so, will be addressed.

Take Care and God Bless,
Matthew

Post on the Message Board:

For those who wish to engage in some conversation on the subject,
visit the Creation Corner Message Thread at HopeOfZion.Com.

Resources on the 'net:

First and foremost, Where Science Meets Religion
A Created Solar System
Access Research Network
- Excellent Site FULL of information updated daily!
Biblical Creation Society
Center for Scientific Creation
Charles Darwin - The Truth?
Creation Corner - a sister site to this one.
Creation
Creation Concept
Creation Evolution Encyclopedia
Creation Evidence Museum
Creation Moments
Creation Museum
Creation Online
Creation Research Society
Creation Science Association for Mid-America
Creation Science Evangelism
Creation Science Links
Creation Science Research Center
Creation Science Resource
Creation Science Resources
Creation Science Resources (another site by the same name)
Creation Seminar w/ Steve Grohman
Creation Studies Institute
Creation Super Library
Creationism.org
Darwin's Evolution Theory Dissected
Evidence for God from Science
Genesis Network - Missouri Association for Creation
Genesis Site
Great Dinosaur Mystery
Handy Dandy Evolution Refuter
Institute For Creation Research
ICR "Impact" articles
One Human Race
Project Creation
Real Science 4 Kids
Revolution Against Evolution
Scientific Evidence Against Evolution

True Origin Archive
Why I disbelieve evolution
Young Earth Creation Club

A Proud Member of:

	The Science and the Bible SiteRing This site owned by Matthew Torres

SiteRing by Bravenet.com

Webspace graciously provided by: