DISCLAIMER
The content of Yahoo!WebRing's advertising banners and links is solely the product of Yahoo!WebRing and their advertising clients. Yahoo!WebRing's banner advertising is not the product of, endorsed, or approved by The Christian Conservative Opinion Pages (TCCOP) or its webmaster. If you object to Yahoo! WebRing's banner ads, please complain to them.
~~Deke,
TCCOP Webmaster

SPACER
EVOLUTION MYTHS AND CREATION SCIENCE
SPACER
 
The Official Evolutionarian 1 Web Page Hit Counter
  • Limited Lifetime Accuracy Guarantee**

  • Engine designed to meet or exceed Evolutionarian 1 precision and accuracy standards!

  • Digital display designed to exceed Evolutionarian 1 "scientific" dating requirements! 

  • Optional inscription: The Evolutionarian's 1 Motto, "If it's circular, it can't be wrong!" 


** Banana shortages, lions, cheetahs, and other acts of God will void this warranty.


More Irresistible Deals for Evolutionarians 1

PSST! Hey Buddy! 
You interested in buying a genuine Rolex for only $5?
How 'bout $10 for a Rolls driven only once by a little old lady from Gondwanaland?
Would you believe a two-bit fairy tale like evolution discounted to ten cents? 
Yes?
Just as we thought! Evolutionarians 1 are still as gullible as ever! 



 

[1] Evolutionarian: a proper noun and an adjective. A neologism which Deke coined circa 1994.

Evolutionarian (ev ah loosh ah nare ee an) adj., n., neologism 1. A scientist-priest, acolyte, or one of their dupes who blindly follow the false and totally anti-scientific Evolutionism religion.   2. Evolutionists who worship the secular humanist gods of the Evolutionarian's "Pantheon": Marx, Darwin, DuBois, Lenin, Stalin, Mao Tse Tung, the Leakeys, and their ilk.   3. The uneducated, uninformed,  teacher's union/government (so-called "public) school indoctrinated followers of the evolution religion.   4.  Those anti-Christian bigots who physically and/or verbally assault those who oppose Evolutionism, the evolutionist's religion.   5.  Those anti-Christian evolutionist bigots who clumsily spew ad hominem attacks, shout down, or silence opposition speech using any means necessary (see: Nazi and communist Big Lie technique) when confronted with scientific facts and data that contradict their religion.   6.  Synonyms: bigot, con artist, communist, deceiver, fool, fraud, Leninist, Marxist, Nazi, pseudo scientific, pseudoscience, pseudoscientist. 
 

E-MAIL: Deke


LINK TO THE MOST CURRENT MATERIAL ON THIS PAGE



The Myth of Evolution

A non-technical look at the deceptions and myths surrounding the evolutionism religion.  Why Evolutionism is NOT science.








 
 

 

WARNING!  THIS PAGE IS NOT SUITABLE FOR PRE-TEENS OR ANYONE WHO IS OFFENDED BY FOUL LANGUAGE!        

Deke's Debate with an Evolutionarian Liar

Professing to be wise, an "utter fool" substitutes dead animals for God's living Biblical truth.



 
 
 


  The Dinosaur Times

IT'S MURDER 
I TELL YA!

A tongue-in-cheek examination of Evolutionarian presuppositions.


 





 
 
 

 
 

Letters About Evolution

While God's people understand and trust His Written Word in Genesis, deception about and ignorance of His plan is a way of life for atheists and liberal "Christian" heretics who are only atheists in disguise.


 
 


 

TCCOP HOME PAGE


 
 

























Return to index


DINOSAURS, EVOLUTIONARIANS AND EVOLUTIONISM:

-OR-

If they weren't trying to be serious, they would be stand-up comedians!

By DEKE


FOREWORD

Dinosaurs are recorded in the Bible, in the Old Testament. How can anyone believe such a thing in the light of modern scientific evidence? I am a former evolutionist. I abandoned the evolutionist RELIGION (science it is NOT) after questioning its premises for many years, and finally submitting to the CREATOR of the universe ... and dinosaurs.

This paper is not intended to be a complete, in-depth exploration of the validity of the hypothesis of evolution. Instead, it is intended to start readers thinking about the hypothesis of evolution in critical ways that are far different from the relentless, elementally blind, evolutionist propaganda preached in the media and most government schools as truth and fact. It is neither. Evolution is a muddled mass of conflicting opinions and sundry ideas contrived by arrogant human beings who reject any god that is not themselves.

--Deke, March, 1998


PROBLEMS WITH THE HYPOTHESIS OF EVOLUTION

-OR-

If the facts don't fit, ignore them and make up your own rules!!!

Evolutionarians, a term I have coined to identify the faithful adherents of evolution, and Evolutionism, the religion of evolution, must necessarily be applied to the "scientist" priests of the evolution religion and its followers, and to the religion itself. Evolution is a religion, and not science? Why? The reasons are simple. All scientific evidence must be (1) testable, (2) quantifiable (the results [data] must be recordable), (3) verifiable (by other scientists who get similar or identical results), and (4) repeatable.  Those things which are not testable, quantifiable, verifiable, and repeatable, are the proper subjects of metaphysics and religion.

Falsifiability is the test that clearly differentiates science and religion. If a proposition can not be falsified, it is an absolute. Science does not deal with absolutes. The adherence to evolution as immutable truth by its faithful proves beyond a doubt that it is not science because it is not falsifiable. Religion, not science, proclaims immutable truth. One of the "great" Evolutionarians  of the 20th Century, Sir Arthur Keith (1866-1955) said1 , "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is SPECIAL CREATION, and that IS UNTHINKABLE." Does Keith's dogma allow the slightest chance for falsification of evolution? ABSOLUTELY not! Keith, if he died while delusively holding fast to Evolutionism's creed of self-godhood, lived in vain. He should have heeded Romans 1:18-19 and 22-23, "The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them.   . . . .  Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles." (NIV) Keith had no excuse and no hope.

The modern religion of Evolutionism is has its roots in an 18th Century idea: uniformitarianism. After centuries of Bible- based scientific investigation, naturalists decided to accept nature as god-creator, the only creative force in the universe. James Hutton (1726-1797), an English physician, proposed that the natural forces which created the earth have not changed since its beginning, and that they are the same forces which are working on the earth today. Hutton rejected the Great Flood recorded in Genesis and proclaimed the earth to be infinitely older than anyone thought. In the process he rejected all possibility of cataclysmic events as having a part in the shaping of our planet. Hutton's ideology was accepted by Charles Lyell (1797-1875), an English lawyer-turned-geologist who incorporated it into his book Principles of Geology in 1830. Darwinists reflected this ideology in the fruitless search for transitional species.

Today uniformitarianism has fallen into disrepute among many if not most Evolutionarians. Modern Evolutionism again seeks cataclysmic explanations for rapid changes that are found in the fossil record. Perhaps a comet streaked through Mesozoic skies 65 million years ago, struck the earth, and ended the age of dinosaurs. Perhaps it impacted in the Gulf of Mexico. Perhaps it left its trace in the form of Hudson's Bay ... perhaps, perhaps, perhaps. Of course the Evolutionarians reject the greatest cataclysm that ever occurred: the Great Flood of Genesis. That would require them to accept that God has had a hand in His creation. They have accepted instead, Sir Arthur Keith's position that "... special creation ... is unthinkable. " His position is the "Evolutionist's Creed."

Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theology proclaimed in his books On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection (1856) and Descent of Man (1871) that evolution was a gradual process. He recognized that the fossil record lacked evidence of those links in the evolutionary chain when he wrote in Origin of Species , " ... If species have descended from other species by fine gradations, [why] do we not everywhere see transitional forms? ..." Despite the obvious lack of confirmation, Darwin was certain that there was evidence of the gradual process in the fossil record. He predicted that, given time, the fossils of transitional species would be found. He was certain that future discoveries in the fossil record would conclusively prove that the human "animal," and all other animals, gradually arose from other species of animals. Darwin was wrong, the evidence has not been found, and those who have continued to follow his teachings have been forced to find another rationalization to buoy their sinking faith. They finally found it in the "theory" of Punctuated Equilibrium.

Many Evangelicals have claimed that Darwin turned from and rejected his evolutionary hypothesis and died a Christian, serving Almighty God. However, Marvin L. Lubenow has stated in his book Bones of Contention Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, a position which takes the opposite view (p. 190): "In 1919 Darwin's son Francis published a biography of his father, together with a collection of his father's correspondence.  A study of the letters . . . . clearly reveals . . . . that he (Charles Darwin) experienced no such change of mind and heart . . . . there are many positive expressions of his continued faith in evolution.  Darwin remained an evolutionist and an agnostic to the day of his death."

Given Lubenow's scholarly work, it is highly probable that the Evangelicals who claim that Darwin died professing Christ are passing on a ill-informed story, a rumor, they've heard from their peers, and that they are doing so without having researched the question themselves.  It is possible that Darwin did die professing Christ, but it is not very probable given the very credible quality of Lubenow's investigation work.  Nonetheless, one must ask if Darwin's supporters would ever admit that he did make that rumored confession.  After all, they knew that he had studied for the ministry at Cambridge. Certainly the blow of his salvation would have been devastating to their unity. Darwin, the icon Evolutionism and Evolutionarians, would have been shattered.  That would have been intolerable.  So, although now dubious, the possibility still remains that Darwin may have recognized his sin and that he had been well worthy of condemnation.  Just as it is with all sinners, where Charles Darwin is spending eternity is not for us to know. God is merciful. May He have granted mercy to Charles Darwin.

Punctuated equilibrium, or punctuated equilibria, the resurrection of a formerly discredited Darwinian-based "theory," says that there are no transitional species in the fossil record because groups of evolutionary events happened very quickly, in a few hundred millennia (punctuation), and not over millions of years as formerly BELIEVED. The periods of rapid evolution were followed by millions of years of steady-state life for the myriad living organisms (equilibria). Hence, there was insufficient time for many fossils of the rapidly evolving, small populations of animals to be preserved in geologic strata.

Of course, you are supposed to accept on faith that those few specimens which were preserved "prove" the truth of Evolutionism, even though there are no intermediate forms evident. Never mind that none of the Evolutionarian scientist/priests agree together about any of the "evidence." Never mind that the "Dawn Horse," Eohippus, closely resembles the modern Hyrax of Africa. Never mind that "evolving" horses changed the number of their ribs multiple times: Eohippus having 18 pairs, Pliohippus with 19 pairs, and "modern" horses (Equus) with 15 pairs. Never mind that Eohippus fossils were found next to those of Equus. These are SCIENTISTS speaking from their lofty podiums. Trust them, they know what they are doing, their faith in their research proves they do!

This could be fun: Place five Evolutionarian scientist/priests in a local pub, have them begin debating the evolution of Equus, and before the night is over you will be in the middle of a bar fight! They can't agree among themselves on even minor details, while proclaiming to their gullible acolytes that their faith is reality. They have no evidence that supports their religion because they can't even agree upon the elemental evidence for their claims among themselves.

Of course, the Evolutionarians ignore evidence that totally contradicts their faith. There are, for example, the very inconvenient polystrate fossils. These fossils poke through "boundary layers" of rock strata. They cut a path across immense stretches of geologic time , physically extending from one "period" into the next. Do you see a problem with that? Of course! The fossils lay there on open ground, or in a damp forest, exposed to the elements and trampling animals for a hundred millennia or more without being destroyed. Why shouldn't you believe that? After all, Evolutionarian scientists must say they survived all that time because that's what their view of the evidence must say -- if you believe the evolutionists! Why, if you had luck like those fossils, you'd own the world, and probably the universe as well!

Punctuated equilibria may seem reasonable on the surface, but it is not one bit rational. There is a VERY BIG problem with the "theory" of Punctuated Equilibrium, the great hope of modern evolutionary "science": Punctuated Equilibrium holds that NO EVIDENCE of evolution's having happened MEANS that EVOLUTION HAPPENED! How would you like to be tried in a court of law that is founded on a similar legal theory? There is no evidence, you are charged with the crime, and you are guilty because of the LACK of evidence!!! Are you just a little more than uncomfortable with Punctuated Equilibrium? You should be, and Evolutionism has more far more problems that just the few you have just considered.


EVOLUTION AND DATING

-OR-

Never trust one of these guys to test your mussels!!!



 

It is clear that evolution violates the testability and verifiability standards of good science. No one has ever witnessed evolution, and no one has ever been able to produce evolution in a laboratory. It was tried on fruit flies for decades, producing only mutant sterile fruit flies, not some new kind of critter.

Repeatability of results in dating fossils is the only part of the scientific standard that evolution seems to meet. The problem with evolutionary-style "scientific" testing is that is the product of circular reasoning. It works this way: a scientist guesses that a specific rock is a hundred million years old. Decades later another scientist adjusts his modern instruments, and tests the same rock while believing that the first scientist was right. Then he tests a fossil specimen, gets the same result as he did with the rock, and declares the specimen to be a hundred million years old! That's circular reasoning. That is also why their tests are repeatable. There is at least one glaring modern exception that belies conclusions based on the standard of repeatability -- and testability as well. It is the odd case of the radiologically dated "20,000,000 year old" mussels LIVING offshore on the East Coast -- living? -- well, never mind that! These people are scientists, and everyone knows scientists are right! Still, radiological dating does produce somewhat consistent albeit circular results ... even with the 20,000,000 year old mussels you had for dinner!

The problem with Evolutionism's radiologically-based conclusions is that they are the product of "the fox watching the hen house." Highly biased evolutionary "scientists" set the standards to which their instruments are calibrated, so of course they agree! Evolutionarians point out a fossil, declare it to be 200,000,000 years old, adjust their instruments to agree with that "estimate" and BINGO! Every time they find a similar geologic layer -- or fossil from that layer -- they get the same 200,000,000 year age! No kidding!!?? Does that sound like circular reasoning?

There is another flaw in the radiological dating process. These tests are based on radioactive decay and absorption rates which are tied to wholly unverifiable ideas about the stability of the levels of radioactive elements in the atmosphere throughout the eons. Since Evolutionism's assertions are not experimentally verifiable, there must be another foundation. Do you recall the assumptions of James Hutton's uniformitarianism ? It fits the claim of a steady state of atmospheric radiation perfectly. Do you remember Evolutionism's current cataclysmic Mesozoic Era meteor impact theory? Cataclysms refute uniformitarianism! Do Evolutionarians at once accept and reject uniformitarianism? Yes. They do hold a very convenient double standard.

The devout Evolutionarian's reliance on the accuracy of radiological dating is predicated on the "absolute" speed of light. BUT, a few years ago, some Australian physicists showed experimentally that the speed of light has varied by at least 5% in only the past 300 years. There is no way of directly testing or knowing with certainty how much it could have varied in hundreds of millions of years. Their discovery demands the question, "Just how trustworthy are Evolutionism's radiological dating methods when they are based on the 'absolute' speed of light?"

The multiple bases that Evolutionism's testing methods rest upon shift like the proverbial sands. These dubious bases, the absolute speed of light and Evolutionarian declarations of earth's age as part of a "pseudo uniformitarian" view of earth's history raise many questions. The potassium-argon dating method, for example, is built on those bases. It is predicated on an ETERNALLY steady rate of decay for a radioactive isotope of potassium into argon. That, in turn, is founded on an absolute and unchanging speed of light. Does that sound like Hutton and Lyell again?

Evolutionarians must BELIEVE that the ratio of radioactive potassium to argon in fossils can be measured and compared to today's well-known radioactive decay rate of a radioactive potassium isotope into argon. To hold that belief, they must also believe that the ratios between the two have remained constant for hundreds of millions of years so that they can be used to calculate an age for the fossilized bones. Do you see uniformitarianism at work here? Do you see a conflict here? How is it that Evolutionarians claim that a catastrophe wiped out the dinosaurs, but they also claim that the earth has remained stable throughout the ages so that their radioactive dating schemes work? Could it be that these "scientists" are engaging in some VERY CREATIVE (double standard or no standard) "science," and are taking a gigantic leap of faith? You bet they are! At the very least, none of them agree on anything about evolution -- other than it happened! Evolutionism is a VERY confused religion at best.

EVOLUTION IS not founded in science, but in FAITH BASED ON the GUESSWORK AND OPINIONS of generations of Evolutionarians who have produced absolutely NOT one bit of solid SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE in support of their faith. It is not even theory, because theory must be based on testable, verifiable, and quantifiable facts. EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE, IT IS metaphysical and/or religious dogma, it is BELIEF NOT FACT; IT IS A RELIGION that must be properly labeled "EVOLUTIONISM"!

The next part of this article will investigate carefully concealed or ignored evidence found in both the fossil record and the modern world. The evidence will be examined to see if it supports or rejects Evolutionism. Therefore, it is important that you remember the most important points which have been presented here. An grasp of the basic flaws in the hypothesis of evolution, and the convenient double- standard for uniformitarianism as applied to the Evolutionarian's view of earth's history are very important to your understanding of the next part of this paper. The evidence you will read about may well confuse you if you have ever accepted the religion of Evolutionism as scientific fact. Do not be alarmed. Your confusion is the result of carefully concealed conflicts and flaws within the priesthood and superficially unified doctrines of Evolutionism. Your puzzlement is shared by inquisitive and well-educated Evolutionarian laymen, and is a source of great embarrassment for the Evolutionarian priesthood.


EVIDENCE, EXTINCTION, AND THE EVOLUTIONARIAN "SPIN DOCTORS"

-OR-

Ignorant animals that don't know they are supposed to be dead!!!


Now, take a look at some of the evidence for evolution versus the reality of human experience and God's inerrant written Word, the Holy Bible. Here are some classic examples of the Evolutionarian's absurd denials of reality when it flies in the face of their cherished hypothetical beliefs:

In 1977 some Japanese fishermen working the New Zealand coast netted the decaying carcass of a plesiosaurus. Photographs of the find were published in at least one scientific journal, several science textbooks, and in at least one television science program during the following fifteen years. The photograph resurfaced in February, 1996 on NBC's Mysteries of the Origins of Man program, hosted by Charlton Heston. The carcass which had been hauled aboard a Japanese fishing boat caused a great stir in the scientific world. The defiant "Mesozoic" critter had refused to die over 150 million years ago as it was told to by the Evolutionarians. Some self-deluded evolutionary "scientists" (priests) labeled it a "mutant elephant seal" or a "deformed shark." These scientific fakirs, true to their religious paradigm, proved their bias by presenting very similar and absurd explanations of the clear photographic and physical evidence: rhomboid fins, snake-like neck, and the desiccated, bulbous body. Other Evolutionism followers chose to dismiss the evidence as hoax without giving it any consideration, but the photograph is undeniable and speaks eloquently of their spiritual blindness. The carcass was discarded, and the controversy has been silenced. That is no surprise.

Next is the classic case of the human and dinosaur footprints which form an undisturbed, parallel trail in "Mesozoic" rock . This story, like that of the Japanese plesiosaurus was published by several of credible scientific journals, including the PBS science series Nova , and was presented in February, 1996, on NBC's Mysteries of the Origins of Man. Archaeologist Dr. Carl Baugh has been investigating the trail for more than twelve years. It leads from undisturbed soil to an area uncovered by erosion in the Paluxy River near Glen Rose, Texas. Dr. Baugh concludes with all seriousness that as a result of the "left, right, left, right pacing stride, the right distance apart, you have to interpret this as belonging to human kind." His conclusion, and that of any reasonable person is that the twelve, sixteen-inch long prints, are unmistakably human. They are only 8 1/2 inches from the dinosaur prints. The obvious conclusion for anyone who has seen the trail is that it records some kind of human or dinosaur hunting activity, but that conclusion can never be an absolute certainty -- there are no living witnesses. Just as in the case of the Japanese plesiosaurus the Evolutionarians first labeled the Paluxy River trail a hoax, but the videotaped and scientifically-monitored excavation undisturbed soil where the trail disappeared into the river bank revealed that it continued into the virgin rock strata; the trail was no hoax.

Evolutionism was being destroyed by the Paluxy trail's reality, so the Evolutionarians had to find another excuse or two to deflect the rational conclusion that dinosaurs and human beings had been living at the same time in history, just as the Bible teaches. Nearly ten years after the trail's discovery was made public, the PBS program NOVA found some poor deluded "scientist" who was willing to say on the air that the human footprints were caused a dinosaur walking ON ITS HEELS! Apparently many of his colleagues must have had the same reaction because new rationalization quickly followed his pathetic comedy act. The latest bumbling "scientific" attempt at dismissing the trail's evidence is the ridiculous assertion that the prints were made by a "new" species of dinosaur. Again Evolutionism's faithful have ignored the evidence. The fossilized prints CLEARLY show a human foot structure with FIVE toes: four small toes, and the great toe. Dinosaurs have a total of FOUR toes! They best CLEARLY show the imprint of a human arch, heel and the base of the metatarsals (the middle bones of a foot). Even in the face of this overwhelming evidence, Evolutionism's "scientists" insist it is IMPOSSIBLE for humans and dinosaurs to have existed together, so the human prints MUST be dinosaur prints ... just ignore the five toes and they won't present a problem!

Today, erosion and "convenient" vandalism has done a great deal of damage to the Paluxy River site.  Dr. Baugh, however, managed to preserve the best of the prints in his collection. The skeptical Evolutionarians still cling to their religion and have offered a number of laughably weak explanations for the evidence, BUT ...

Now there is worse news for the Evolutionarian's case. Recent geological examination of cross-sections of one of the prints in Carl Baugh's collection reveals stress marks in the rock that ONLY could have been made WHEN THE ROCKS WERE SOFT MUD ... "millions" of years ago. Oh, well, the Evolutionarians will just deal with that one later. Perhaps they can find someone gullible enough to make another fatuous public statement in support of their religion ... or maybe they will ignore this evidence as they have the five toes of their imaginary dinosaur.

Another incident, this one involving the Evolutionarian's practice of manipulating word meanings, is the classic case of the extinct species of primitive fish, the Coelacanth. Evolutionists claimed it died out 250 million years or so ago, but nobody told the Coelacanths that they were extinct! One was found alive and well off the coast of Madagascar in the mid-1930's, and more have been caught since then.  Unabashed, the Evolutionarians declared the Coelacanth, in effect, "resurrected" by giving them the oxymoronic title, living fossils.  Fossils, by definition, are not alive!

Evolutionarians say that dinosaurs are extinct with great confidence in the overwhelming superiority of their faith. The real requirements, however, for proving that dinosaurs are truly extinct are: (1) ignore the Japanese plesiosaur and the Coelacanth, and (2) place every square inch of the earth under surveillance at the exact same moment! Then, if no dinosaurs are seen, they must be extinct. Of course, those inconvenient Japanese photographs of a decaying plesiousaur carcass do put a bit of a "kink" in their argument.  Oh, sure, it's just another "anomaly."  Any artifact that debunks Evolutionarian dogma is an anomaly!

Natural selection (extinction) does occur when creatures are unable to cope with changes in their environment. There is no evidence at all that the Dodo is still with us -- unlike the case of the Coelacanth and the plesiosaurus. According to the Evolution religion, natural selection (survival of the fittest) works hand-in-glove with geneticmutation and the environment to produce a new, viable species which could survive under conditions that would have wiped out all of its ancestors. Elephants are supposed to have developed when one lonely pig-like animal, faced with having to get food from the ever taller trees, was born with a very elongated snout. Never mind that its new snout had to have the muscle structure to keep it from underfoot while fleeing from a predator (Trip, splat! No more elephants!), and a grasping tip so that it could bring food to its mouth. Of course, that miraculously utilitarian piece of flesh was passed on, fully developed, to the next generation. Sure! Right!

Here is the problem with the evolution myth: First, the hypothesis of evolution depends totally on environmental influences favoring mutant forms. Naked animals don't do well in arctic climates. Second, research proves that mutants are always STERILE! There is not much hope for reproductive success in a sterile animal. I have never heard any evidence from any credible scientific source to the contrary. Third, and even more damning, is the problem of mutant to reproduction. Where is the mutant going to find a similarly mutated mate? Even if a mutant was to ATTEMPT to mate with one of its source-species, animal behavior would most likely result in an immediate, forceful, and possibly deadly rejection of the attempt. It would most certainly be excluded from the gene pool.


WHAT THE BIBLE HAS TO SAY ... SORT OF ... AND REALLY

-OR-

Elephants, hippos and crocodiles go white water rafting!!!


Are dinosaurs really extinct? There are several scriptures about great beasts in the O.T. The word "dinosaur" did not exist then, it is derived from the much more recent Greek language. The vivid descriptions of the encounters, though, leave no doubt as to what was seen.

First there is God's description of "behemoth " in Job 40:14-24. Some Evolutionarian-influenced Bible interpreters have corrupted the original meanings with footnotes to the Scripture which imply that the writers were describing an elephant or hippopotamus. In doing that they have ignored the Scriptural descriptions, and have given tacit approval the preposterous hypothesis of evolution. Neither elephants nor hippopotami have a tail that "... sways like a cedar ..." Obviously, only the elephant has a trunk. More, both elephants and hippopotami would perish in the raging river of Job 40:23; white water rafters they are not! From what I remember of elephant and hippo behavior, both only bathe in calm water or "shower" beneath waterfalls. I do not believe there are any other animals known to us, other than fossilized species of dinosaurs, which fit the Biblical description if "behemoth". The account in Job, implausible as it may seem to the Evolutionarian-infected mind, has to be of a dinosaur -- perhaps one like Brontosaurus or Diplodocus.

Next in Job there is God's description of "leviathan " which is the entirety of Job, Chapter 41. The creature described here is gigantic, fire-breathing, and invulnerable to attack. Unlike "behemoth, " it is a fierce fighter, and dwells in the sea. The mythical fire-breathing dragon may not be so mythical.

Still, the Job Scriptures have been ridiculed by spiritually blind "scientists" as myth. Yet there is the case of the circus "fire eaters". They blow flames from their mouths without being burned. A number of skeletons of different dinosaur species have a "crest" on the head, with tubes leading to the mouth. Some scientists think that they may have functioned as sound chambers, while others think that gases (methane or hydrogen), the products of body function gathered in these chambers, mixed with oxygen, and were expelled and ignited on leaving the mouth. I have not heard how ignition might have been accomplished in these dinosaurs, perhaps by some form of compression, but the scripture is absolute truth, so it was accomplished. Leviathan may have been what we now call Kronosaurus, a gigantic sea-dweller that meets the criteria of scripture.

Again, the Bible's English-speaking interpreters took much "poetic license" with the Old Testament. In their zeal to not appear anti- intellectual, or perhaps anti-Evolutionarian (which is supposed to be the same thing), they claim that these passages also refer to a "modern" animal. They have added a footnote that Leviathan may have been a crocodile ... a fire-breathing, sea- dwelling crocodile!!!???

Isaiah 27:1 gives more information about Leviathan's form than I have briefly covered here. The KJV and RSV give the best rendering of the Hebrew. King David recorded observing Leviathan's behavior in Psalm 104:25-27, "This great and wide sea, in which are innumerable teeming things, living things both small and great. There the ships sail about; there is that Leviathan which You have made to play there. These all wait for You, that You may give them their food in due season." (NKJ) The KJV, NKJ and the RSV render this best, followed closely by the rendering in the NIV.


MODERN EVIDENCE OF "MODERN" DINOSAURS

-OR-

How a fleshed-out carcass survived sharks, crabs, and barracudas while floating in the ocean for 160,000,000 years (+-)


A Japanese fishing ship netted the aforementioned Japanese plesiosaurus carcass off the coast of New Zealand in 1977. Its somewhat emaciated body was 32 feet (10 meters) long, and weighed around 4000 pounds. Each of its four very large rhomboid fins was about three feet (1 meter) long. The Japanese government recognized the importance of the discovery, calling it "the discovery of the year," and issued a postage stamp in its honor. Later, intense pressure was placed on the Japanese Diet (congress) to disavow this decision, and the stamp was withdrawn. It is not politically correct to be a dinosaur in the 20th Century, for that violates the Evolutionarian religion's doctrine of extinction of dinosaurs about 65 million years ago. "Extinct" plesiosaurs have joined with the Coelacanth, another of God's creatures that refused to live and die by the "rules"!

The Bible is the inerrant written Word of God. Crocodiles do not breathe fire or live in the sea, elephants do not have trunks the size of a cedar tree (four or five feet in diameter), and a Hippopotamus has neither a trunk, nor a tail like a cedar tree. These descriptions are of dinosaurs. Perhaps they were later remembered as dragons after being mythologized by other cultures, as was Noah's flood by the American aboriginal cultures. God Himself describes these creatures, and the men who did the translations from the ancient Hebrew, or commented on them, have gravely erred in not accepting His description. These deceivers try to make Him say "crocodile," "hippopotamus," or "elephant," but these are only very weak attempts at reconciling the humanistic abiogenic (life from lifeless matter) evolutionary hypothesis (it is not any kind of theory), or the religion of Evolutionism, with the inerrant written Word of God. God described dinosaurs in these passages! Yes, dinosaurs did, and probably still do exist. There is more than enough physical and world-wide anecdotal evidence give credible support to this position.

God created dinosaurs, and "science" ignores the evidence of their continuing existence! This is emphasized by the cases I have cited. There is the fossilized side-by-side human and dinosaur tracks in Texas, and the Evolutionarian's absurdly funny "interpretation" of that evidence as "heel-walking dinosaurs." When "scientists" declare the supposedly extinct Coelacanth to be a "living fossil" they do not even blink! They smile an all-knowing smile, while thinking how stupid you are to believe their bizarre attempt to cover their blind ignorance by applying this self-contradictory label to their mistake. Fossils, by their nature, are DEAD, not LIVING!!

The Evolutionarians cover up their mistakes by giving them new labels (reclassification) when they are proven wrong, or by denying that they exist! Do not fall into the trap of seeing Evolutionarian paleontologists as scientists, they are not despite their high-sounding academic credentials and use of scientific equipment! These people are blind and deceived liars who deny God, and set themselves up as truth-declaring gods in His place.

Just remember that only a very few Japanese fishermen, a handful of deceived scientists, some museum personnel, a few "civilians," and those of us who have seen the photographs know what a semi- fleshed-out dinosaur looks like. There are only a few fossilized dinosaur skin fragments in existence. No intact, fully fossilized dinosaur carcasses have ever been found. No one knows the dinosaur's living form for certain, because what we "know" is based on guesswork, uniformitarian  arguments based on living animal's physiology, an emaciated plesiosaurus carcass, and artist's imaginations.

God created dinosaurs, and there is no rational reason to believe that they are extinct. Dinosaurs were stomping around only a few thousand years ago according to the God's inerrant Word, the Holy Bible . Sooner or later He will prove the scoffers to be absolutely wrong in a way that even the most sin-bound unbeliever can not deny.

If you understand what has been said here, and after careful consideration have accepted the indictment of Evolutionism as fraudulent "science" you are necessarily confronted with another issue: Can you continue to support a system which indoctrinates our children with Evolutionarian doctrine to the total exclusion of the opposing Christian view? If not, please take the time to write to your friends and opponents in Congress and the State legislature, and especially to your legislators who support and advocate the teaching of the Creationist Model in the classrooms of public schools. Vote Evolutionarians out of office!

Do not forget, your tax money is being used to promote Evolutionism in the government schools. The Evolutionarian dictators have had their way for the past 50 years with the willing help of Evolutionarian educators. Together they have deceived generations parents into believing that the teaching of Evolutionism is not a violation of the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution ... but it is ! Evolutionism has been established as the ONLY explanation for the origin of the universe taught in government schools. You now understand that despite superficial appearances, evolution IS NOT science; it IS religion !

It is time for the evolution as "science" charade to end. It is your Christian duty to destroy the myth of Evolutionism as science. It is your duty to join with other believers to force the government schools to teach both doctrines as opposing metaphysical explanations for our existence, or to force them to remove both views from government education programs. It is time for Christians to regain the voice that has been silenced by the Evolutionarians and their duplicitous accomplices in government education. It is time to use the voice we have been given by Almighty God and the Constitution to force the government education system to comply with our right to speak our beliefs to every citizen of our nation, children included. It is a right that we and our Christian ancestors have paid for in blood, sweat, and taxes. Without the liberty to teach truth to every citizen, there is no liberty at all.
 
 

Note:
For more information on modern dinosaurs, please visit creationist lecturer and evangelist Dr. Kent Hovind's web site: http://www.drdino.com/

Copyright 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, Diakon (a pseudonym)

This document may be reproduced and distributed freely if it is [1] done without charge, [2] all sections of the entire text are reproduced exactly as they appear here, intact and without addition or deletion, and [3] it includes this copyright notice and the author's name. Short verbatim excerpts of this document for commentary are permissible.
 




 
 

Return to index


FOSSILIZED DINOSAUR FOUND ON NEST

By Deke


Most of you have probably already heard about the recent paleontological find in the Gobi Desert. The details are sketchy, but it was reported in January, 1996, that paleontologists have unearthed the remains of an oviraptor, a small bird-like dinosaur, in the vicinity of a fossilized nest. Some paleontologists are now speculating that the oviraptor died while sitting on a nestful of eggs. They are saying that the find may indicate that the defunct dino expired while engaging in brooding behavior, much like a chicken. The speculation among some evolutionary biologists and paleontologists is that this find gives strength to the argument that dinosaurs evolved into birds. There may be more to this conditional tense-laced story that they are telling you.

An informed source stated that an initially puzzling discovery was made very close to the nest site which has resulted in a far greater controversy than the dino and nest itself. Until now this information has not been made public. A large stone tablet inscribed with curious symbols was buried in the same rock strata approximately 2 meters (about 6 1/2 feet) from the original find. After subjecting the tablet to careful analysis using Dr. Frederick DeCripto's famous CONTROL led ALTricial DEL iquescence program, unnamed scientists have successfully deciphered the text of the tablet. This is the first publication of Dr. Decrypto's work. You are privileged be among the very first human beings to read a story that may have (note the evoltionarian verb form) survived the eons since the "Age of Dinosaurs":


DINO KILLED DURING ATTEMPTED BURGLARY AND KIDNAPPING

Body still missing

Dino City, Mongolia (DinoInterPress) Authorities have given up the search for the body of Eddie "The Sneak" Oviraptor, notorious burglar, egg thief, and suspected mass murderer. His death was reported to police in late July of last year by Mrs. Lena Desmasher, wife of reputed mobster Louie "Whackem" Desmasher, owner of Freeways and Stuff Construction Company.

Mrs. Desmasher, in statements made to Dino City Police Department dinocide detectives, claimed that she arrived home and found Oviraptor in her nursery, about to devour an entire clutch of eggs and one recently hatched child. Desmasher said that she became enraged when Oviraptor refused to leave. She testified that he threatened her child and eggs, saying, "If you come near me, I'll eat 'em all." "I reared up, full height," Desmasher stated at the coroner's inquest, "and brought my right foot crashing down on him (Oviraptor). He screeched, bit, and clawed furiously at my leg after I pinned him. I was afraid that he would tear my leg off and kill us all, so I stepped back and smashed him with my other foot. He died on the spot ... or as a spot. Sadly, my nest was also destroyed. I was stunned for a short time by the bloody scene before me. A couple of minutes passed and a gigantic sand storm struck from the south. It buried my house, children, and him (Oviraptor). When the storm was over I went to the police and reported what happened."

When questioned by police about the disappearance of Oviraptor, mobster Louie Desmasher said, "I don't know nuthin' about no Eddie Oviraptor ... sneaky or otherwise. I don't know him at all. I never seen th' bum. Leave me and the old lady alone. Go talk to my attoiney. Buzz off ... an' stop callin' me 'Whackem'!"

Initial searches of the area where the incident occurred revealed no trace of the house, Oviraptor, the child, eggs or nest. The storm had wiped away all traces of the incident. Several months after Mrs. Desmasher filed her report, in an intense final effort, Coroner's deputies accompanied by bloodmammals and M-16 Dragonfly helicopters equipped with infrared sensors scoured the area where the Desmasher house had disappeared beneath the sand. Not even the latest technology could find a trace of the struggle, the house, or of Eddie "the Sneak." No charges were filed against Mrs. Desmasher.

A new freeway, built by Freeways and Stuff Construction Company across the Desmasher property was completed early last August. Mr. Desmasher named it the "Eddie Oviraptor Memorial Freeway." "Maybe he (Oviraptor) was tryin' to save 'em instead of eat 'em," Desmasher said.


Many explanations of paleontological evidence are possible. The one just presented is almost as credible as many of those proposed by serious evolutionists. There is no evidence that any human observed the real oviraptor's death. No evolutionist would admit that as a possibility despite there being some credible, albeit physically distant, evidence that contradicts their closely-held Unbiblical doctrine of the Evolutionarian religion.

No one knows why the real oviraptor was near or in that nest in the Gobi, whether it was male or female, if the eggs belonged to it, or if it was just a nest-robbing predator. The speculation that it was engaging in brooding behavior is nothing more than a wild guess rooted in the fantasy-driven thinking of those practicing the humanist evolution religion. It would be just as absurd to draw the conclusion that an opossum was killed on a country road while keeping the ants beneath it warm. The dead "faith" of the Evolutionarians, Evolutionism, is an internally controversial mix of unsupported suppositions motivated by religious fervor.

Copyright 1996, 1997 Deke (a pseudonym)

This document may be reproduced and distributed freely if it is: [1] done without charge, [2] the entire text is reproduced exactly as it appears here, intact and without addition or deletion, and [3] it includes this copyright notice and the author's name. Short excerpts of this document for commentary are permissible.




 
 

Return to index


LETTERS ABOUT EVOLUTION



 
 

Foreword

The letters in this section are presented in the hope that God may awaken some of you to the deadly deception that evolutionism is something other than atheism.  God is the author of the universe, and only He is the source of the Holy Bible.  He has declared it so, and that declaration is not negotiable.  He has revealed (breathed) that truth through His Holy Spirit  in 2 Timothy 3:16.

The opposition to God's declaration is massive.  Liberal pseudochristian churches and theologians have tried to reconcile Darwin's secular, humanist/atheist/agnostic philosophy with Genesis.  They embrace godless evolutionism calling it "theistic evolution" and use it as a substitute for the creative power and delared truth from Almighty God Himself.  In doing that they accept Darwin and his Evolutionarian scientist-priesthood's teaching  that God's people are the product of mindless chance instead of an all-knowing, all-wise Creator.  Making that declaration they deny the Holy Spirit's revelation that all Scripture, Genesis included, is God-breathed (theopneustos) calling His breathed Word "a metaphor."  They reject His Holy declaration and call His Holy Spirit a liar or a deceiver.  God has NEVER declared His Written Word to be anything except truth. They have committed heresy and blasphemy.   Beware of their deception, it is a road to hell, paved with apparently good intentions but laid and marked by Satan and his servants.

When I receive letters or prayer requests from Christians, it is always my policy to delete names and e-mail addresses.  In this case, however, I may post the entire letter including e-mail address in addition to my reply if those letters are from people who either profess to be Christian and promote Evolutionarian heresy, or if they are clearly antichrists (1 John 2:22, 4:3; 2 John 1:7).  These do not deserve the protection I give to my brothers and sisters in Christ.  Perhaps some of you will take the time to write to them.  Please do take the time to pray God's mercy for them.  Unless they respond to his call, those who have not deliberately blasphemed the Holy Spirit may be saved from eternal condemnation by a few words of exhortation to God's truth as He has revealed it in His Holy Bible.  As for me, I will treat them as I do all of God's enemies:  TAKING NO PRISONERS, AND GIVING NO QUARTER.  That is the nature and way of my ministry, but if it is not your way, follow as God leads.

The letters, below, are presented in the order I received them, but the replies have been grouped with the letters to avoid confusion.


January 8, 1999

I think you might find it interesting that according to the book "The Genesis Flood" (author's name escapes me at the moment)there are some 700 species of these so called living fossils defined as creatures that lived millions of years ago (evolutionist's time frame ) and now but at no time in between. These creatures include everything from the horseshoe crab to the tuatara of New Zealand.

                                            Gary


Hi Gary!

So-called "living fossils" like the colelacanth, crocodilians, alligators, and those you mentioned are part of the anti-Evolutionarian argument I have on my [this web] page .... Yes, I am aware of the nifty little word games the Evolutionarian (religion) scientist-priests play to justify their cockamamie circular reasoning.

I believe that book was written by Dr. Henry Morris or his son, Dr. John Morris, but I might be mistaken.  I have seen it on shelf, but haven't bought it.

Here's a cute little item:  Have you read about the Kanapoi elbow fossil (KP 271)?  It is 4.5 million years old and 100%  H. sapiens!  The Evolutionarian priests and acolytes call it an "anomaly"!  What a joke!  Any artifact that doesn't fit their "model" is an anomaly, and there are thousands, just as you noted.  KP 271 was dated using their own methods, but they reject the only possible conclusion. Instead of recognizing the obvious, they are arguing that KP 271 is A. africanus because it was found in strata containing A. africanus fossils!  Now let me get this straight, it has to be A. africanus because it was found in 4.5 m.y.o. [note: m.y.o. = million year old] strata, and therefore it can't be human because humans didn't live that "long ago."  That's called "circular reasoning."  It's Evolutionarian religious dogma -- to the max!

Thanks for writing!  Keep on fighting the good fight!

~~Deke


From Gary
January 9, 1999:

I am also told that there is now a petrified forest at the bottom of Spirit Lake in Washington State near Mount St Helens. It wasn't there prior to the last big eruption but is very similar to the one the evolutionists claim is several million years old in Arizona. Seems that maybe the process of petrifaction takes some what less time than the evolutionests claim. BTW the book is well worth reading because of it I discarded 100 or so page attempt to rationalize the Bible and evolution.



 

Hi again Gary!

Yes, I that is true, but I don't yet have all of the story.  I have purchased a book, The Young Earth   by John D. Morris, Ph.D., which covers that information, but haven't yet read it.

I am also aware that speleologists have known for a long time that limestone deposits much more rapidly in some caves than others.  I believe I also heard that petrifaction occurs very rapidly under some of  those conditions.  I just wish I could remember where I saw that information.  Until I find credible scientific publications supporting that information, it's just my foggy opinion.

~~Deke


Hey Deke!
I checked out your site and I do have to say I am impressed.

I am a Sophomore High School student who is being literally "forced" to sit down and hear the harlequin-like theories of "Evolution." And let me tell you, I have seen Carl Baugh and Dr. Kent Hovind's video tapes and I have to say "Sorry, I do not buy this."

At one point in time, my teacher and her students had a good laugh over a Louisiana town in the news that will not let their students hear the name evoultion.  They were shocked. Well, they should be. They are wasting tax dollars, ink, photographs, and valuable time teaching us foolish jargin that contradicts itself over and over again.

I would like to just say that I am glad I stumbled upon your site and that there is but one other person who is trying to preserve the word of The Lord God.
God Bless You,
LobotCC



 
Hi LobotCC!

I'm glad you liked my site.  It really needs some serious updating.  I have a lot of new information for the evolution page.  I should get around to it fairly soon.  I'm updating all of the pages, and it is about due.

If you haven't visited the Institute for Creation Research's web site, it's worth a look.  Here's the URL:

http://www.icr.org/

I haven't seen Carl Baugh's video tapes, but I have visited Dr. Hovind's web site.  I commented on my evolution page that he would have done well to leave out the "Nessie" photos, but the Japanese plesiosaur photos are another ball of wax.  I'm convinced that they are genuine.    Colelacanth was a big surprise for the Evolutionarian scientist-priests.  I can hardly wait to hear their song-and-dance when they have to examine a living plesiosaur, or one's carcass.

Thanks for writing, bro.  I'm always glad to hear from Christian high school and college students.   You guys give me hope that this nation my survive another hundred years.

Your bro. in Christ Jesus
~~Deke



June 23, 1999

Just wanted to take a moment to applaud your debate with the now infamous Jack .  With all due respect, I must admit I was taken back by your aggressive style, however having not the knowledge you possess nor the continual "needle" from Jack I'm sure that you were simply expressing your frustration.  It was great to see how you interjected scripture throughout your rebuttals.  People like Jack need Jesus desperately.  Reading your debate opened my eyes to many Christian "proofs" that I was unaware existed.  Thank you for taking the time to post it so folks like me have the opportunity to learn too.  May God continue to bless you and keep you in His will, giving you wisdom and insight for those you minister to.

Sincerely,

Joanne



 
Hi Sis Joanne!

I'm glad you've gleaned a little from my efforts, Sis.  May God continue to increase your wisdom and knowledge.

Yep, I tend to be rough on reprobates and anti-Christs like Jack Oliver.  His sophomoric rhetoric and avoidance of direct questions is indicative of both ignorance and blindness.  I'm tough when it's necessary, gentle when it is needed, and give no quarter to God's enemies.  I chewed him up because he asked for it, though, and not because I was frustrated with him.  I had seen his vacuous act before, so I was prepared to lay the traps that would expose him.  Jackanapes willingly stepped into each of 'em, and howled like the godless animal he is from his self-inflicted pain.  Sadly, he learned nothing.  He could only resort to posing more of his standard, rhetorical, and deliberately misleading questions, calling names, and lying about what he had written.  That is his way, and the way of his father, the father of all liars, Satan.  I didn't expect anything else, and knew from the beginning that the scourge was the only appropriate approach to that deceiver.

It's obvious from Jack's continuing performance that it's very unlikely God has drawn or will draw him, and much less likely that God has elected him.  Only God knows for certain.  Oh well, I reckon that hell needs strong backs and weak minds to stoke its furnaces.  I always pray that God will be merciful to him, but there is no evidence that He has saved the poor Jackanapes whose fruits are as rotten as the dead animals he worships as his creator.  Blindness and deafness fatal diseases when they are spiritual.

I do have a ton of current information on evolution and the Evolutionarian religion's frauds and dirty little secrets, and still have some more study to do before I add to my web site.  I will probably do some work on the evolution page this fall and winter, Lord willing.

Thanks again for spending some time on my web site.  It's always a blessing to hear that my ministry offers a few worthwhile tidbits.

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
~~Deke


----- Original Message -----
From: Nancy
To: tccop@jps.net
Sent: Saturday, August 28, 1999 11:36 PM
Subject: Evolutionism vs. Creationism

Hi Deke!  (That's your name, right?)

I just visited your website (http://www.jps.net/tccop/evolutio.htm) -- it's great, by the way; I love how you've written and argued so convincingly as well as very rationally on this topic-- and I have one question for you.  I'm going to quote a passage first:

"The devout Evolutionarian's reliance on the accuracy of radiological dating is predicated on the "absolute" speed of light. BUT, a few years ago, some Australian physicists showed experimentally that the speed of light has varied by at least 5% in only the past 300 years. There is no way of directly testing or knowing with certainty how much it could have varied in hundreds of millions of years. Their discovery demands the question, "Just how trustworthy are Evolutionism's radiological dating methods when they are based on the 'absolute' speed of light?" "

My friend and I found this extremely interesting and were wondering where you found this so that we could read up some more on it.  The implications of a nonconstant speed of light are HUGE!  If you could provide us with this information, we'd be grateful.  Thanks ahead of time, and great job on the site!

Nancy

"Come, let us sing for joy to the LORD; let us shout aloud to the Rock of our salvation!
For the LORD is a great God.
In His hand are the depths of the earth, and the mountain peaks belong to Him."
-Psalm 95:1,3,4


Note from Deke:

If anyone has the names of these Australian scientists Nancy has mentioned, would you please post them to me along with a URL or publication that I can cite on this page.  I read or heard the report so long ago that I don't recall where it came from beyond its being a credible scientific source, perhaps NOVA or Science Magazine.  Several scientists and technicians have told me that the experiments were published, but no one could recall just who did it.  ~~Deke




 
Hi Sis Nancy!

Well, Deke's my pseudonym anyway.  ....

OK, that question has been asked several times.  The information came from an article I read, I believe, in National Geographic.  BUT, I've never been able to find it since.  However, when I was debating on the now-defunct Michael Reagan debate forums, a physicist from Arizona did give me the names of the two physicists he believed did the research.  His comment, however, was that the error bars would enclose any result from the recreation of  Newton's or any early physicist's experiments, presumably given the best statistical methods available today.  So, according to the physicist, the results would be inconclusive.

I must comment, however, that a friend of mine who has his bachelor's in statistics and his master's in clinical psychology, disagrees with the physicists conclusions.  This Christian "number crunches" insists that a reliable computer model based on early measurments could have been and can be developed which would accurately represent the speed of light at 300 years ago.  I suspect that is exacly what the two Australian physicists did, and they probably took a lot of heat for publishing the results. Since the physicist from the Reagan Forum was, and presumably still is, a "theistic evolutionist,"  his reply must be weighted in favor of evolutionism.  Philosophical and religious presuppositions affect ever human's perceptions.

OK, IF I can find the names of those two physicists, I'll try to post them to you.  If not, I'll mark your letter as unread and continue searching.  The hard drive which contained the posts croaked last month, but I managed to save just about all of the data before it bit the dust totally.  So, IF I did a good job, the information should still be available.
 

~~Deke



 
Hi again, Sis Nancy!

Drat!  I searched my old computer records for the names of those two physicists, but I couldn't find the post.  The last time I had a request like this it took me two years to find the photo -- the one of the Japanese plesiosaur.  I'll keep on lookin', but it will take a while.

~~Deke



 

Hi brotha Deke! (:
    Thanks so much for replying and taking time to look.  Don't look too hard if it's taking too much time-- I might do some looking on my own when I get the time.  Thank you so much again, and if you ever do find the names, let me know! (:

Nancy!

P.S.  I might look around the net for some information.  There are probably at least 5 other sites that I found with the Japanese plesiosaur pictures!



 
 
Hi Sis Nancy!

A friend of mine, a mathematician, forwarded this letter.  It was forwarded to him from the e-mail address on its header.  I discovered the information just moments ago, shortly after I wrote that I'd struck out on finding those two physicists' names.  This article might help a bit.  I'm going to set it aside as a potential footnote for my web page article.

~~Deke
Web Site: http://www.jps.net/tccop
E-mail: tccop@jps.net
 
 

                                          Rethinking Relativity
                                              by Tom Bethell

  No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics
  journal just published an article whose conclusion, if
  generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of
  modern physics--Einstein's theory of relativity in particular.
  Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the
  article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity
  propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than
  the speed of light. This would contradict the special theory
  of relativity of 1905, which asserts that nothing can go
  faster than light. This claim about the special status of the
  speed of light has become part of the world view of
  educated laymen in the twentieth century.

  Special relativity, as opposed to the general theory (1916),
  is considered by experts to be above criticism, because it
  has been confirmed "over and over again." But several
  dissident physicists believe that there is a simpler way of
  looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending
  complications of relativity. Their arguments can be
  understood by laymen. I wrote about one of these
  dissidents, Petr Beckmann, over five years ago (TAS,
  August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993).
  The present article introduces new people and arguments.
  The subject is important because if special relativity is
  supplanted, much of twentieth-century physics, including
  quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that light.
  ****


I visited your Creationism Vs. Evolutionism site and read through a couple of your articles.  I happened to come accross it because, I am currently involved in a term paper, arguing the absurdity of Evolutionism.  I applaud the enthusiasm that is clearly espied in the paper.

In one of them, u mention that Darwin died a Christian.  That will be a good argument that I could use!  Is it possible if you could give me some references to that?

Thanks,
ToM.



 
Thanks for calling my attention to that statement.  I've been intending to modify it for a long time.  I have another reference to that claim on another evolution page, to which I did make the intended correction, but only as a foot note.  Here is the text which I just added to the article you were reading:

"Many Evangelicals have claimed that Darwin turned from and rejected his evolutionary hypothesis and died a Christian, serving Almighty God. However, Marvin L. Lubenow has stated in his book Bones of Contention Creationist Assessment of Human Fossils, a position which takes the opposite view (p. 190), 'In 1919 Darwin's son Francis published a biography of his father, together with a collection of his father's correspondence. A study of the letters . . . . clearly reveals . . . . that he (Charles Darwin) experienced no such change of mind and heart . . . . there are many positive expressions of his continued faith in evolution. Darwin remained an evolutionist and an agnostic to the day of his death.'

Given Lubenow's scholarly work, it is highly probable that the Evangelicals who claim that Darwin died professing Christ are passing on a ill-informed story, a rumor, they've heard from their peers, and that they are doing so without having researched the question themselves. It is possible that Darwin did die professing Christ, but it is not very probable given the very credible quality of Lubenow's investigation work. Nonetheless, one must ask if Darwin's supporters would ever admit that he did make that rumored confession. After all, they knew that he had studied for the ministry at Cambridge. Certainly the blow of his salvation would have been devastating to their unity. Darwin, the icon Evolutionism and Evolutionarians, would have been shattered. That would have been intolerable. So, although now dubious, the possibility still remains that Darwin may have recognized his sin and that he had been well worthy of condemnation. Just as it is with all sinners, where Charles Darwin is spending eternity is not for us to know. God is merciful. May He have granted mercy to Charles Darwin."

I do recall several A Beka science textbooks which made that claim.  I am fairly certain that one was a 5th grade science text, and another for the 8th grade.  It must be noted, however, that many prominent evolutionists have rejected the Evolutionarian religion.  Three late 20th Century former Evolutionarian scientists (biology professors, as I recall) whose academic credentials are impeccable are:  Dr. Duane Gish, Ph.D.; Dr. Kenneth Ham, Ph.D.; and Dr. Gary Parker, Ph.D.   If you research their names and backgrounds you will find a wealth of evolutionism-refuting evidence (facts).  Each is a formerly a rabid evolutionarian priest, as I once was.

Have fun with the term paper!

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
~~Deke




 

Hey Deke,

Thanks for your previous E-Mail.  One more question:  Where did you get that quote from Sir Arthur Keith (Evolution is unproved and unprovable.  We believe it because the only other alternative is special creation and that is unthinkable)?  If u were able to give me the source for that quote, it would really help me in my project.

Thanks again,
ToM.



 
Hi!

1Keith's statement, "Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable." is quoted in Fred John Meldan's Why We Believe in Creation Not in Evolution , Christian Victory Publishing, 1959, p. 27.  You should also check p. 8 in the same publication.

RETURN TO ARTICLE WITH KEITH'S STATEMENT

The issue here is not when Keith (d. 1955) made the statement, but that it is consistent with the fundamental presuppositions of all Evolutionarian pseudoscientist-priests and "theistic" evolutionists.  Both views are atheist. There is no significant difference between their investigatory presuppositions.  Both deny the power and authority of Almighty God.  Both treat His only Written Word with slightly-varying degrees of disdain, preferring to His truth the product of their own sin corrupted, sin-enslaved minds.  The Evolutionarian and their "theistic" Evolutionarian brethren, unlike Abraham, do not believe God.

Doulos kai diakonos Christou Iesou
~~Deke



 

Date: Mon, 25 Oct 1999 17:36:47 +0300 (GMT)
From: Rodrigo de Loyola Dias
To: tccop@jps.net
Subject: About your text on Evolutionism vs. Creationism

Hi,

My name is Rodrigo and I'm a brazilian biology student. I've seen your page about Evolutionism vs. Creationism (http://www.jps.net/tccop/evolutio.htm) and I'm really curious.

Well, I am an evolutionist and wanna comment your text. Sorry if my english ain't good as it would.

1. I would like to know what are the transitional forms you'd like to see to consider evolution a fact. Australopitecus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus and Homo sapiens neanderthalensis ain't enough for you as proof of human evolution? By the way, you've read the Genesis literally? Even church says it's just a metaphora...



 
Note from Deke:

Speaking in Evolutionarian scientist-priest terms, these so-called prehominids are not proved to be human ancestors by any stretch of the wild Evolutionarian imagination.  Simply naming a fossil "Homo" does not make it proto-human or a "prehominid."  The Australopithecinae, for example, have been eliminated as part of the human taxon by fossil evidence using the Evolutionarian's own radiometric dating methods.

KP-271, a 4.5 million year old 100% "modern" human humerus, either predates or was coexistant with both the gracile and robust forms of A. africanus.  The other fossilized apes he mentions are exactly that.  They are not "prehominids."

H. neaderTALis, not "neanderTHALis" (the old spelling), is a proved contemporary of our ancestors.  Our ancestors and Neandertals lived side-by side on Mount Carmel in Israel.  Research has shown so-called H. neadertalis to be genetically unrelated to us (Cann, Stoneking, and Wilson, "Mitochondrial Dna and human evolution," Nature 325, January 1, 1987, pp 31-36).   Given that their research stands unchallenged, it is clear that H. neandertalis is not so-called "Homo sapiens," one of our our kind.  [ Yes, I deliberately omitted the second "sapiens" because Goodall et al. are demonstrably wrong.  They've already put too much SAP into their SAPppy SAPiens hypotheses. ]  We, and all creatures including H. neadertalis, are God's unique and distinctly separate creation.  Evolutionism is a complex mixture of myth and fraud.

When evolution-negating facts like KP-271 and the coexistence of our ancestors and "Neandertal man" inconveniently appear in the so-called fossil record, the Evolutionarian scientist-priest frauds and their dupes either call them "anomalies," or continue blindly forward with their deception, deliberately failing to teach honestly their victims aka students new facts which tend to negate their religion.  Rodrigo has been duped.

You can read my full reply to Rodrigo's letter below, following the balance of his original post to me. ~~Deke

Rodrigo continues:



 

You said:

"All scientific evidence must be (1) testable, (2) quantifiable (the results [data] must be recordable), and (3) verifiable (by other scientists who get similar or identical results). Those things which are not testable, quantifiable, and verifiable fall into the category of
metaphysics and religion."

You know, evolution study is too much like history: how can the facts that happened long time ago be tested, quantified and verified but by documents that lasted until our time? Or history is metaphysics/religion? I really don't think so. Evidences in evolution and history for me are enough. If they ain't for you, maybe that's just because you don't WANT to believe in evolution.

2. You said again:

"There is a VERY BIG problem with the "theory" of Punctuated Equilibrium, the great hope of modern evolutionary "science": Punctuated Equilibrium holds that NO EVIDENCE of evolution's having happened MEANS that EVOLUTION HAPPENED!"

Now I'm wondering how it were the scientists you knew and what they told you... Punctuated Equilibrium DOES NOT hold the point you said. It doesn't exist to tell us that evolution happened, a lot of other evidences show it. Punctuated Equilibrium theory is an explanation on why the fossils of transitional forms are so rare.

3. Here you said:

"The problem with evolutionary-style "scientific" testing is that is the product of circular reasoning. It works this way: a scientist guesses that a specific rock is a hundred million years old. Decades later another scientist adjusts his modern instruments, and tests the same rock while believing that the first scientist was right. Then he tests a fossil specimen, gets the same result as he did with the rock, and declares the specimen to be a hundred million years old! That's circular reasoning."

The scientists don't GUESS the rock's ages. They compare it to some known element's standard levels of radioactive decay.



 
 
Note from Deke:
How can any living human being attest to the age of something that, in Evolutionarian terms, existed before human beings ever did?  Their position is illogical, laughable, and the product of circular reasoning. The first Evolutionarian scientist-priests, 200 years ago, GUESSED the age of geologic strata.  The current batch of priests blindly follow that guess, "click" "click" "click" adjust their instruments to reflect it, and then claim that they are using a "known" standard decay rate.  They have no way of directly studying radioactive decay that takes millions and millions and millions of years.  They GUESS. ~~Deke
Rodrigo continues:


 

Then you said:

"...a few years ago, some Australian physicists showed experimentally that the speed of light has varied by at least 5% in only the past 300 years.  There is no way of directly testing or knowing with certainty how much it could have varied in hundreds of millions of years."

I'm sorry, but I haven't heard of this work. I would thank you a lot if you say the name of the physicists and the name/date of the scientific journal you've seen this.

4. Your words:

"Do you recall the assumptions of James Hutton's uniformitarianism? It fits the claim of a steady state of atmospheric radiation perfectly. Do you remember Evolutionism's current catyclysmic Mesozoic Era meteor-impact theory? Catyclysms refute uniformitarianism! Do Evolutionarians at once accept and reject uniformitarianism? Yes. They do hold a very convenient double standard."

Do you always need to be so radical? Radiological dating process uses a lot of constants (like levels of radioactive decay), but don't take the world as a whole uniform thing. Hutton's ideas have been updated nowadays.  The natural forces (like Natural Selection, Gravity and Electromagnetism) are still the same, but they let many things change, even cataclysms.  Dinosaurs (most of them) are extinct, and the way it happened was by natural selection, an uniform force.

5. About extinctions you said:

"Another incident is the classic case of the "extinct" species of "primitive" fish, the Coelacanth. Evolutionists claimed it died out 250 million years or so ago, but nobody told the Coelacanths that they were extinct! One was found alive and well off the coast of Madagascar in the mid-1930's, and more have been caught since then. Unabashed, the Evolutionarians declared the Coelacanth "resurrected" by giving them the
oxymoronic title, "living fossils." Fossils, by definition, are not alive!"

Some species are thought to be extincts until the moment they are found alive. I don't know which "evolutionarian" said Coelacanths resurrected, but the truth is obvious and simple: they didn't get extinct! The same for the Plesiosaurus (by the way, the link to the photo ain't working).  There's no problem for scientists to admit that some species weren't extinguished, like Dragon of Komodo. But this doesn't mean that all dinosaurs are still alive. I believe somebody would ever have seen some Triceratops, Velociraptors or Tyranosaurs somewhere... And, after all, even if they are all rediscovered alive in some kinda island, that would be no contradiction to evolution at all.

6. Here about mutations:

"Elephants are supposed to have developed when one lonely pig-like animal, faced with having to get food from the ever taller trees, was born with a very elongated snout. Never mind that its new snout had to have the muscle structure to keep it from underfoot while fleeing from a predator (Trip, splat! No more elephants!), and a grasping tip so that it could bring food to its mouth. Of course, that miraculously utilitarian piece of flesh was passed on, fully developed, to the next generation. Sure! Right!"

Everyone knows a very elongated snout doesn't show up in one day. Even you know that. Cumulative small changes in phenotype are passed and spread over the population if each of them are more and more adaptative. There's no full development in one step! And no serious scientist said that!

"...research proves that mutants are always STERILE! There is not much hope for reproductive success in a sterile animal. I have never heard any evidence from any credible scientific source to the contrary."

Who told you every mutant is sterile? SOME mutations are degradative, and IF prole survives, it may be sterile or not. BUT some others (less, I know, but they exist) are positive, and there's no reason for those mutants to be sterile. Sickle cell anemia, for example, is a change in one DNA nucleotide which makes eritrocites to be thin and less eficient then normal ones on oxygen transport. The person with this disease ain't sterile. In areas where Malaria is common (like Africa), this disease has an adaptative effect, cause the protozoan can't do its life cycle inside the host's blood red cells. So the mutant can survive until its reproductive age and reproduce. If he/she caught the Malaria, death would come before adulthood.
 



 
 
Note from Deke:
Do you see the confusion here?  Rodrigo isn't talking about evolution, he is talking about adaptive capacity in an existing life form.  Yes, some mutations are beneficial, but those are not mutations in the evolutionary sense.  Mutations which bring about "hopeful monsters" and an entirely new species is the focus of Evolutionarian doctrine.   Sickle cells have not and did not evolve into birds, and mutants in the Evolutionarian sense (so-called macroevolution) are always sterile! ~~Deke

Rodrigo continues:


"...even more damning, is the problem of mutant to reproduction. Where is the mutant going to find a similarly mutated mate? Even if a mutant was to ATTEMPT to mate with one of its source-species, animal behavior would most likely result in an immediate, forceful, and possibly deadly rejection of the attempt. It would most certainly be excluded from the gene pool."

You really should read more about population genetics and mutations.

7. After all, your text shows to be a political defence of Creationism, which is a religion, against Evolution, which IS science. I've read all your text and know you don't believe it.  I'm collecting every kinda evidence I can, in genetics, biogeography, molecular biology, compared anatomy/fisiology, etc. I'm gonna send them to you and would really like to see your opinion.

Please answer my letter so I know you received it. I believe discussion may be positive for both of us in learning how to defend our point of views. Maybe someday the wrong of us (if not we two) come to the truth.

Peace!

______________________
Rodrigo de Loyola Dias
Instituto de Ciencias Biologicas
Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais
Belo Horizonte - Brasil



 
 
Hi Rodrigo!

Thanks so much for writing.  I hope, as you do, that we can intelligently discuss our positions.  By now you've probably read the "debate" I had with "Jack" which is posted to my evolution page.  That exchange represents what I want to avoid.
Presuppositions can be devastating to intelligent conversation as it was in Jack's case.  Although you and I do hold divergent presuppositions, I would hope that we can avoid rancor.  Your letter indicates that we can.  So, I am looking forward to examining the ideas, ideologies and facts which underlie our divergent presuppositions.

If I am late in replying to any of your posts, please don't think I'm ignoring you.  I receive a great deal of e-mail.  If I find something of interest from a new correspondent, as your letter is, I usually answer their first post ahead of others I have received.  Then, I usually return to replying in date-order.   That may mean that I won't be replying to your post for a week or more.  At this time I have more than 40 letters awaiting a reply, but yours caught my attention, so I took it out of order.   My next reply to you may take several days to a week, or even more.  So, you're not being ignored if I'm slow in replying.

I'll answer each of your points by referring to the number you assigned.  That  article was not intended as a scholarly refutation of evolutionism.  It was written for laymen.  As you probably read, I am a former evolutionist.   The first twenty or more years of my life were spent accepting the Evolutionarian's presuppositions.  Then I began learning more about the "anomalies" in the so-called fossil record, and the "dirty little unmentionable secrets" hidden in the hypotheses about,  authenticity of, reconstructions of, and "artistic" representations of fossil specimens.

E.g. "Anomalies"  are those facts (fossils and conditions) which Evolutionarian scientist-priests ignore because they negate their cherished beliefs.   Here are two examples of those very uncomfortable anomalies: 1) KP-271, the Kanapoi humerus,  2) polystrate fossils.  Then "great" Evolutionarian prehominid "finds" like Eoanthropus dawsonii began raising further doubt about the validity of evolutionism as a cosmology or a theory.

As I grew in knowledge of evolution, I found too many gaps and deceptions in Evolutionarian theology (evolution is not science) to continue accepting it as anything but an utterly unscientific religion.  If you are at all interested in examining the presuppositions and deceptions of your Evolutionarian religion, try reading Marvin Lubenow's very scholarly work Bones of Contention.  It will answer in far greater detail the questions you have raised.

Now I will address the balance of your letter, point-by-point:

1.  "transitional forms"

Fossil evidence clearly indicates that none of those forms you have mentioned are "transitional" forms.  KP-271, a fully human taxon fossil humerus, predates all ALL A. afarensis forms.  H.s. neandertalis (NOT "neanderthalis" -- the spelling has changed), coexisted with H.sapiens in prehistoric Israel circa 30,000 y.a.   If you're interested, do some research on the Mount Carmel, Israel, H. neandertalis finds.

Any church which claims that Genesis is a metaphor is apostate.  It rejects the plenary authority of God's written word and will lead its congregation into hell.  That is John's warning at the end of the Book of Revelation.

I accept yowm, the Hebrew word interpreted as "day" in Genesis 1 to mean a 24-hour sidereal day.  There is no compelling reason in Genesis to give it any other meaning.
However, I do not accept the traditional, literal, linear view of Genesis 1 and 2.  That view does not explain, among other things, where Cain found a wife or the obvious theological "tension" which is created by the assumption that God allowed incest which He later condemned.

The Bible provides convincing contextual evidence that 1) Cain did not commit incest, and 2) that the linear view of Genesis 1 and 2 is wrong.  I extensively investigated that issue almost ten years ago.  I will be editing my previously-published, 1991 copyrighted, monograph on that subject, and will re-publish it, hopefully in a year or two.  The subject is too complex to address here, and off-topic as well.

2.  Evolution and history:

Evolution has no relationship to human history.  Human beings lived, observed, and recorded history.  Human history is empirical by definition.  The claims of those historians, both living and dead, can be tested and verified using quantitative and historically verifiable radiometric measurements of the artifacts they've left behind.  Evolution (microevolution) has never been observed by human beings, so verification of the evolutionary hypothesis is impossible by fundamental scientific standards (the empiric).

The empiric (observability, testability, quantifiability, repeatability) is the BASIS of science.  Evolution does not meet even one of those standards.  You have proceeded from the presupposition that evolution is science.  Demonstrably, it is not.

There is no evidence for evolution.  There are only the Evolutionarian scientist-priest's atheistic presuppositions which lead to misinterpretation of facts.  Fossils are facts, human conclusions about fossils are not facts.  Given the absence of direct observation of those forms when they were alive, evolutionism's conclusions about fossils are 1) unsupported and 2) insupportable opinion only.  Evolutionism is NOT science.

Punctuated equilibria does say exactly what I wrote.  There are no transitional species in the fossil record.  Even Darwin recognized that new species appeared abruptly in the so-called geologic column.  When no transitional species were found, punctuated equilibria was invented to explain why that evidence is MISSING from the fossil record .... why it is NOT there.  Punctuated equilibria emphatically does propose that the ABSENCE of transitional forms in the fossil record indicates rapid evolution, and that is exactly what I wrote.  I hold that punctuated equilibria is a fraud on its surface.  No evidence for evolution, rapid or slow, indicates that evolution did not happen ... EVER!  That is exactly what the so-called "fossil record" indicates.
 

3.  Radioacitve decay rates.

Evolutionarian scientists make LINEAR assumptions about radioactive decay rates, yet  they have no way of knowing or of proving through direct experimental observation that radioactive substances ALWAYS decay uniformly over time.  Yet that is what they claim. By their own religion, Evolutionism, human beings haven't existed long enough to make those observations.  They assume that the process has always been uniform, and make that assumption without observing it.  The assumption, that the earth is "billions" of years old, ignores convincing geological evidence to the contrary (see The Young Earth by John D. Morris, Ph.D.., and other similar publications)

For example, if you'd take the time to examine articles on the geologic changes from the 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens in Washington State, USA, you'd find that the formations created by the eruption appear by Evolutionarian observational standards to be millions of when in fact they aren't even twenty years old.   Had that eruption occurred a thousand years ago, evolutionists would be claiming that it occurred millions of years old according to the existing geological patterns which they would automatically misinterpret by their presuppositions.   Atheism is the source of those presuppositions about the age of geological formations, the precepts which form the foundation of the evolutionary hypothesis.

Evolutionarian scientist priests do not have a single fact they can prove is any older than written history.  The only scientifically valid method of determining age is by DIRECT OBSERVATION.  Anything else is speculation, just a GUESS!!

I have not yet located the Australian physicists article that I mentioned.  It was published in the mid- to late-eighties, and may have even been part of a NOVA science program .  However, I do have another article which deals with the same subject.  Here it is:
 

  Rethinking Relativity
  by Tom Bethell

  No one has paid attention yet, but a well-respected physics
  journal just published an article whose conclusion, if
  generally accepted, will undermine the foundations of
  modern physics--Einstein's theory of relativity in particular.
  Published in Physics Letters A (December 21, 1998), the
  article claims that the speed with which the force of gravity
  propagates must be at least twenty billion times faster than
  the speed of light. This would contradict the special theory
  of relativity of 1905, which asserts that nothing can go
  faster than light. This claim about the special status of the
  speed of light has become part of the world view of
  educated laymen in the twentieth century.

  Special relativity, as opposed to the general theory (1916),
  is considered by experts to be above criticism, because it
  has been confirmed "over and over again." But several
  dissident physicists believe that there is a simpler way of
  looking at the facts, a way that avoids the mind-bending
  complications of relativity. Their arguments can be
  understood by laymen. I wrote about one of these
  dissidents, Petr Beckmann, over five years ago (TAS,
  August 1993, and Correspondence, TAS, October 1993).
  The present article introduces new people and arguments.
  The subject is important because if special relativity is
  supplanted, much of twentieth-century physics, including
  quantum theory, will have to be reconsidered in that light.
****


4.  Radioactive decay "constants"

See #3, above.  Radioactive decay can not be PROVED constant.  Constant decay rates are just guesses not fact.  There is no such thing as a "known element's standard levels of radioactive decay."  Other than that of Carbon 14, which does fall within the boundaries of historical experience.   The fact C-14's decay rate, however, does not logically extend to the decay rates of other substances.  Decay rates can only be stated with confidence if they are directly by human beings or can be shown clearly to be accurate by comparison to written histories.

Assertiveness (being "radical") gained your attention, didn't it?  Perhaps you should accuse Darwin, his Evolutionarian predecessors, and his Evolutionarian progeny of being a radicals, too?  They were and are.  Worse, they have ignored scientific standards and are better labeled frauds.  Many of your Evolutionarian scientist-priests do not believe dinosaurs are extinct.  They claim (without evidence) that they are now birds.  Your problem is to credibly explain away  thoroughly-documented finds (not "anomalies") like the Japanese Plesiosaur; the Glen Rose, Texas, Bilixoi River contiguous dinosaur and human footprint casts; innumerable polystrate fossils, and the inverted Jura Alp.  These facts (they are not anomalies) destroy the evolution hypothesis using Evolutionarian standards.

5, 6, 7: Natural selection etc.:

First, my point on "living fossils" was not the Coelacanth, but how it was presented.  Evolutionarians manipulate descriptions to make them appear to support their hypothesis when they do not.   "Anomaly" is another one of those words.  The use of "resurrected" was mine.  I was being sarcastic, just as I was when I've said that the Coelacanths didn't know they were extinct.

Re population genetics and mutations:  As I have written before, no species has ever been observed to evolve into a new species (respeciation).  "Microevolution" is not evolution it is adaptation, also called Natural Selection.  Natural Selection is fact, macroevolution is myth.  Mutants are uniformly sterile.  Hypothetically, even if they weren't sterile, it would be beyond all bounds of reason to assume that  a
species-differentiated mutant to find a similarly mutated female for purposes of reproduction.  The odds against respeciation through "hopeful monsters" in the laboratory is absurd; in the natural world it is beyond astronomical.

You wrote:
"Everyone knows a very elongated snout doesn't show up in one day. Even you
know that. Cumulative small changes in phenotype are passed and spread
over the population if each of them are more and more adaptative. There's
no full development in one step! And no serious scientist said that!"
 

First, "everyone" does not know that, and  I did not write that an enlongated snout showed up in "one day."   Were I still an Evolutionarian, I could hypothetically accept a hundred or a thousand filial generations for a trunk to elongate.   Gradualism has been rejected in favor the Punctuated Equilibria hypothesis because the facts (fossils) in the fossil record reject gradualism and appear to better fit a rapid evolution model, be it a day, a week, a month, or a hundred thousand years.  You can't have it both ways, Rodrigo!  Either evolution is gradual or it is very fast.

Hypothetically, even if the elephant's prehensile snout (trunk) developed slowly, there would still insurmountable survival problems in the length of that process.  Although Punctuated Equilibria suggests slow phenotypic and genotypic changes,  the real problem is one of the organism's viability in the natural world.   How long did elephant's trunks hang there before they became prehensile, or if initially prehensile how long did it take before they lengthened?  What is the evolutionary value in its being prehensile when it is short, or not being prehensile when it is long?  Why would such a mutant not be rejected, or be killed by its competitors in the gene pool?  Worse, which evolved first, the trunk or its full and complete musculature?  Without the highly-specialized muscle tissue to move the trunk out of its way, the elephant would have been predator food.

Another example:  Woodpeckers have a tongue almost as long as their bodies.  It  slides into a sheath around the back of the head.  Which "evolved" first, the sheath or the tongue?  If the sheath, why?  How did such a structure avoid becoming infected? If the tongue evolved first, where did the woodpecker store it before the sheath evolved?  If both evolved at the same time, SLOWLY, how did the woodpecker survive without starving?  Without the tongue, the woodpecker couldn't reach the insects under the tree bark. Either case by itself, tongue first or sheath first, would be maladptive.

I would be happy to read the evidence you mention.  However, please understand that I apply Occam's Razor to any Evolutionarian claims.  I judge by "bottom line."  That is, I ignore the vision-obscuring "dust" of details and look for the solid ground from which the dust arises.  That is why I reject the Evolutionarian Religion.  It is not science because it necessarily avoids the scientific method.  BTW, I will not be impressed by modern studies from any discipline unless they can PROVE that one species has evolved into another species within the time limits of the written human historical  record.  That has not happened, and I am confident that it can not and will not.  If it ain't directly observable, it ain't scientific.

Conclusion:

Thanks for writing, Rodrigo!  By the way, your English usage is commendable.  Your use of colloquialisms,  American English slang, and jargon is far more precise than many naturalized Americans I have known.   Did you ever live in the United States?

Thanks, also, for the tip about the Plesiosaur photo link. Dr. Hovind has modified his web site.  I have corrected it the link.  You might enjoy reading his most recent assessments of biological evolution.  I'm sure that as all students, a little extra money would help.  So, perhaps you'd like to take on Dr. Hovind's challenge:

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can offer any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.” —Dr. Kent Hovind

The current URL for Dr. Hovind's web site is

http://www.drdino.com/

the photos of the Plesiosaur are at:

http://www.drdino.com/Articles/dinos.jsp
 

~~Deke
Web Site: http://www.jps.net/tccop
E-mail: tccop@jps.net


Note from Deke:

Since they are intermittently available on the Internet, I have placed the Japanese plesiosaurus photos at the bottom of this page.

I suspect that this person "Rodrigo" was a "plant,"  a shill fronting for someone "pulling strings" behind the scenes.  In my opinion, his incorrect English usage was just too contrived to be genuine.  Although his e-mail address did appear to be Brazilian, I doubt that he is.  I've known too many people from Brazil and Argentina to be fooled by a faked accent, and especially one laced with illiterate English verb forms, a feat which would be especially difficult for those not fluent in English.  Although my reply didn't "bounce," I never heard from "Rodrigo" again.  ~~Deke


Note from Deke:
The next series of letters, I am convinced, began as a deliberately perpetrated fraud.  I quickly concluded that "Kara" is one of two things: an atheist/agnostic or a liberal pseudochristian.  I suspect that "she" is the latter, and that she may have been hiding another secret.  I find openings like the one she used in her first letter the "be nice then insert the knife" to be a crude, vacant, and insulting attempt at condescension.  It is typical of leftist secular humanist ploys.

Since most of these arrogant, self-deceived frauds are easily identified, I have developed effective debate tools to draw them into the light.  "Kara's" response is typically that of someone caught playing games.  I'm including her e-mail address if any of you would care to write to her.  I reject the possibility that she is a Christian. I have outlined several of the tip-offs in red.

Make special note of the last statement of her first letter " If you accept it as falsifiable, just because it is scientific wouldn't mean that it is correct."  I made it abundantly clear on this page in my article The Myth of Evolution that Evolution is NOT falsifiable, and for that reason it is NOT science.  Had she read the article, given her apparent knowledge, should could not have missed my position on that issue.  Her claim to have read my article is either a lie or she could not understand it because she is a blind Evolutionarian priestess and not a Christian.

Although the position she takes in the first letter seems superficially logical, the conclusions she made at the beginning of her letter belie their purpose and expose a clumsy attempt at deception.  Evolutionarians can't hide behind trickery and clever, condescending statements; the darkness they exude exposes them every time. ~~Deke


From: "Kara Holtzman" <kmholtzman@hotmail.com>
To: tccop@jps.net
Subject: evolution
Date: Sun, 31 Oct 1999 19:20:58 PST
 

I have to admit that I throughly enjoyed your page on evolution.  I rarely laugh so hard, thank you.  Stand up comedians, indeed.

I'm interested in the creationists assault on evolution mainly because I find it very amusing I love hearing from different people and learning why they believe what they do, so if you want to e-mail me back I'd be willing to discuss these things with you.  I don't take evolution/creation personally and don't make it my point to assault other people's personal beliefs. My only intent is to gain insight into how other people have arrived at their conclusions.

I'm curious about the fact that you state at the beginning of your discussion that evolution is not science because it can't be falsified, and yet for the rest of your document that's exactly what you do!  Evolution has to either be falsifiable or absolute; it can't be both.  If you accept it as falsifiable, just because it is scientific wouldn't mean that it is correct.

Respond if you wish.

Kara


Hi Kara!

Falsifiabilty is very misunderstood.   It is an integral and inseparable part of the philosophy of science.  It forms the foundation of all scientific investigation.  Falsifiability doesn't mean proving scientific theory to be false.  Instead it means that ALL scientific theories MAY and CAN be proven false given contradictory evidence.

E.g.  the earth was once believed to be flat by direct observaton (Aristotle), yet it was TEMPORARILY proved to be round (FALSIFIED) by later scientist's observations.  The earlier theory was falsifiable, so it was withing the scope of science.  Later instrumentation proved our planet to be ovate, not round.  So the round earth theory has been discarded.  It, too, was falsifiable.  Likewise, current theory that earth is ovate is also falsifiable, but that it will be falsified is highly unlikely.

Falsifiabillity is fundamental to all scientific principles, Kara.   Science does not deal with absolutes.  That's why science does not examine questions about God.  If something is NOT falisifiable, it is not the proper subject of scientific investigation.
 

By the way, I've been collecting the recent spate of evolution "questions" for publication on the evolution page of my web site.  Thanks for asking this one, I will add it to the page.

I'm always glad to clarify misunderstandings and misrepresentations about what is and isn't science -- and even outright lies like those promoted by a certain ignorant fool and villain cum pseudoscientist who calls himself "Jack Oliver," among other pseudonyms.  His vain, banal, self-aggrandizing, pseudoscientific ravings and simple-minded lies are featured on one of my supplementary web pages.  If you'd like to learn more about lying Evolutionarians, their flatulent drivel, incompetent deceptions, and their foolhardy attacks which far exceed their knowledge and intellectual capacity, Jack's garbage posts are a good place to start.  You can link here to view the supplementary Evolution versus Creation page on my web site.  Just be forewarned if you visit that page: What you just read is a gentle example of the well-deserved intellectual drubbing I gave Jack.  I detest people like him, but their ignorance and stupidity does serve me well.

Save the environment!  Stamp out heresy!  Eat a Mor(m)on [the second "m" is optional]!
~~Deke


  But, Deke, you didn't answer my question.

I understand the idea of falsifiability and how it applies to science very well.  I agree with you that that is exactly why science can't deal with religion.  But your page on evolution doesn't show anything but the fact that evolution IS science, because you are trying to prove it false with 'contradictory evidence.'  Is what you are trying to say is that evolution is scientific but false?  because that is what your page seems to indicate.

Perhaps you should clarify this because you are contradicting yourself.  Have you read SCIENTIFIC books on evolution or just creationist literature? I've read extensively on this subject, both evolutionist and creationist books.  I've drawn very different conclusions based on what I've read.  Could I ask what things you have read, so that I might read them as well?

Kara



 
 
Note from Deke:
Do you sense the increasing rancor in this post?  The Evolutionarian arrogance is palpable.  In their degraded view, only their propaganda is "scientific."  They are unable to see the structure and logic behind other scientific models, most certainly not creationist models. ~~Deke
My reply follows:

I "preached" and taught evolutionism before I moved from darkness to light.  You were being tested.  You failed.  Obviously you didn't read my web page.  Who put you up to this?  Are you Jack?  Curious, isn't it, that you didn't refer to my attack on that foul-mouthed lying scum.

Here's the second part of my answer.  It's also found on my web page:

1) Evolutionarians claim that their religion is TRUTH, the only explanation of origins.  The problem for them is that their hypothesis CAN NOT be tested, measured, quantified, verified, and re-tested.  That's why it is not science.  Science deals with FACTS not TRUTHS.

2) The refutations of Evolutionism based on the fossil FACTS which I mentioned are also not science.  THEY ARE NOT FALSIFICATIONS.  Falsification of hypotheses and theories is part of the empiric; it is science.  Past events, be they creationist or evolutionist CAN NOT be empirically proved.  FACTS can be interpreted many ways.  Creationists approach the so-called fossil record with a totally opposing paradigm to that of Evolutionarian scientist-priests.

No, I'm not going to give you an Evolutionarian reading list.  I have many laying dust-covered in my personal library.  If you're genuine, you can find your own.   You might start with some of Roy Chapman Andrew's or Raymond Dart's early books if you want a good belly-laugh.  Or check out Eoanthropus Dawsonii, for a bigger chuckle.   Teilhard de Chardin and A.C. Doyle had their paws sunk into that one.  Try a Bible bookstore if you are interested in learning about Creationism, or go to the ICR website.
 

Save the environment!  Stamp out heresy!  Eat a Mor(m)on [the second "m" is optional]!
~~Deke



 
Note from Deke:
Kara failed to read my clear statement that I am a former evolutionist -- or she tries to make it seem that she didn't read it.  Note how she now performs the typical leftist-atheist/agnostic "pivot" trying to blame me for her failure to grasp what I had written in The Myth of Evolution, above,and my repetition of those points in my reply.

How curious that she now claims "[I] was interested in your beliefs," but the topic of her "inquiry" was science, not faith. She wrote, above, " My only intent is to gain insight into how other people have arrived at their conclusions."How many "only intents" can one person have?

I have outlined crucial parts of her last paragraphs in red.  They illustrate that she had an agenda in coming here, and that she was not interested in anything I had to say unless it served her purposes.  It failed because I knew what she doing from the beginning.   Those statements are most illuminating of her hidden agenda.  Old leftist saying: "When you've had your hind end kicked, stick out your tongue and run away." ~~Deke

"Kara" continues:


Funny, how when questioned and asked to explain your reasoning you get all uptight and lash out at me for simply asking you to elaborate on your explanations.  I was interested in your beliefs, and when I inquire about them I get condemned.  Is that how you expect to convince people that you're correct?  Thank you, I believe you answered all my questions about your beliefs with that e-mail.

Although I still haven't figured out what test I failed.  Why would you think that someone put me up to this? just because I have the ability to form my own opinions based on my interpretations of the things I've read?  I didn't refer to your attack on Jack because I'm not familiar with who he is, and I didn't take the time to go to that link.

I wasn't asking for just an evolutionist reading list.  I was simply wanting to know what things you've read that have helped you to form your opinions.  That is, by no means, an unreasonable request.  I have my own personal library too, and it has a large number of books on BOTH evolution and creationism, but I'm always looking for recommendations for other good and informative books. I HAVE read a lot of Christian stuff, including reading the Bible cover to cover.

Having read stuff by both Morris and Gish, I have a very low opinion of the ICR.  Not because of their beliefs, but due to the way they try to prove them using methods that are not scientific while making it sound like they are doing science, plus the way they distort the research done by actual scientists, whose work I've also read.

Soooo Sorry that my questions aggravated you so much.  I wasn't attacking you or your beliefs, but you saw fit to attack me.  I was also not trying to provoke you to respond in such a manner, so don't accuse me of that.  I was seriously interested in learning something from you, I am sorry that you can't discuss this objectively.

Good Bye,
Kara



 
Note from Deke:
Of course, I wasn't going to let her off the hook that easily.  Evolutionarians form their opinions about God's creation based on their self-deceived presuppositions.  Did you notice that she called my debate with Jack an "attack," yet she admitted that she had not "referred" to any of it?  How did she know that the debate was an attack?  What does "who Jack is" have to do with anything?  What a vacuous reply!  That is bigotry and bias.  She finally admitted her bias when she attacked the ICR, above.  Those presuppositions are why Kara failed to understand what she had read from creationist sources and from the Holy Bible.

Arrogant, self-righteous Evolutionarians believe that reading equates with wisdom and understanding.    It does not.  God does not reveal His truth to reprobate minds, even if they do read the Bible "cover to cover."  Reprobates and sin-slaves in their chains can not understand the things of God (Romans  8:5-7; 1Corinthians 2:13-16).

Since I had some more provoking of my own to do, I decided to reply to her rant.  It isn't wise to start a barroom brawl with me and then run off, I like eating filet of fraud too much!  Anyone have some ketchup handy?  Heh heh heh.  ~~Deke

My reply to "Kara" follows:



 
To the evolutionist, objectivity = believing Evolutionarian (read atheist) scientist-priests.   Objectivity is a myth. Evolutionarian presuppositions color objectivity and can be "filtered" out only with and by the grace of Almighty God.   They colored your reading of my work, even before you wrote to me.

Do remember that it was you who came to me, and not vice-versa.  I am convinced that your motives were not to discuss evolution, but to convince me that evolution is fact.  That is an impossible task save in the Evolutionarian's deceived mind.  I am fully aware of the deception that you have accepted as truth (again, science has nothing to do with truths), its pitfalls, and its blindness.

My rebuke of your position was gentle compared to those I've given to the reprobate, Jack.  Your post's resemblance to his maunderings were effectively indistinguishable; that's why I suspected that you were Jack "in drag."  That assessment may be the result of the overarching presuppositions of your belief system and the impossibility of your ever questioning them from another perspective, specifically God's.

In any event, as I have posted on my web site,  if you can't take the heat, my ministry isn't for you.  I am not a gentle teacher, I take no prisoners, and offer no apologies. That is why I teach that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be, at once, a Biblical Christian and a believer in evolution.   It is also impossible to be, at once, intelligent, honest, and a theological or political liberal.  For the God-believing Christian evolutionism is heresy, a deception from hell itself.

It is sad that you couldn't take the heat in this "kitchen."  Yet I do not offer apologies for my methods and attitude.  I don't take it easy on heresy and false doctrines.   Had you bothered to read my ministry statement you'd have not been surprised by my aggressiveness.  Jesus, the author of the cosmos and the creator of all living things says:

Matthew 22:14:  "For many are called, but few are chosen."  (NKJ)

John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me, and whoever comes to me I will never drive away."  (NIV)
 

John 8:47:  "He who belongs to God hears what God says. The reason you do not hear is that you do not belong to God."  (NIV)

If Jesus had called and chosen you, you would recognize His truth as He presented it in Genesis.  You do not, so you have nothing of value to offer.  I wasted half of my life stumbling blindly in Evolutionarian "shoes."   I don't intend to waste any more on those God has not called unless they show some indication of being called and chosen.  You showed no such indication, even in your first post.

I know -- not just believe -- from personal experience,  from God's only breathed (theopneustos) Word, and from decades of careful investigation into fossil evidence using both creationist and Evolutionarian paradigms that your gift to the world is the same as that of your fellow Evolutionarians: death and condemnation to hell.  May God be merciful to your soul.
 

~~Deke


You're absolutely right.  I was wrong to e-mail you in the first place.  You obviously are just interested in labeling me an atheist and condemning me for my attempt at an intelligent discussion.  And you have the gall to call yourself a 'teacher.'  I'm sorry.  Please consider this good-bye, I don't want to hear any more of your biased accusations.

Seek help.  Seek Jesus.
Kara


A Final Assessment of  "Kara's" letters:

"Kara's" final reply (I hope), above, proves everything I suspected about her motives.  I am convinced that she is an Evolutionarian acolyte and possibly an Evolutionarian scientist-priestette.  She exposes her faith in Evolutionism and her rejection of God's truth in Genesis by claiming that I "labeled" her an atheist when I wrote, "To the evolutionist, objectivity = believing Evolutionarian (read atheist) scientist-priests. ....That is why I teach that it is IMPOSSIBLE to be, at once, a Biblical Christian and a believer in evolution.   It is also impossible to be, at once, intelligent, honest, and a theological or political liberal."

Did you notice that my words were applied to Evolutionarians in general, and not specifically to "Kara?"  Did you notice that she accepted those definitions as applying to her?  With her own assumptions about my meaning she has exposed her agenda and "labeled" herself.  Of course arrogant and self-righteous Evolutionarian scientist-priests and priestettes and their liberal so-called Christian theological evolutionist counterparts (read "atheists/agnostics" in both cases) fervently believe that only Bible-believing conservative Christians can "label" other people.   We are the deceived, while they are "enlightened."  They don't know they are living in darkness.  They rage and accuse when they are forced to face their hypocrisy.  Mirrors are anathema to Evolutionarian scientist-priest and priestette frauds, their dupes, and their robotic toadies.

There is another tantalizing possibility behind Kara's motives.  It may be that "Kara" was much more than an Evolutionarian acolyte.  If the series of posts starting with that from Nancy and ending with Kara's are taken as coming from the same source, a classroom, "Kara" appears to be a very inept and embarrassed high school or college biology or anthropology teacher who "bit off more than she could chew."  If so, she would have good reason to be blushing and angry.  She made a colossal fool of herself in front of her students, probably after bragging about her ability to fool stupid Christians.  If that is the case, she learned the hard way that many of us are both brighter and more perceptive than she.  I doubt, though, that she would have had the courage and honesty to let her students see her ignominious "unveiling."  After all, she began her charade with deliberate deceptions.

If "Kara" professes to be Christian, she is one of those liberal Christians in Name Only, a CINO.  She rejects Biblical truth.  In her second letter, she wrote of reading  ".... Christian stuff, including reading the Bible.... ."  No Christian refers to the the Holy Bible as "stuff."  Her own words expose her as an Evolutionarian atheist/agnostic fraudulently presenting herself as a Christian.

"Kara" has failed miserably in making my website "grist" for her wicked, spiritually vacant Evolutionarian atheist/agnostic propaganda mill.  Did you notice how the Scripture in my final reply heaped "burning coals" on her head?  Her whimpering, pathetic rejoinder speaks more of her blindness than any criticism I could ever make.  Her convenient, pharisiacal use of our LORD's name in her last post is as vile and offensive as all of her other wicked doctrine combined.  That she mentions the Savior's Name only in retrospect, in a pathetic attack on this ministry is despicable.  Where was her initial profession of faith like you've seen from our other brothers and sisters in Christ.  She came here looking for answers, but the answers she wanted aren't in the God-breathed (theopneustos) Scriptures.  It is written of her kind:

Romans 1:21-23
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.
22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools
23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles .  (NIV)


That, brothers and sisters in Christ, is exactly what Evolutionarians and pseudochristian liberal "theological evolutionists" (read "Evolutionarian atheist/agnostics") do.  They exchange faith in a godless doctrine of evolution,  animals and mankind originating from nonliving matter (spontaneous generation), for the completed creation of Almighty God.  God's only breathed and Written Word, the Holy Bible, rejects their fool's ravings. ~~Deke



Photographs of a plesiosaur carcass.  Note the rhomboid fin in the right-hand photo.

Return to Article

 
 


PLEASE COME BACK AGAIN!

07-02-2001


Hosting by WebRing.