“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animated contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen!” – Samuel Adams

Fossil Find: Missing Link or Mountains of Assumptions?

j0441428Evolutionists were all aglow yesterday as the discovery of a primate fossil was announced.  While they do manage to stop short of calling the find a full-fledged “missing link” between humans and apes, they act pretty certain that it is some sort of missing link between one evolutionary form of primate and another.

This is what the Wall Street Journal had to say (and it is one of the more factual and less-speculative news reports out there):

In what could prove to be a landmark discovery, a leading paleontologist said scientists have dug up the 47 million-year-old fossil of an ancient primate whose features suggest it could be the common ancestor of all later monkeys, apes and humans.

Anthropologists have long believed that humans evolved from ancient ape-like ancestors. Some 50 million years ago, two ape-like groups walked the Earth. One is known as the tarsidae, a precursor of the tarsier, a tiny, large-eyed creature that lives in Asia. Another group is known as the adapidae, a precursor of today’s lemurs in Madagascar.

Based on previously limited fossil evidence, one big debate had been whether the tarsidae or adapidae group gave rise to monkeys, apes and humans. The latest discovery bolsters the less common position that our ancient ape-like ancestor was an adapid, the believed precursor of lemurs.

Could this simply be a different variety of an organism we already know about, for instance like a Beagle and a German Shepherd?  No, not in the eyes of evolutionists; it MUST be a missing link.

Now you’re probably so used to this kind of talk from evolutionists that you may not have even noticed something remarkable about the language used here. But stop and think for a moment about what was said and how it was said.

Do we know this fossil is 47 million years old?  Did anyone see it deposited 47 million years ago, and did they keep an accurate, verifiable record of that event?

Do we know that “some 50 million years ago,  two ape-like groups walked the Earth”?  Who saw that, and who left the verifiable record that this is accurate?

screenprint_10

No uncertain terms here

In other words, notice how something which can not possibly be verified is being discussed in definitive, authoritative terms.  Notice how conjecture passes itself off as “science.”  There is no hint of uncertainty or reservation whatsoever in these statements.

But wait,  you might say (based on having been educated on and fed a diet of such language for decades): scientists know the age of the fossils they dig up.

Really?  Do you know how they know that?  (They’re hoping you don’t).

They “know” it because  the fossil’s location and depth within the geological column “tells” them how hold it is.

How do they know how long ago a certain depth or location within the geological column was deposited?   Well, they just do.  Isn’t that enough?

Well, you might say, they have scientific dating techniques to tell them how old things are.

True, there are radiometric dating methods which are used to ostensibly determine the age of both rocks and fossils.  These techniques frequently claim ages of 5 million years for this rock and 100 million years for that rock, and so on.

But how do they know these dating methods are accurate?  After all, if they pull a rabbit out of the hat and say it’s 50 million years old, there are no written records from 50 million years ago to call that statement into question…and neither is there one to confirm it, either.

The truth that evolutionists desperately don’t want people to find out is that these supposedly scientific dating techniques are themselves based on many assumptions–all of which must be true in order for the dating technique to be accurate.

What is an assumption?   Well, an assumption is to assume something, and to assume is “to take as granted or true.”  In other words, assumptions take things on faith, without knowing for sure by virtue of empirical facts, scientifically verified testing, or observational science.

Radiometric dating techniques measure the decay of certain elements in an object, and based on the state of decay, an age of the object is “determined.”

What assumptions are radiometric dating techniques based on?  Here are the primary assumptions:

  • That the particular radioactive element decays at a constant rate
  • That the specimen being examined has not been contaminated with an excess amount of the measured radioactive end-product
  • That the specimen being examined contained none of this end-product at the time it was formed
  • Leeching of the parent element has not occurred

In other words, if you’re measuring the decay of uranium to lead, you must assume that the decay rate has been constant…for thousands or millions of years.  How do you know the decay rate has been constant?  Well, you assume it has, because no one was around 1 million or 10 million or 100 million years ago to record and ensure that conditions on the earth have not accelerated or decelerated or temporarily affected the decay rate during this time.

How do you know the specimen wasn’t contaminated with lead at the time the specimen was formed? Well, you assume it wasn’t.

How do you know the specimen hasn’t been contaminated with lead from an outside source during the intervening alleged 50 million years?  Well, you assume it hasn’t.

How do know some outside force has not caused an unexpected removal of the parent uranium during the intervening alleged 50 million years?  Well, you assume nothing did.

And if after all these assumptions the date still comes in not matching the geological column or some other factor you believe to be contradictory?  Well, you then assume the specimen was contaminated and throw out the results.

It would be virtually impossible to reliably make the assumptions above for the past 100 years, much less the last 1,000 years…or 1 million years…or longer.  With all the changes that could have and likely have occurred over history in solar radiation, cosmic radiation, atmospheric density, meteor strikes, moisture levels, volcanic eruptions, various cataclysmic events, and a myriad of other possibilities, to seriously make such an assumption runs far past arrogance and deep into the territory of the insane.

You probably had no idea that “science” was so scientific, did you?  You probably didn’t realize that “science” was so full of assumptions and uncertainties, did you?

Even liberal search engine Google gets into the spirit of the hype

Even liberal search engine Google gets into the spirit of the hype

After all, the “scientific” community and the “mainstream” media tell you these things with such a tone of absolute certainty in their voices, there’s simply no reason for you to question the veracity of their statements, is there?

Maybe they don’t know about the host of obviously erroneous readings which have been obtained using radiometric dating techniques compared to observational science.  In other words, both organic and inorganic samples of recent origin that we know the age of through observation have been dated by radiometric techniques at wildly erroneous ages.  Things we know by observation are only decades or a hundred years old have been dated at thousands or even millions of years old.

But we are supposed to believe these techniques are accurate when dating things alleged to be millions of years old–things no one saw created or deposited, and thus cannot be confirmed or denied to be those ages?

You know what they say about what happens when you assume, right?  It makes an ass out of u and me.

But the reasonable person understands that in an imperfect world where historical records are imperfect at best, and going back more than a few hundred years are very scattered and scarce, assumptions have to be made at some point in the process of scientific investigation.

The thing, though, which is laughably hypocritical on the part of evolutionists is that (1) they like to pretend their assertions are “settled” and “factual” and “beyond question,” and (2) they come arrogantly unglued when a creationist or ID proponent makes assumptions.

So why don’t we see more “we think” and “it might” and “our theory is” language from evolutionists? It would certainly be more intellectually honest.

That’s because–though they would never in a million years admit it–most evolutionists have a theological faith concerning their beliefs about the universe and our origins.  It is not so much about science as it is about their theology–the theology that says man is the highest and most intelligent being in the universe, and that humans are not morally accountable to a supreme being who sets the standard for right and wrong.

If they want to believe that–despite all the insurmountable problems with the theory of evolution that make it impossible within its own framework, and despite the mountain of evidence for an intelligent designer of the universe–that’s their prerogative.

But it is extremely disingenuous for evolutionists to pass off their multitude of assumptions as established factual science. It is also the height of arrogance and hypocrisy for them to pretend their own mountain of assumptions don’t exist while snobbishly condemning creationists and ID proponents for their assumptions.

Do I expect most evolutionists to get with the program and start acting like honest people any time soon?  No.  But the more people who realize theirs is a house of cards built on assumptions and arrogance, the closer our society will get to an environment where genuine scientific inquiry and learning can take place.


Try us out at the new location: American Clarion!


92 Responses to “Fossil Find: Missing Link or Mountains of Assumptions?”

  1. OK, I’m back today to address the rest of your claims.

    “500 billion year old sedimentary layers”

    500 million, the universe is only 13.7 billion years old. I know what you meant.

    ‘especially when you consider that mutational changes are all most always detrimental to the organism, with only a few found to be neutral.’

    Not true. Most mutations are neutral. Around 3 deleterious, harmful mutations occur out of 175 per generation in humans. Of those that have significant effect, most are harmful, true. But the fraction which are beneficial is much higher than usually thought. An experiment with E. coli found that about 1 in 150 newly arising mutations and 1 in 10 functional mutations are beneficial. The key is to understand this: harmful mutations do not survive long in the species (the organism dies), and the beneficial mutations survive much longer, so when you consider only surviving mutations, which are the only ones that matter in evolution, in fact most are beneficial.

    ‘To believe that all that information could accumulate slowly by tiny incremental changes is absurd’

    To believe Rome was built in a day is absurd.

    ‘Carbon 14 testing on coal and petro-oil consistently comes up with results of 10,000 to 50,000 years’

    New Carbon-14 is formed from background radiation, such as radioactivity in the surrounding rocks. In some cases, some from the atmosphere can contaminate a sample. A few processes that can add “modern” Carbon-14 to coal and oil are: sulfur bacteria, secondary carbonates from groundwater, whewellite, a carbon-14 containing mineral, that forms as coal weathers. Notice, this outside contamination makes things appear younger, not older, than they really are.

    Now that all your qualms with evolution are solved I’d like for you to address some of my claims.

    -the bacteria from one of my other posts that can digest nylon, a substance much younger than bacteria.

    -the geologic column. Cows are not found buried next to Velociraptors. Wooly Mammoths are not found in the same strata as trilobites. And don’t give me the theory about drowning creatures in the flood. If you think a wooly mammoth can survive longer in a flood than a Plesiosaurus or a fish you need your head checked.

    -human chromosome #2. Humans have 46 chromosomes (23 pairs). Other primates have 48 chromosomes (24 pairs). So where is the other chromosome pair in humans? Human chromosome #2 contains two centromeres, rather than one, and extra telomeres suggesting it was once two seperate chromosomes that fused in the past. More interesting is that each half of chromosome #2 corresponds identically to 2 apes chromosomes in chimps, gorillas, orangutans, and bonobos. Human chromosome #2 is the result of a fusion of ape chromosomes. We don’t see this variation of chromosome count in a single primate species. So any way you look at it, Homo sapiens came from non-Homo sapiens. Humans came from non-humans; non-humans that just so happen to have ape chromosomes.
    If this is a coincidence, its the luckiest in history. And if God is playing tricks on us, well that’s just mean.

  2. Glad to see you admit that belief that a supernatural force or God created the world( Creation Theory ) is just a theory and not an absolute

  3. I find it interesting that when that when coherent statements are made, as Anonymous did above, that creationists respond by not responding

  4. Anonymous isn't very coherent. Anonymous is very dedicated to repeating the same evolutionists propaganda that has misled a lot of people who don't take the time to think it through and realize evolution theory is a house of cards built on assumptions. And Anonymous has had all the forum for his propaganda that he's going to get here.

  5. In an objective sense, that is correct. What a wonderful thing it would be if we could only get evolutionists to own up to the fact that their theory is based almost entirely on assumptions and is mostly theological in basis and intent.

  6. I noticed that earlier you referred to creation as Creation Theory. Since creation and evolution are JUST theories, which you say are based on assumptions, doesnt that mean Creation Theory is just based on assumptions as well ?

  7. If you take the time to re-read, you'll notice that this was already stated.

    Wouldn't it be refreshing if evolutionists could only stop pretending their theory is unquestionably established fact and admit the same?

  8. You're right that one fossil proves nothing. But ultimately a million fossils prove nothing except that the organisms involved existed and were rapidly buried in sediment. All their ancestor/descendant relationships are merely assumed because evolutionism requires such assumptions.

    Anyway, like most controversial things, the origins issue is controversial because it involves a conflict between what is true (in this case, God the creator) and what many people *want* to be true (no creator to be accountable to).

    Those who accept evolution want it to be in the same boat as, say, the earth being round or the planets going around the sun. But those things are uncontroversial because they're known & proven; evolution is merely *wanted.* Believers in creation, at least those who have done their homework, can see where the evidence really points, can see the fatal problems with evolutionists' assumptions, can see the philosophical roots of evolutionism, and so on. Try as you might, you cannot get us to “un-see” those things. You can deny they're there, but you can't hide them. You can accuse us of ignorance all you want, but you can't make us stop knowing what we already know — which is essentially what you want from us.

  9. It is not 'unquestionably' established fact, because we at least admit it can be falsified. For instance if God came down to earth and said evolution was false,then even the biggest skeptic would relinquish that belief

  10. Ignorance is bliss

  11. I was not surprised to see you censor anonymous–when the logic of creationists start closing in on them their normal response is to start name-calling then they “take their ball and go home”. I just wanted to praise anonymous for his / her patient and intelligent remarks. I think the Dover School board case settled this issue.John Parsons

  12. I shut down Anonymous for the reasons stated. The lack of objectivity, the hypocrisy, and the repetitious tripe gets pretty old after it's been refuted several times. Unfortunately there are a lot of evolutionists who are too dense or too emotionally invested in their theological beliefs to see their own inconsistencies; I try to help them get beyond this, but after a while it becomes tiresome, boring and overly redundant.

  13. I honestly don't think so, Bill. They'd claim it was some special effects trick of the Religious Right or some such nonsense and go right on believing in their unworkable theory. Evolution theory isn't about science, facts or proof, and those same elements will do nothing to deter their faith in it.

  14. …and by the way, part of the beauty of accepting the Creator is that you don't have to ignore a single thing you actually *know*; and you become able to accept *more* facts without having to explain them away. You just have to let go of a very large boatload of things that aren't known at all, just speculated (in the unsuccessful attempt to make sense of the world without accepting the Creator).

    But, as I said, this controversy will never go away, because there will always be both those who accept the truth and those who refuse it.

    These discussions do get tiresome though; disputing with evolutionists is like arguing with a recording — it says the same things over and over, and it doesn't listen.

  15. I think DCM's comment that even if a ” million fossils were found, that it would only prove that the organisms once existed and were rapidly buried in sediment” was quite revealing. It is saying that it doesnt matter how many fossils are found, that you can not use them as a case for evolution.

    Well, as per DCM, lets say a million fossils were found that scientists say represent the speciation from reptiles to birds. The fossil that is identical to the lizard with only the very slightest difference is noted.Then another fossil identical to THAT fossil with only an infinitessimal difference, is noted. And so on until after the millionth fossil which is identical to a bird, is noted.

    As per DCM, it would say that these are all different species? Some are different species and some arent?
    Again since DCM brought this up and it is the belief of creationists that no matter how many fossils are found, it doesnt support evolution, what would be the explanation? Would it be that there was once millions of species with only infinitessimal differences ?

    Wouldn't it be also be .reasonable to think they were connected in some linear fashion. Again, I am using DCM's scenario that stated that even if a million fossils were found, it would say nothing for evolution.Again I would just ask what the creationist explanation would be using DCM's scenario.

  16. It probably would take millions of iterations to make the big leap to a new complex feature. For example a wing. To clarify my earlier question: How does the first bird come about? I'm not an expert on biology, but I know there are many depended feature and processes involving flight. How does a create mutate over time develop this? How would a transitional creature evolve and hold onto a useless symmetric appendage that that had all but one of the specialized muscles, structures, hollow bones etc. (assuming a featherless wing)”appear”. Oh, and this first winged creature has to have the genetic information to use these wings.

    The odds of the above happening are probably similar to a sandcastle forming by throwing a bucket of dry sand in the air. It goes against the laws of nature, but I'm sure after millions of years of throwing that sand it would happen.

    On a side note, I noticed that “The Link” book came out recently this month. Interesting that they needed to prepare a staged release of all this information.

  17. Stuart I dont think the argument for comparing sand and the formation of wings is valid, because you are comparing apples and oranges. You are trying to draw an analogy between the non-livung and the living and they are in totally different realms and cant be compared.

    Many fossils of prehistoric reptiles have been found that show small feathers on the legs of these reptiles. These feathers were not used for flight, but for other purposes-warmth, protection.As time went by and more feathers covered the reptiles body , arms and legs, they would serve another purpose-gliding. Then more time and genetic interactions occured, they were used for propelled flight.You have to think in terms of millions of years and slow,slow gradual change.The first bird just didnt 'come about' but slowly transitioned

    Yes, it takes millions of years and many genetic variations.

    Why does the whale have bones and digit-like bones in its flippers that have characteristics similiar to man.Bones in flippers are not real effective for swimming and you will find the flippers and fins of the really good swimmers-fish- have light weight cartilage that is pliable and makes for superb propulsion.Rigid bont strucures dont. That is because the whale is a recent evolutionary creature and has not evolved enough yet to lose the heavy bones in their flippers. Bones and digits in flippers would not be the work of any intelligent. 'designer' .Since evolution is slow and does make such slow changes, the best 'design' does not seem apparent and is always subject to change that can improve with time.

  18. For those who are conflicted on modern science and a young earth creation view, I would highly recommend Gordon J Glover's easy to watch video series on http://www.beyondthefirmament.com. Click on the video section and watch the 16 part series on Science and Christianity. Glover is a devoutly religious man who has probed deeply into the natural sciences and religion and has an simple, inteliigent discussion thats fun and informative to watch. Once you watch the first 10 minute segment, you wont be able to stop.

  19. I think I watched these videos a year or two ago, but watched the first two again just to be sure. Unfortunately it seems to be nothing more than another attempt to reconcile the Bible with secular interpretations of scientific truth.

    Every attempt to do this–this one included–leaves the Bible portrayed as nothing but a myth struggling to remain relevant–a profound misunderstanding of both Biblical truth and secular understanding.

    There are elements of Biblical truth in many of the ancient mythologies. Not surprising, since knowledge of the truth and the creation account would have filtered down from Noah, his sons and their families, and as the various people-groups spread out across the planet, either this knowledge was not passed down intact and various elements were made up to fill in the gaps…or various people groups found God's truth to restrict them in ways in which they did not want to be restricted, so they “adjusted” the facts about the universe and the creation account.

    This disseration also seems to ignore direct examination of the Biblical creation account while concentrating on the scientific and astronomical theories of various cultures which did not ascribe to the Biblical account of creation and science. Seems a bit disingenuous to say, “Here, let's compare the Bible and science, and let's look at ancient thoughts on science, but we won't take a direct look at what the Bible actually says about creation and science.”

    It also seems to imply that the ancient writers of the Bible picked up on ancient scientific theory and put elements of it into what they wrote in the Bible. There is no evidence of this either from Biblical or secular references…but it does make a convenient theory to diminish the reliablilty of Biblical truth.

    Some terms of common vernacular–whether accurate or inaccurate–are useful in developing a common frame of reference and are sometimes used in the Bible. But then, even in our “enlightened” day and age, we still talk about “sunrise” and “sunset” even though we have long known that the sun does not actually “rise” or “set”. More double-standard manufactured with the intent of diminishing Biblical accuracy in people's minds: “If you or I say 'sunrise' or 'sunset' in order to communicate a larger truth, well, that's okay. When the Bible does the same thing, it proves the larger truth itself is not actually true.”

    As the video progresses, this approach continues. It concentrates on mistakes made by the Christian religious establishment during the Middle Ages–mistakes made because they themselves had relegated Biblical truth to the back seat, in favor of human interpretations of truth–in too closely embracing mistaken secular interpretations of science.

    So while this video contains a healthy sprinkling of truthful and accurate facts, it contains an equal or greater measure of error, and worse, does nothing to help one accurately distinguish the difference. In taking this approach, it only succeeds in unfairly and inaccurately marrying Biblical statements about creation and science to man-made errors regarding both.

    It does somewhat accurately portray the progressive nature of secular scientific understanding. I find it ironic, though, that evolutionists do not accept the progressive nature of scientific understanding–at least not as it relates to evolution theory. Evolution theory is, of course, established and (in their minds) will never be disproved. There is nothing “progressive” when it comes to evolution doctrine; it only is, which is incidentally one of the points which makes it more religion than science.

  20. Bob You made the comment that it seems a little disingenuous to look at the ancient view of science……… saying that we really cant bring this up as an example of Biblical inerrantcy because the scientific views of the time were indeed ancient and incorrect. Why then could you not say these same ancient people had a view of history ( the creation story ) that was incorrect as well since it had been handed down word of mouth. If The Biblie is the inerrant and truthful word of God, how can you say the 'scientififc' view of the ancients is less reliable or truthful than their 'historic' or creation story view.

    Scientific statements dont count but historical stories do ?Is not the word of God true no matter if the subject is 'science' or 'historical' acounts? I didnt know Biblical inerrancy was dependant on subject matter.

  21. Excuse me, but “Huh?”

  22. “Yes, it takes millions of years and many genetic variations.”
    Response: Why can't we find fossils from those millions of years and multitudes of variations?

    “Bones and digits in flippers would not be the work of any intelligent. 'designer’.(sic)”
    That's pretty arrogant, Mr. Meadows. How would you know what is or is not a “good” design? Is the fact that these creatures have been around and doing pretty well for quite a long time sufficient evidence of for a successful design?

    Your theory about the superior characteristics of cartilaginous v bony endoskeleton is not borne by the evidence–some of the fastest and most agile swimmers in the sea are BIRDS with a very well-developed bony skeleton.

    Your speculation about improvements in a design via small changes over time sounds OK except for the unfortunate fact that it cannot be scientifically verified. The adaptive changes we've been able to witness have nothing to do with mutations, new genetic information or evolution of new distinct species.

  23. “Many fossils of prehistoric reptiles have been found that show small feathers on the legs of these reptiles.”

    That's very interesting, but can you explain to us at what point did theropods develop the unique lungs, muscle structure and neurologic control systems that made flight possible. Surely there are some fossils that provide clues about these changes. How many variations did it take to get the airfoil correct for adequate lift? What about the wing chord and wing loading problems? The center of gravity must have taken a great deal of trial and error–where are the fossils. The unidirectional air flow of avian lungs with multiple air sacs in addition to unique lung structure is radically different that any other vertebrates. When did “dinosaurs” evolve this type of system? Besides a unique muscle structure, flight requires an entirely different kind of neuro control system. When did this system (actually many different kinds) evolve?

    There are a whole lot more problems to flight that having a few feathers on the legs, or anywhere else. Where are the fossils to show these transitions and why are there feathered bird fossils contemporaneous with most strata containing dinosaur fossils?

  24. “The fact that this law or principle CAN be disproven means evolution does not violate its own principles.”

    “CAN” means “able to.” Are you saying that you or scientist sin a broader sense are able to falsify the Law of Biogenesis!?

    A valid scientific theory requires that conditions be specified that WOULD falsify the claims were those conditions shown to be true. That is, a scientific theory MAY be invalidated if such and such were shown to be the case.

    The Law of Biogenesis is a valid scientific principle in that it would only require ONE exception of life originating from non-life to falsify the claim. Can you specify for me what piece of evidence would it take to falsify the theory of evolution? Seriously, Dr. Rutledge, there must be some scientific finding that would represent such a departure from the theory that you'd have to re-think the whole premise. Darwin thought that it would be the failure to find the transitional forms in the fossil record that would falsify the theory (and I agree), but modern scientists have disallowed that and basically said that there is nothing that will change their minds.

    “A theory that explains everything, explains nothing.”–attributed to Karl Popper

  25. Anonymous DID claim that dogs and wolves cannot reproduce. He is wrong but won't admit it.

    The tissue found in the T. rex fossil (and others) is collagen, vascular tissue and red blood cells! Not FOSSILS of them, they original tissue. Anonymous tries to confuse that point, but the evidence is sound as even mainstream anti-creation journals have admitted.

    The supposed “species” that Anonymous names are intended to obfuscate. There are some very esoteric arguments surrounding these examples and I believe that they represent basically hybrids and not speciation. That is why I specified “unambiguous and widely accepted.”

  26. In your third paragraph, you mentioned that there are elements of biblical truth in the ancient mythologies. From Noah and his descendants, subjects like the creation story would or could change as the people fanned out over the world. You said that either this knowledge was not passed down in tact or gaps were filled in by variuos groups that found God's word too restrictive and thus their beliefs were not the correct ones.. I understand that .

    You then commented that this seems to ignore direct examination of the Biblical creation account. Is there really a way to examine the creation story directly if it also was passed down verbally for over a thousand years before being written down. How do you know that Noah and his descendants didnt alter the creation story or fill in gaps to meet their needs.

    I know you believe the creation story, but you believe it becasue you believe the Noah lineage to have told the truth. Isn't that relying on the assumption that for a thousand years or more the creation story was handed down without alteration or one single mistake.. What you are saying is that you believe in the creation story, but you are assuming that it was handed down without alteration. Now do you know that ?

    I know what the implication of saying that means, but how do you know your version isnt a ' false' one ?

  27. Ah, that's more clear.

    What I was getting at when I the video didn't directly examine the Biblical creation account was this. The video spent little if any time looking at what the Bible actually says about creation, and instead spent virtually all it's time talking about Egyptian, Greek and other mythologies and ideas. How can you truly and accurately compare “Bible versus secular science” when you spend nearly all your time comparing “Greek and Egyptian mythology versus science.” It ends up looking like “bait and switch” (i.e. saying we're going to compare Judeo-Christian claims to secular science, then actually comparing Egyptian claims to secular science), and I'm led to believe a great deal of that bait and switch is intentional.

    As to how the creation story made its way into the book of Genesis, we're not completely sure. Some believe that God gave this information directly to Moses and he wrote it down. Others believe God directed and inspired Moses to examine any available written or oral records of these events; and if we are to have any serious believe in the reliability of the Bible, we accept that God pointed Moses to the accurate records and away from the inaccurate ones. Believing that God directed Moses to the good records and away from the inaccurate ones is, of course, a matter of faith, but that faith is supported and bolstered by the Bible's record of accuracy in areas that are more readily and concretely verifiable.

    Of course, going back to the belief that God gave the information directly to Moses who then wrote it down in Genesis, that negates any intentional or accidental alteration of the creation account; God was there for the whole thing, with a front-row seat, so would know exactly what did and didn't happen in perfect detail. Of course, if he just pointed Moses to accurate written and oral records, this would again negate any intentional or accidental alteration of the creation account making it into Genesis because God would have known which records were unreliable and would have guided Moses away from them.

    Either way, if one makes the basic assumption that the Creator of the universe was indeed involved in the writing of Genesis, then we can rationally expect that Genesis account to be accurate. And if God wasn't involved in the recording of Genesis, then you might as well throw the whole Bible out or use it for toilet paper, because pretty much everything else in the Bible relies on its accuracy, from major doctrines down to the fact that Jesus Christ himself quoted it authoritatively–and if Jesus Christ didn't realize he was quoting from an inaccurate record, then he wasn't really who he said he was (the Savior and the Son of God), and any faith in him as Savior and Redeemer is misplaced and worthless.

    But because of the track record of the Bible–not once found to be in error, despite thousands of skeptics trying for hundreds of years to find one–I have a high degree of confidence in those areas that require some exercise of faith (as even the belief in Julius Caesar requires some faith).

  28. dr,theo You are an educated man and a man of science and I am surprised that you would use the argument of ” Why cant we find all these fossils” . That may work for the general public, but you know full well the conditions must be perfect for fosslization and that the entire earth has not been scoured and that there are not millions of people digging 24 hours a day.Please

    i am not trying to be arrogant in saying catilagenous flippers are superior to those with bones in them, but basic design engineering has shown that the more rigid the flipper, the less propulsive ability it has.They are more pliable and versatile when made of light weight material.

    As far as the question of where are all these variations for flight, you again are saying ' where are all the fossils to prove it'. Let me ask you this, how many fossils would it take to convince you. You want to know where the fossils are, so tell me how many i need find. Since you are demanding more numbers of fossils, well give me the number that would convince you. I say there are enough now to make some conclusions and you say there are not, so give me a number. You cant just keep changing the goal posts.

  29. Bob,

    In your next to last paragraph, you stated that whichever way the Biblical account of the creation story got into Genesis, one must make the basic assumption that God was indeed involved in its writing . But the only way you can make that basic assumption is by reading the creation story in Genesis and assuming it is true because the written word is what you are going on. The written word is what tells and informs you about this God.

    Isnt that like saying I am assuming the written word is true because I am a priori assuming God was the author but I am assuming God is the author because I am relying on the written word being true. Isnt that circular reasoning.

    The analogy would be a man walks up to you and hands you a manuscript and you assume he is the author. Then you read the manuscript and it also informs you that the man is the author. To believe that the man is the author and then believe that the written manuscript is truthful , arent you making two assumptions, either of which confirms the other ? .

  30. Bob,

    In your next to last paragraph, you stated that whichever way the Biblical account of the creation story got into Genesis, one must make the basic assumption that God was indeed involved in its writing . But the only way you can make that basic assumption is by reading the creation story in Genesis and assuming it is true because the written word is what you are going on. The written word is what tells and informs you about this God.

    Isnt that like saying I am assuming the written word is true because I am a priori assuming God was the author but I am assuming God is the author because I am relying on the written word being true. Isnt that circular reasoning.

    The analogy would be a man walks up to you and hands you a manuscript and you assume he is the author. Then you read the manuscript and it also informs you that the man is the author. To believe that the man is the author and then believe that the written manuscript is truthful , arent you making two assumptions, either of which confirms the other ? .

  31. Mr. Meadows, most paleontologists, including Niles Eldridge of the American Museum of Natural History, have admitted that the sampling of fossils now classified are likely representative of the fossil record in general. It is highly unlikely that there will be any huge finds that fill in all the gaps in the record. As to the conditions that create fossils, I don’t know of any evolutionary theories to account for the hundreds of square miles of billions upon billions of fossil herring in the Green River formation (as an example). It is also interesting that almost all these fossils were swimming in the same general direction when they were fossilized. Can you tell me, Mr. Meadows, what are the conditions necessary for fossilization of billions of creatures literally frozen in time, intact, and in many cases in the act of eating or copulating? Have you ever been diving or seen videos of the ocean bottom? How many intact carcasses do you see?

    Don’t you see, Mr. Meadows that if it takes millions of years and billions of creatures to effect the changes claimed by evolutionists that we should find the fossil record virtually littered with the transitional forms that eventually lead to a significant morphologic change. We may not find them all, but shouldn’t we expect to find some?

    You claim that critics of the theory of Darwinian evolution are guilty of “changing the goal posts” whenever a new find is found. I don’t believe that is true. Most of the remarkable finds that were touted as the final link proving evolution have subsequently been found to be frauds or known fossils that were misinterpreted, so you’ll forgive my skepticism. I believe that will be the case with this latest missing link, “Ida.” Let’s wait and see if paleontologists remain as enthusiastic in a year or two.

    What would it take to cause me to reconsider? First, I would require honesty about all that we know to date. I cannot accept data from a science that relies so heavily on speculation and “just so” stories to convince the uninformed. Next, I would like to see a complete fossil record of a major morphologic change from beginning to end and if there are some minor omissions then, at least, a plausible mechanism to explain the changes.

    The transition from terrestrial life to flight would be very convincing. Show me the fossils that clearly show a sequential change from limbs to wings or from scales to feathers. Do you know that the earliest fossil examples of feathers are exactly the same as the complex structure of vanes and interlocking barbs that we see in modern birds. Did feathers evolve into these complex structures from simple scales in one fell swoop? Where are the intermediate proto-feathers? The shape, muscle arrangement and neurologic control of wings for flight are extremely complex (actually far beyond our current understanding) yet there exists no known intermediate forms that might represent evolutionary attempts toward complex flight.

    I think it is arrogance for us to presume to know what an efficient design is and what is less so. Richard Dawkins made this mistake when he proudly proclaimed that the vertebrate eye is poorly designed, thus proving that it was not created by an all-knowing Creator. It was only a couple of years before physiologists determined that the design having the photoreceptors at the innermost layer next to the vascular choroid layer was the only possible arrangement because of the incredible metabolic demands of the rods and cones. Proximity to the blood supply was necessary to provide the nutrients and oxygen and to carry away waste products and heat. Dawkins was wrong and it was pure arrogance for him to speculate about what design was best. He assumed that he had complete understanding of the physiologic necessities of the cells of the eye. He succeeded in displaying for the world his ignorance and his monumental arrogance.

    My area of expertise is human anatomy and physiology, but my biochemist friends tell me that the matter of evolutionary change becomes infinitely more complex and inexplicable at the level of cellular physiology and biochemistry. The more we learn the more improbable the notion of complex systems arising from random occurrences. There is a wind kicking up and the house of cards that is Dawinism cannnot stand very much longer.

  32. dr. theo— I don't think it's arrogance to say the human eye is poorly designed. I think it is honesty. It isn't arrogance to say that 10% of the eyes of typical 12 year olds reveal myopia or astigmatism requiring corrective lenses. It's just poor design whether done by evolution or any other force.. Are we as humans not allowed to question why an eye would become defective so early in life no matter who or what is responsible for the defect ?

    I don't like Dawkins because he does have an atheistic agenda, but I think his basic views on the eye are correct. As per your example, a creator with all his power and intellect could easily have made the rods and cones so that they didn't require all this enormous metabolic need to function, thus eliminating the need for such close proximity to the vascular plexus,

    If you took an anatomical engineer who knew nothing of evolution or creation and showed him an eye and ask if the design could be better, i would bet he would have many ideas. I myself would start with the curvature problems with the cornea

    I know it seems arrogant and is offensive to you for anyone to question Gods design, but I am questioning the eyes design, irregardless of who or what is responsible for it. If evolution ie responsible, then it did a poor job Only by questioning the design might we some day have a solution for its defects.

  33. If you go back and read that paragraph again, you'll find that I qualified the underlying basis for believing the accuracy and origin of the Genesis account for creation: “if one makes the basic assumption that the Creator of the universe was indeed involved in the writing of Genesis…”. If that initial assumption is made, then the assertion that the account is accurate is logical and reasonable.

    I explained the basis of my acceptance that the Bible is God's word (and subsequently that God was involved in the writing of Genesis) in my final paragraph. I doubt if there is a single science book that can maintain the unimpeachable track record of the Bible for even 25 years, much less 25 centuries (more, actually).

    If we can put faith in our flawed and ever-changing textbooks, how much more so a book that hasn't been proved wrong a single time in over 3,000 years?

  34. “…I am questioning the eyes design, irregardless (sic) of who or what is responsible for it.”

    God created the universe and everything in it, including space and time. He also created the laws that govern the physical universe. To expect, or demand, that God depart from the laws that He created to satisfy your imperfect understanding of nature is beyond arrogance. The beauty and marvel of creation is the amazing consistency of God's physical laws that results in the universe that we inhabit.

    That error occurs in nature, such as astigmatism or myopia are not due to problems with design. The design is perfect according to the laws that God established. Nature began a downward death spiral once sin entered the perfect world that God created. It is for that reason that disease and death occur not because of a poor design.

    “If you took an anatomical engineer who knew nothing of evolution or creation and showed him an eye and ask if the design could be better, i would bet he would have many ideas.”

    What exactly is an “anatomical engineer?” I've never met anyone that had a Ph.D. in anatomic design (though I must admit that it sounds like a pretty exciting job!). Anyway, it would be very presumptuous, if not arrogant, to think that we can come up with a design that is better than what God created. We’d have to know everything about a system as complex as the eye to make an intelligent judgment as to whether we could do better than the Creator. It is one thing to try to correct problems when they occur, such as corrective lenses, but that’s an entirely different proposition from the design elements.

  35. dr theo— I am not expecting or demanding that God depart from the physicsl laws that govern the universe, but am looking objectively at an eye and trying to ascertain if it could have been initially designed better.Now if you are saying that it was designed perfectly and that sin and the fall of man affected that design,then fine.

    However, if a twelve year old ask you why they had astigmatism or say….cancer, you would have to tell them it was because man is a fallen creature. If you dont believe that astigmatism is caused by man being a fallen creature, then you would have to tell the child that the eye wasnt designed to see well in about 10%
    of twelve year olds.

    I also know there is no such things as anatomical engineers-YET

    Lastly, i was a little surprised by your last comment. Genetics may indeed allow us to find the genetic design sequences that cause diseases. I doubt astigmatism will be one, but who knows and ceratinly there will be some.If we understand that genetic design genotype
    BEORE it phenotypically expresess itself and correct it, we will avoid those diseases.

    Hope you dont consider that being an example of man interfering with Gods perfect law of design that,according to your beliefs,went awry, since man is a fallen creature..I dont think it presumptuous or arrogant to take a small ” fallen” child whose has a gene marker that indicates a bad disease is in the future and altering that design genetically.It is sort of like making the child ” unfallen” if you will.

  36. Mr. Meadows, there have been dozens of comments from Mr. Ellis, DCM, me and others that you apparently have chosen to ignore. You have addressed none of the arguments that have been asserted in this thread, but persist in making ill-informed, bigoted and even ridiculous comments like the last one about a “fallen child.”

    I have devoted my life to relieving suffering and curing disease using all the amazing scientific modalities that we have devised. There is nothing in Christian theology that suggests that using the gifts God has provided to help others is contrary to His will. I have also had more than my share of health problems and have availed myself of the miracles of modern medicine. This does not change my understanding of God's creation and the fallen state of nature, but rather convinces me of God's love for all of us and His will to restore our spirits to the perfect state He has planned for us.

    I know that all of this is far beyond your ability to comprehend, Mr. Meadows, but I hope that some other readers might gain something from my comments.

  37. Bob, you are kidding, right? You who railed against assumption in your hit piece are basing everything you believe on one assumption considerably more far-fetched than any involved in the science of evolution.
    The reason that textbooks change is because more information generally becomes known over time. The bible stopped 1600 years ago, its collection of myths, “revelations” and relevancy complete.

    And Dr. Theo, unless your degrees are from Liberty University, I do not believe that you are educated to degree-level in all of those fields. If nothing else, referring twice to trilobite fossils 500 billion years old renders your claims suspect.

  38. Actually the final book of the Bible was written about 1,900 years ago. Interesting that in all those years (including the 1,500 or so years before that when the first book of the Bible was written), not a single statement or claim of the Bible has been disproved.

    Yet various claims of evolution theory get ditched every year as scientist realize they were wrong about this, then wrong about that, then wrong about the other.

    This wasn't a treatise against assumptions; since none of us were there at the beginning, and there are no written records from that time, we all must make some assumptions. I was just hoping to lead a few people to realize that evolution theory isn't the “settled science” its apostles would have you believe, and that it is in fact a theory based almost entirely on assumptions.

  39. You are correct, of course, about the reference to “500 billion years.” I guess I had a brain cramp and actually repeated it several times in the post. I meant 500 MILLION, of course. Thanks for pointing that out, Satcomguy.

    While Liberty University is a fine institution, I never attended classes there. I received my BA in Zoology from a small liberal arts college in Indiana and my advanced degrees at large state universities in Illinois. I practice emergency medicine full-time and teach in a liberal arts university part-time. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my previous comment.

  40. Actually the final book of the Bible was written about 1,900 years ago. Interesting that in all those years (including the 1,500 or so years before that when the first book of the Bible was written), not a single statement or claim of the Bible has been disproved.

    Yet various claims of evolution theory get ditched every year as scientist realize they were wrong about this, then wrong about that, then wrong about the other.

    This wasn't a treatise against assumptions; since none of us were there at the beginning, and there are no written records from that time, we all must make some assumptions. I was just hoping to lead a few people to realize that evolution theory isn't the “settled science” its apostles would have you believe, and that it is in fact a theory based almost entirely on assumptions.

  41. You are correct, of course, about the reference to “500 billion years.” I guess I had a brain cramp and actually repeated it several times in the post. I meant 500 MILLION, of course. Thanks for pointing that out, Satcomguy.

    While Liberty University is a fine institution, I never attended classes there. I received my BA in Zoology from a small liberal arts college in Indiana and my advanced degrees at large state universities in Illinois. I practice emergency medicine full-time and teach in a liberal arts university part-time. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify my previous comment.