EVOLUTION SAYS NOTHING ABOUT A GOD!..there could be a god with evolution, there could be no god with evolution..i think gish doesn’t want people to know that theres more than evolution with no god and young-earth biblical creationism

This general evolutionary hypothesis is usually presented as an established scientific fact in science textbooks.

because evolution is as close to a fact as science gets..it doesnt matter what gish thinks

All of the evidence that can be adduced in favor of this theory is thoroughly discussed in such texts, and it is often stated that all competent biologists accept the theory of evolution.

there is a difference between competent biologists and duane gish..a competent biologist would leave supernatural events or beings out of the mix, because science is about nature and natural events..once you attempt to say something about a supernatural being, it isnt science, its religion

While it is true that most biologists accept evolution as a fact, there is a significant minority of competent biologists who do not accept this theory as the best interpretation of the known data.

and we should believe that because the small minority is usually right?

One of these who may be cited as an example is Dr. W. R. Thompson (see American Men of Science or Canadian Men of Science), whose credentials as a competent biologist need no defense. His objections to evolutionary theory may be found in his introduction to a 1956 edition of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species entitled A Critique of Evolution.1 In 1963 a group of scientists formed the Creation Research Society.2 This relatively new organization now includes about 400 members, all of whom hold a master’s degree or doctorate in some Field of science. None accept the theory of evolution.

here is the “statement of belief” that all members of CRS must follow:

“(1) the bible is the written word of god . . . all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs . . . this means that the account of origins in genesis is a factual presentation of simple historical truths. (2) all basic types of living things, including man, were made by direct creative acts of god during creation week as described in genesis. whatever biological changes have occured since creation have accomplished only changes within the original created kind. (3) the great flood described in genesis, commonly referred to as the noachian deluge, was an historical event, worldwide in its extent and effect. (4) finally, we are an organization of christian men of science, who accept jesus christ as our lord and savior. the account of special creation of adam and eve as one man and one woman, and their subsequent fall into sin, is the basis for our belief in the necessity of a savior for all mankind. therefore, salvation can come only thru accepting jesus christ as our savior”

The importance of the nature of this evidence is never emphasized in textbooks used in our public school systems and colleges.

because it isnt real science, or it doesnt contradict evolution beyond the views of creationists

We must recognize, therefore, that such an educational process amounts to indoctrination in a particular world view or philosophy based on the concept that the origin of the Universe, the origin and diversity of life, in fact all of reality, must be explainable solely on the basis of the laws of chemistry and physics.

thats science..if you dont like it, too bad..if you want to help worsen science education, you would do a darn fine job of it by forcing evolution out

The possibility of a Creator or the existence of a Supernatural Being is excluded.

that is because science deals with natural and natural events & beings..supernatural beings have no place in science class!

We are convinced that the reason evolutionary theory is so widely accepted today is because our scientists and biology teachers are the products of an educational system dominated by this naturalistic, mechanistic, humanistic philosophy.

the reason it is so widely accepted today is because of the evidence..if evolution is a “naturalistic” philosophy, then all science is..science deals with only NATURAL events, it cant deal with SUPERNATURAL events because they are unobservable!..it isnt a “humanistic” philosophy..fundamentalists--whether they are young-earthers, or pat robertsons--love to call evolution a humanistic idea..it isnt!..do humanists accept(believe, whatever..but when somebody says “believe” with evolution, it means the same way that you believe the sun will “rise” over the eastern sky tomorrow) evolution?..YES!..do non-humanists accept evolution?..YES!..christians, jews, muslims and atheists accept it!..so do other religious people!..it is as much a humanistic philosophy as it is a christian philosophy..it is a science..evolution is what holds modern biology together..evolution is accepted by humanists, christians, jews, muslims, atheists, agnostics, etc

The theory of evolution violates two of the most fundamental laws of nature-the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics.

no it doesnt

The First Law states that no matter what changes may take place, nuclear, chemical, or physical, the sum total of energy and matter (actually equivalent) remains constant.

and placing a superbeing is going to answer that question without making a new question?..theism vs. atheism doesnt belong in a debate over evolution

The Second Law states that every change which takes place naturally and spontaneously tends to go from a state of order to one of disorder, from the complex to the simple, from a higher energy state to a lower energy state.

earth is an open system..the second law only applies to closed systems!

The total amount of randomness or disorder in the universe (entropy is a measure of this randomness) is constantly and inevitably increasing.

in a closed system

Any increase in order and complexity that may occur, therefore, could only be local and temporary; but evolution requires a general increase in order extending through geological time.

how does it?

Amino acids do not spontaneously combine to form proteins, but proteins spontaneously break down to amino acids, and amino acids slowly break down to simpler chemical compounds.

a group of scientists in german have had either amino acids form in an environment like that near primordial deep sea vents..”the building blocks of life”

Since the universe, like a clock, is running down, it is obvious that it hasn’t existed forever.

how so?

The evolutionary continuum, from cosmos to man, is creative and progressive,

it is not progressive..evolution is a VARIATION

Exponents of evolutionary theory thus ignore the observable in order to accept the unobservable (the evolutionary origin of life and of the major kinds of living things).

yes..wouldnt want to include that horrible “species” word now, would we?

The evolutionary process has supposedly taken place via random mutational changes.

it is not “random” like hed like people to think

This basic concept of the modern evolutionary theory is under attack even by some evolutionists.

no it is not

Random mutations and natural selection supposedly have been responsible for evolution, allegedly a creative and progressive process.

not completely random mutations

Natural selection, however, is not creative since it cannot create anything new.

so?

It is a conservative force eliminating the unfit.

letting the more fit ones to survive..this where the overpopulation comes in..more animals are born than can survive..the fitter ones survive..if we have two cheetahs, and one is faster then the other, the faster cheetah is more likely to survive..then, when it reproduces, the offspring could be slighty faster than him..thats natural selection

Random mutational changes in an ordered system is a disordering or randomizing process and is thus degenerative, not progressive.

not all changes are degenerative

This realization is slowly spreading among evolutionists today.

that is a lie

Whether evolution actually did happen or not can only be indicated by an examination of the historical record, that is, the fossil record.

and i listed somewhere between 325 and 360 transitional fossils..there are more, but not neccessarily involving animals we are used to

If invertebrate gave rise to vertebrate, fish to amphibia, amphibia to reptile, reptile to bird and mammals

vertebrates come after invertebrates..amphibians come after fish..reptiles come after amphibians..birds come after reptiles..mammals come after reptiles

is there some sort of misunderstanding here?

each transformation requiring millions of years

it depends on what he means..species do not need millions of years to evolve..they need many generations

involving innumerable transitional forms

yep..no matter how many transitionals we find, gish will always say “it was there since creation” or “where is the transition between this transition and this other supposed transition” or something similar

then the fossil record should certainly produce a good representative number of these transitional types.

we have more transitionals now than we should need..fossilization is a very rare occurence

The fossil record ought to produce thousands of transitional forms.

who decided that?..fossilization is rare, but we are supposed to produce thousands of clear transitional fossils?

One hundred million years and no transitional forms!

there are many transitional forms

Fish supposedly gave rise to amphibian over a period of millions of years during which time the fins of the hypothetical ancestral fish gradually changed into the feet and legs of the amphibian.

and there are fish-to-amphibian transitions..i listed eleven

Yet not a single fossil has ever been found showing a part-way fin and part-way foot!

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/science/DailyNews/fishfossil0312.html The living amphibians. include three types: the salamanders and newts, usually with sprawling legs and tails; the frogs and toads, among the most highly specialized of all land vertebrates, having no tails and very long hind legs; the Apodans, a worm-like creature with no trace of limbs. No transitional forms can be found between these diverse living amphibians, or between them and fossil amphibians.

i listed ten amphibian transitionals

Birds are alleged to have evolved from the reptiles.

i listed ten reptile-to-bird transitionals

Yet no one has ever found a single fossil showing a part-way wing and part-way forelimb, or a part-way feather. Archaeopteryx, "the oldest known bird," had teeth but so did other birds found in the fossil record that were unquestionably 100% birds. Archaeopteryx had claw-like appendages on the leading edges of its wings. These same appendages, however. are found in a living bird in South America, the Hoactzin, and he is 100% bird. Archaeopteryx had vertebrae extending out along the tail, but was no more a transitional form between reptile and bird than the bat is a link between bird and mammal. Archaeopteryx had fully developed wings and feathers. It flew. It was definitely a bird, as all paleontologists agree.

as opposed to what?..we have five major categories of animals: fish, reptiles, amphibians, birds and mammals..there isnt a category between reptiles and birds..if there were, thats where archaeopteryx would go

“These fossil specimens, of Archaeopteryx, are so similar to reptiles in skeletal features that, but for the unmistakable impressions of feathers in the rocks, they would have been identified as reptiles. The skull is a typical reptilian skull, a reptilian tail is present, and so forth” (philip kitcher, abusing science, p. 109)

“here was a truly intermediate form between the reptiles and the birds. the skeleton alone was essentially reptilian, but with some characters tending strongly towards the birds. the feathers, on the other hand, were typical bird feathers, and because of them Archaeopteryx is classified as a bird--the earliest and most primitive member of the class” (colbert, evolution of the vertebrates, 1980, p. 183. . . . quote taken from kitcher, abusing science, p. 109-110)

Lecomte du Nouy, an evolutionist, has said, "in spite of the fact that it is undeniably related to the two classes of reptiles and birds (a relation which the anatomy and physiology of actually living specimens demonstrates), we are not even authorized to consider the exceptional case of the Archaeopteryx as a true link. By link, we mean a necessary stage of transition between classes such as reptiles and birds, or between smaller groups. An animal displaying characters belonging to two different groups cannot be treated as a true link as long as the intermediary stages have not been found, and as long as the mechanisms of transition remain "unknown."11

that quote is from a book written in 1947..there are other links between reptiles and birds, however

Marshall has stated, "The origin of birds is largely a matter of deduction. There is no fossil of the stages through which the remarkable change from reptile to bird was achieved."12

that quote is from a book written in 1960..there are ten transitions that i have listed

Could it be that these transitional forms are not found simply because they never existed?

its because gish makes stuff up to explain them

Such evidence can be much more easily correlated within a creationist framework than within an evolutionary framework.
The examples given above are not exceptions, but as stated earlier the fossil record displays a systematic absence of transitional types between higher categories.

that includes the 300+ transitionals i listed can?

Even with reference to the famous horse "series," du Nouy reports, "But each one of these intermediaries seems to have appeared ‘suddenly,’ and it has not yet been possible, because of the lack of fossils, to reconstitute the passage between these intermediaries.... The continuity we surmise may never be established by facts."

how do you suppose transitionals come about?..of course they show up as new species when theyre first found, because the earlier transitions werent that species!..they couldnt be the same transitions!

i will show the list of two related species, one will be called “A”, the other will be called “Z”:
the two species at the beginning:A Z
creationist: where is the transitional?
after a transitional gets found: A K Z
creationist: but shouldnt there be transitions between “A” and “K”?..and transitionals between “K” and “Z”?
after a transitional gets found: A D K S Z
creationist: but that doesnt show that D is related to A..there are still species between them that you havent found yet!
after a transitional gets found: A D G K S W Z
creationist: there are still gaps..fill all the gaps, then i will believe

unfortunately, since the fossil record will never be COMPLETE, all the “gaps” will never be filled!..id love to show everybody a perfect fossil record including A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z, but it is impossible..not because they never existed, but because fossilization is a rare occurence

To restrict the teaching concerning origins to a single theory, that of organic evolution, and to teach it as an established scientific fact, constitutes indoctrination in a humanistic religious philosophy.

ive already talked about evolution not being a humanistic religious philosophy..(especially since humanism is NOT a religion)

Such a procedure violates the Constitutional prohibition against the teaching of sectarian religious views just as clearly as if the teaching concerning origins were restricted to the Book of Genesis.

teaching science does not violate the constitution whether it annoys a religious group or not..some believe the sun revolves around the earth, but that doesnt mean that teaching of the earth revolving around the sun should stop being taught in astronomy class

In the spirit of fairness and of academic freedom we plead for a balanced presentation of all the evidence.

the best supported view(evolution) is presented..if you let other views that arent supported well at all(biblical creationism), then you open the door to all the other creation stories, which makes a mockery of biology class..biology class turns into a religious class..religion has no place in science, thats why literal-biblical creationism isnt allowed, and neither is old earth biblical creationism..or native american religions

also, you let in pseudoscience, then what about pseudohistory?..does the journal of historical review get their view that the holocaust is a lie let into school?..does the flat earth society get their view let in geology class?..and so on

the books used in impact #4
1. W. R. Thompson; Critique of Evolution, an introduction to Origin of Species, Charles Darwin; E. P. Dutton and Co., New York, 1956.
2. 2717 Cranbrook Road, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48104.
3. D. E. Hull; Nature, 186, 693 (1960).
4. F. B. Salisbury: The American Biology Teacher, 33, 335 (1971).
5. P. S. Moorehead and M. M. Kaplan, Eds.; Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution; Wistar Institute Press, Philadelphia, Penn. 1967.
6. M. Eden; Ref. 5, P. 109
7. D. 1. Axelrod; Science, 128, 7(1958).
8. G. G. Simpson; The Meaning of Evolution; Yale University Press, New Haven, 1953, p. 18.
9. F. D. Ommanney, The Fishes; Life Nature Library, 1964; p. 60.
10. A. S. Romer; Vertebrate Paleontology, 3rd Ed.; University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1966; p 98.
11. L. du Nouy; Human Destiny; The New American Library of World Literature, Inc.; New York, 1947, p. 58.
12. A. J. Marshall, Ed.; Biology and Comparative Physiology of Birds; Academic Press, New York, 1960 p. 1.
13. E. C. Olson; The Evolution of Life; The New American Library, New York, 1966; P. 180.
14. L. du Nouy; Ref. I 1, p. 74.
15. G. A. Kerkut; Implications of Evolution; Pergamon Press, New York, 1960,p.157.

complete version of impact #4

email me