http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm
I wonder, how people can continue to (misrepre)present the 'evidence' and still consider themselves Christians ? IMHO it is not how to reconcile my religious faiths with evolution and data but with the behavior of people who call themselves Christians. On the other hand, it does strengthen my conviction in the arguments and theories and data they try to oppose as well as my ability to reconcile my beliefs with scientific facts and data without having to compromise neither my integrity nor my faith.
The best one which remains without factual evidence (Perhaps other than references to Morris's (un)scientific Creationism": A book which I read as a 'Born again Christian' and lead me to be 'born once again' in the realization that some Young Earther's like Morris either willfully misrepresent fact or are truely ignorance of the science they oppose. So perhaps I should be thankful to Morris for 'saving me' from scientific ignorance ?).
"The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution"
Misrepresentation 1:
"The columns in the rock strata are actually made up from different regions of the world. The full rock strata is found nowhere in the world."
Misrepresentation 2:
."Although sometimes there may be evidences of physical disturbance (leading to faulting and holding) in these `upside down' areas, it is quite often true that they can only be revealed by an `unnatural sequence of fossils,' which means that the fossils are not found in the order presupposed by their evolutionary relationship." ([19], p.54)
Irrelevant statement (did they not state that rock strata often are found out of sequence due to folding?)
Evolutionist Walter E. Lammerts reports, "The actual percentage of area showing this progressive order from the simple to the complex is surprisingly small. Indeed formations with very complex forms of life are often found resting directly on the basic granites. Furthermore, I have in my own files a list of over 500 cases that attest to a reverse order, that is, simple forms of life resting on top of more advanced types." ([19], p.54)
The old Polystrata trees argument
"...in various parts of the earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers which indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years..." ([22], p.28) "
And again the unreferenced assertion
"Rock strata is far better explained by a universal flood rather than millions of years. "
Using Morris's 'Scientific creationism' they repeat a lot of debunked or incorrect 'facts'.
"A catastrophe such as a universal flood is necessary for fossils to form. "Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure so that their bones or imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure, they will not be fossilized. Most of the many millions of fossils in the world are found in rock which has been affected by water, and, therefore, the fossils of these animals were formed as a result of the animals being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure." ([22], p.27) "
And of course Morris again trying to imply what isn;t
"An evolutionist geologist wrote, "A carcass after death is almost sure to be torn apart or devoured by carnivores or other scavengers, and if it escapes these larger enemies, bacteria insure the decay of all but the hard parts, and even they crumble to dust after a few years if exposed to the weather. If buried under moist sediment or standing water, however, weathering is prevented, decay is greatly reduced, and scavengers cannot disturb the remains. For these reasons burial soon after death is the most important condition favoring preservation...Water-borne sediments are so much more widely distributed than all other
kinds, that they include the great majority of all fossils. Flooded streams drown and bury their victims in the shifting channel sands or in the mud of the valley floor."
I surely hope that Morris did not use this as evidence of a 'great flood' since the quote appears to not support this. Does anyone have the book ? I hate to spend good money on trash. [ Morris, Henry M. The Twilight of Evolution, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1967. ]
Sorry about the rants and ravings but it truely upsets me to see science being abused and misrepresented by the few who lack the faith in what their God is trying to tell them in data and evidence. The fact that getting exposed to such behavior did save me from making the same mistakes is a small comfort when realizing how many people might actually believe such tripe.
With tripe I refer to http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/evid7.htm
?Socially, natural selection requires barbarianism. One famous author, favorable to natural selection, admits, "Barbarism is the only process by which man has organically progressed and civilization is the only process by which he has declined. Civilization is the most dangerous enterprise on which man has ever set."
"Natural Selection commends savages who eliminate the weak. It commended the ruthless takeover of the Native Indian of North America, the destruction of Jews in the Holocaust, and all other acts where the powerful ruthlessly have their way. It names all who kill as better. It would name a country that destroys all others as best.?
Ignorance:
Natural selection, practically speaking, is impossible. "How can such things be built up by infinitesimally small inherited variations each profitable to the preserved being? The first step towards a new function such as vision or the ability to fly would not necessarily provide any advantage unless the other parts required for the function appeared at the same time.
Strawman
Natural selection demands progress at every step of change. It cannot have forethought and planning and thus bear up with say a half formed eye in order to form the eye. How then was the eye produced since natural selection demands it to have been partly formed at some point. "It seems that evolutionists, whether consciously or unconsciously, have regarded the blind and inanimate forces of the environment, or nature, as having the ability to create and think."
More arguments from ignorance
"The world is full of interdependence and it makes natural selection unthinkable. How did lungs form if lungs are necessary for our lives from the start? How did we reproduce if it took millions of years for our reproduction systems to evolve? Reproduction was necessary for survival but how could natural selection create this? One sex had to exist before natural selection would bring another sex into existence. How did the first sex get there and how did reproduction take place while the other sex was forming? Or, are we to believe that they just both formed independently perfectly suited for one another? An infinite amount of other such examples can be stated since the world is full of interdependence. "
Arguments from ignorance (and lacking proof)
All the `information' for the development of each particular organism was already `encoded' in the DNA of its parent. They must reproduce `after their kinds'."
A almost admission of evolution is without evidence trivialized:
"There are great numbers of `genes' (or DNA molecules) in each germ cell, and these can be arranged in various ways to permit a wide range of variation in the individual members of a basic `kind' of plant or animal, but the possible range of variation is nevertheless limited to the basic genetic framework of that particular `kind'."
The ultimate ignorance of science
Regarding the second law of thermodynamics (universally accepted scientific law which states that all things left to themselves will tend to run down) or the law of entropy, it is observed, "It would hardly be possible to conceive of two more completely opposite principles than this principle of entropy increase and the principle of evolution. Each is precisely the converse of the other. As (Aldous) Huxley defined it, evolution involves a continual increase of order, of organization, of size, of complexity. It seems axiomatic that both cannot possibly be true. But there is no question whatever that the second law of thermodynamics is true." ([19], p.35)
And indeed, it was our friend Morris once again, showing his ignorance in science.
Non sequitors: