From: bruceh@access.isc-br.com (Bruce Hogan)
Newsgroups: k12.ed.science
Subject: Re: Evolution
Date: 23 Dec 92 20:36:35 GMT
Organization: ISC-Bunker Ramo

In article <1992Dec18.125917@IASTATE.EDU>, danwell@IASTATE.EDU (Daniel A Ashlock) writes:
> 
> In article <1992Dec18.154158.12539@isc-br.isc-br.com>, bruceh@access.isc-br.com
> (Bruce Hogan) writes:
>                        [some stuff deleted to save space]
> 
> > The Scriptures say that, originally, the firmament (land) separated the
> waters
> > that were above and the waters that were below (Genesis 1) and when the
> world-
> > wide flood occurred, the fountains of the deep were broken up and the windows
> > of heaven were opened, and it rained.  Prior to this it is mentioned that
> > dew watered the earth; rain is never mentioned (doesn't prove it didn't
> exist,
> > but follow through here).  What the Creation model depicts here is that there
> > was a water envelope covering the earth that worked like a 'hot-house' in
> > that it kept the temperature and moisture factors in a tropical-like state
> > around the earth.  This would explain a number of interesting facts about 
> > the fossil record like the one you mentioned and also, why, all over the 
> > earth are millions and millions of fossil remains buried in sedimentary 
> > layers.
> 
>    The problem with this model is that there isn't any observation evidence in
> favor of it and huge amounts of observational evidence against it.  For example
> it is dead obvious that there never was a world wide flood.  Such a flood would
> have left huge amounts of evidence in the geological column and it didn't.
> 
Stuff deleted> 
> Dan
> Danwell@IASTATE.EDU
> 
> 

For the sake of students reading this newsgroup who are developing their 
thinking processes and their scientific process: many of us who write to and 
respond in this type of thread are so evangelistically committed to a position 
already that we forget that true knowledge is discovered when we collect what 
is observable without regard to the outcome.  I've done it, I'm sorry to say, 
and it takes a great deal of self control to try to avoid it.  We have to 
have the courage to let the chips fall where they may.  We must have no 
regard for what's popular or advantageous to us in terms of a conclusion.  
It's difficult to do and most of us don't allow enough time (or have enough 
time if you're in the average school) to think things through without the 
baggage of a pre-defined filter or position that directs my thinking away 
from the obvious simply because it doesn't fit what I want to prove.

Even so, work on it.  It'll take alot of effort but you can't afford to avoid 
it.  The world needs your clear thinking and your tremendous energy to be 
applied to the problems at hand and clear thinking is a precious possession 
of a man or woman.  I mean not to implicate anyone involved in this thread.  
I appreciate and need this type of dialog to help me develop my thinking 
processes and I respect the thoughts and qualifications of those who have 
responded.  You should always consider what a person has to say: not whether 
it agrees with your position but in what ways it disagrees and then do a full 
court press on how he/she arrived at the conclusion and see if you can find a 
flaw in the logic or the premisses and consider how your own conclusion 
might need to be tweaked.

Having said that, I offer some observable facts that caused me to question 
the "fact" of evolution, as it is presented now.  I don't conclude these prove 
Creation true or Evolution false, but I find they don't fit the Evolution 
model as well as they fit the Creation model.  You may also consider that the 
Creation model is not rejected by many because it doesn't fit the observable 
facts, but rather because it requires a personal Creator, which is not 
acceptable to the Humanism that is the order of the day in our educational 
system.


1)  The observable fact of the remains of tropical plants found all over the 
    world, including the polar regions (the original question that prompted 
    this flurry of discourse).

    OK, what do you do with this, and the following?  Find out how the 
    Evolution model explains it and then find out how the Creation model 
    explains it.  If you meet someone who is afraid to do that, avoid them; 
    they are not helping you think clearly, just helping you think "correctly".

2)  The lack of transitional species.  This will be hotly debated, but simply 
    ask for the millions of examples that should be there if evolution is a 
    billions-of- years process with billions upon billions upon billions of 
    mutations and trials and errors.  Don't accept an explanation, rather 
    stand your ground until someone produces some evidence.  And study 
    "punctuated equilibrium" and see if it is consistent with the description 
    of how evolution works or if you think it is an explanation by some of 
    why what we observe doesn't fit the process of evolution?

3)  That fossilization is not a present day process except during cataclysmic 
    events.  To understand why this is foundational to the question, study 
    the term "uniformitarianism" from the evolutionists point of view and 
    then consider the Creation model's view that the geologic record, and 
    the fossil record, are not the records of eons of slow, uniform changes 
    but the records of a cataclysmic, hydraulic event (a worldwide flood) 
    with the attendent sorting of debris and the deposition of layers as one 
    would expect.

4)  That if the geologic column is the record of billions of years of 
    accumulated layers of time/earth, why do we find what is known as 
    "polystate fossils", which are fossils (e.g. a tree trunk) which 
    transverse millions of years of supposed layers of geologic history?  

5)  The observable fact that the layers of the geologic column do not actually 
    appear anywhere in the world in complete form _and_ that the pieces of the 
    supposed "column" that do exist can be found in reverse order, or a 
    non-sequential order, when compared to what the evolutionary model says 
    it should be.

6)  The huge and innumerable deposits of fossils where the remains of what 
    should have only appeared millions of years later, according to the 
    geologic column theory, are mixed up with the remains of what supposedly 
    had disappeared from the scene millions of years earlier.  

7)  The numerous cases of large deposits of fossil graveyards that include 
    the soft parts of the flesh.  This does not fit a model which demands a 
    slow, uniform process.  Flesh rots, and quickly.  We also have the 
    millions of mammoths and other large animals that were killed instantly 
    in the north polar regions, many with the flesh and hair intact, some 
    standing, some kneeling, some with food in their mouths, with the eyes 
    and red blood cells well preserved and the separation of water in the 
    animal's cells was only partial testifying to an extremely fast and 
    continuous freeze.  The existence of an estimated 5,000,000 frozen 
    mammoths along the coasts of Alaska and Northern Siberia needs to be 
    weighed against the evolutionary model which claims no cataclysmic 
    events have intervened and that the record is "uniform", or should be.

8)  The rate of abandonment of the evolutionary model by hundreds of highly 
    qualified scientists.  You would never find this out by reading your 
    science book or the newspaper of course, but it is worth your research 
    time.  Find out why they are questioning the premisses of evolutionary 
    thinking.

These are simply offered to fuel your study.  Think for yourself.  Ask hard 
questions.  Many more questions could, and should, be asked before one should 
just assume the evolution model is "fact".  In my opinion, it fits the 
prevailing philosophy of life but not the observable evidences of life in 
the past, which is all we have to go on since none of us were there.  And, 
since none of us were there, both systems are a system of faith when neither 
one can be scientifically proven.  Scientific proof requires a duplication of 
the event.  Not possible here.

Some reference material for you:  

      The Collapse of Evolution by Scott M. Huse published by Baker Book House
      The Biblical Basis for Modern Science by Henry M. Morris (same pub)
      A Critical Look at Evolution by Rober S. Camp, 1972
      The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin by Francis Darwin
      The Origin of Species by Charles Darwin
      Scientific Discoveries and Their Bearing on the Biblical Account of the 
            Noachian Deluge (the Flood) by Merson L. Davies
      Creation: A Scientist's Choice by Z. Levitt
      Evolution - The Incredible Hoax by Dennis Lindsay
      Mathematical Challenges to the Neo-Darwinian Interpretation of Evolution by
            P. Moorhead and M. Kaplan, Wistar Institute, Philadelphia, PA, 1976
      Scientists Critical of Evolution by D.T. Rosevear, Evolution Protest Movement,
            Pamphlet No. 224, July 1980
      The Natural Sciences Know Nothing of Evolution, by A.E. Wilder-Smith,
            Master Books, San Diego, California, 1981
      The Creation -Evolution Controversy by R.L. Wysong, Inquiry Press, 1981


Happy Trails and Fruitful Digging to you.  
Think, and think well.

Bruce Hogan
Spokane, WA