Chr

responses, page 2b

Responses, page 2a was becoming unmanageably large due to an ongoing conversation, so I have continued that discussion on this page.

Send e-mail to bbu84@aol.com
responses 1
responses 2a
responses 2b
responses 2c
responses 3
responses 4
responses 5
responses 6
responses 7
responses 8
home

Subj: Brooks Response 5a - from Craig
Date: 97-11-27 18:34:46 EST

Brooks,

First of all, I don't think I thanked you earlier for introducing me to Talk.Origins, it's an excellent resource and I enjoyed reading through it. Also, let me add that I had originally planned to devote this message entirely to give evidence in support of the Genesis creation account but could not resist writing on several of the questions you raised. This has delayed my response somewhat and I would like to apologize for that. I have decided to send my comments on the Genesis account separately from this one.

1) Regarding the existence of virtual particles as an explanation for the origin of the universe you said: "I don't pretend to know if this is true or not, but it seems at least as plausible as the Hebrew creation fable found in the Bible." While I do not agree with that statement, you surprised me with this bout of voluntary honesty. In the past you have ridiculed, battered, and taunted the idea that intelligent design might be involved in the 'creation' of the universe. But here you seem to admit that your own beliefs regarding the 'mysterious' origins of the world are, perhaps, not any more "plausible" than mine.

2) I'm sorry if you feel that it is not appropriate using the film genre to draw analogies from. As it stands, I was referring, not to cinema, but to literature. The book by Arthur C. Clarke (a multi-award winning scientist and writer) contains introspective thoughts and details necessary to the point I was trying to bring out which the motion picture does not contain. Of course, you characteristically wrote more on the superfluous detail than on the actual subject. Do you better understand the reasoning behind this line of thought?

If not, I wrote another illustration based on a brief comment I made in my last message. It reads: There are many refining cycles that rocks must go through in their formation. First there are sedimentary rocks that are compacted to form metamorphic stones, which are then melted to form igneous rock, which in turn are weathered away to reform sedimentary rock. This process has probably been carried on for millions of years. However, if you took a stroll along a country side one day, and found an arrowhead lying among a pile of rocks, even if you had never seen one before, would you assume that it was the product of this million year process? Or would you conclude that it was of intelligent design as it was obviously created for a specific purpose? And yet, when individuals study the complex structures of the eye or the hear, many are baffled as to whether or not they were formed by the hit-and-miss processes of evolution or were intelligently created, when they have the clear fingerprint of design.

3) Theologian Thomas Aquinas gave reason for belief in the existence of God with a premise common both to the theist and to the atheist, the fact that "some things are in motion." 'Motion implies an unmoved Mover; similarly, there must be an uncaused First Cause that possesses in itself the reason for its existence; the existence of creatures whose nonexistence is possible implies the existence of a necessary Creator; the scale of perfections evident in the universe implies the existence of an absolute standard, a perfect Being.' Other then my previous statements that "intelligence is eternal", this line of though not only answers the question of where God 'came from', but closes the gap in your fallacious argumentation.

4) Your statements regarding dog breeding and such are in favor of microevolution, which has never been brought into question. Dogs, people, and animals in general may change but that does not mean that they will ever become another kind of animal. Moreover, some evolutionist would vehemently contradict your claim, as Talk.Origins alluded to: "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change."

5) Why didn't you say this before! In Darwin's book, he claimed that humans were direct descendants of the ape family alive today. However, half way through our argument I discovered that modern evolutionary theory no longer considers us their progeny, but their 'cousins', and that we have evolved from a similar ancestor. I did not bring this up immediately because I was not through discussing it. As it stands this makes my argument entirely mute.

Another question I could never find the answer to is: Why do species loose characteristics that aid in there survival? For instance, all of our supposed ancestors have greater strength and mass which helps them survive in their environment. Since humans and apes originally shared the same environment, why would we loose this advantageous attribute?

6) When I referred to "half-formed organs" I was thinking of a statement I heard from a biology professor. When asked where eyes came from, he calmly explained that "soft spots" gradually developed on the heads of vertebrates. In time, these "soft spots" became light sensitive and eventually developed into the complex structures we know of today. One of these millions of stages between "soft spots" and "light sensitivity" and between "light sensitivity" and the eyes we have today would be considered "half-formed organs". I do not recall his name or his educational background, nor have I researched the subject of ocular evolution further, but I'm sure I could dig up something if you're interested. If you find anything on it let me know.

Also, if evolution were founded in fact, wouldn't the fossil record be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things? There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks. Correct? These would also be considered "half-formed organs".

In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of evolution: "It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time." Would this not include organs in various stages of development? And as Darwin himself asserted: "The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous."

7) Of course, the definition of hominid is rather broad, but I thought I had made it clear that I was referring specifically to ancestors of the human species. It was my understanding that, although at one time several hominid breeds qualified for this group, all of them have been ruled out except Australopithecus, although many chimps would also be apart of this official line.

We have had several discussions on the validity of transitional fossils. Talk.Origins states: "Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get…only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage." Of course the essay goes on to explain that it is less than just "a few" and more than just "occasionally." It attempts to explain why the 'family lines' appear so abruptly with species appearing suddenly over short periods of time and describes the frustrated controversy with which scientists debate the validity of different theories. Of course, "detailed species-to-species" descent will never exist and the "long time" rifts will never be crossed, but don't despair! You will always have your faith to transverse the gaps!

8) You wrote that I said "that new fossil finds have forced biologists to radically rethink their theories." You also wrote that I "did not provide any specific information as to what exactly, was found, or how these supposed discoveries have altered our understanding of evolution." That Is true only if you ignore my statements regarding punctuated equilibrium (or 'Punctuated Equilibria' as Talk.Origins puts it).

For many years evolutionists (and now Darwinists) expected to find a gradual progression of one species to the next revealed in a slow advancement of evolution. However, as discussed above this has not happened and so theorists are forced to go elsewhere. Thus Talk.Origins says: "Punctuated Equilibria provides paleontologists with an explanation for the patterns which they find in the fossil record. This pattern includes the characteristically abrupt appearance of new species…."

You then apparently accused me of "dogmatically cling[ing] to ancient holy books which are contradicted by the facts of reality." Since I at one time foolishly believed that the earth was created in six literal days but eventually learned otherwise through personal study and am perfectly willing to adopt my view to fit "theistic evolution" and even atheism in the face of convincing evidence, am I included in this group?

9) I guess I just don't get the humor you find in the ptolemic model. To me, there is nothing funny about an individual being threatened with torture and death by a characteristically corrupt, dogmatic religious organization that has preyed on the ignorance and fears of uneducated societies for centuries. It turns my stomach.

The rest of this correspondence was sent in a separate e-mail due to the size of it. In the future I will try to number each point I would like a direct response to, but please feel free to respond to any additional comments you want to. You always seem to be bringing up additional arguments before we are able to conclude older ones. That is why my responses keep getting longer and more delayed. This is also why I originally avoided discussing the merits of Christianity. One subject at a time please!

The rest of this message will be sent in: Brooks Response 5b

Subj: Brooks Response 5b
Date: 97-11-27 18:34:45 EST

Please read: Brooks Response 5a first.

10) Finally! The following is a summery of my original message regarding the validity if the creation account. It began:

In your last message you said: "if you were able to overcome your fallacious arguments and somehow discredit the theory of evolution, that would still not make the Hebrew story of creation true by default." Of course this statement is true! That is why I stated in my last letter that "my belief in God is not based on evolution's duplicity."

Also, your claim that my arguments are "fallacious" is one of the most insulting statements you have sent. Please give me an example of where I have resorted to any type of fallacy to make my argument. (You realize that such insults could also be considered a form of fallacy?)

You also said that I have not "attempted to support creationist claims"! This is entirely untrue! Not only have I written pages on the necessity for design in living things but I have time and time again attempted to clear up your misconceptions on religion. I have not argued for the creation account because that is a different subject than the existence of a god.

You seemed to infer that the extinction of species and the fact that life appeared on earth in stages somehow negates the existence of God, citing dinosaurs as an example. Would you care to explain to me exactly how the dinosaurs became extinct? Why is it scientists are allowed to admit ignorance in some areas but theists are not? Please note that the appearance of life in different stages compliments the Genesis account and that extinction of species in no way contradicts their creation.

Next, you said: "I thought the Bible was inerrant and had to be interpreted literally." This is true, but in order to obtain an "inerrant" interpretation one must avoid oversimplification which is another form of fallacy.

Let me also state that the need here is to investigate and determine whether it harmonizes with known facts, not to mold it to fit some theoretical framework (such as theistic evolution). Also to be remembered, the Genesis account was not written to show the "how" of creation. Rather, it covers major events in a progressive way, describing what things were formed, the order in which they were formed and the time interval in which each first appeared. Since the Hebrew people had no concept of a 'million' and especially of a 'billion', how were these time frames to thus be expressed? They are presented in a series of indeterminate stages, or 'days', which have already been proven to represent various lengths of time in biblical references. These references were not meant to provide a mathematical equation for us to determine the exact length of the Genesis day, as these number concepts did not exist at that time, but prove the words literary meaning.

When examining the Genesis account, it is helpful to keep in mind that it approaches matters FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PEOPLE ON EARTH. So it describes events as human observers would have seen them had they been present. This can be noted from its treatment of events on the fourth Genesis "day." There the sun and moon are described as great luminaries in comparison to the stars. Yet many stars are far greater than our sun, and the moon is insignificant in comparison to them. But not to an earthly observer. So, as seen from the earth, the sun appears to be a 'greater light that rules the day' and the moon a 'lesser light that dominates the night.'-Genesis 1:14-18.

The first chapter can be divided into 10 separate stages.

1 - A beginning - (Gen. 1:1) This may appear somewhat obvious, but take into consideration that most 'creation myths' exclude this stage. For instance, the Babylonian myth that this account is said to have been taken from begins with a long narrative describing an internal struggle amongst the gods. This eventually culminates in a war in which Marduk splits Tiamat in half, one part forms the earth and the other forms the sky.

2 - A primitive earth enshrouded in heavy gases and water - (Gen. 1:2) You described the creation of seas in the fourth day, but large bodies of water are present at the start, before dry land.

3 - Light - (Gen. 1:3, 5) Remember, the perspective of Genesis is from the viewpoint of an observer on earth. From what we know of the atmosphere of the primitive earth, it would have been too dense for heavenly bodies to be visible at this time. But light would filter through from a pre-existing sun, moon, and stars.

4 - An expanse or atmosphere - (Gen. 1:6-8) This does not necessarily mean 'heaven', as you put it.

5 - Large areas of dry land appear - (Gen. 1:9, 10)

6 - Land plants - (Gen. 1:11, 12) Some theologians teach that the previous appearance of light represents some sort of 'spiritual awareness'. However, I give the Bible writers enough credit to know that real light is necessary for the survival of plant life. Microscopic organisms, water plants and others are not specifically named, but likely were created on this "day."

7 - Sun, moon and stars discernible in the expanse, and seasons beginning - (Gen. 1:14-16) The actual luminaries would never have been observable if a dramatic change had not occurred in the atmosphere. This happens when oxygen is introduced into the aerospace by plants. Notice that the emphasis is on their purpose to "serve as signs and for seasons and for days and years".

8 & 9 - (Gen. 1:20-24) The appearance of animal life in the fifth and sixth days -The creation of the entire animal kingdom beginning with aquatic life and ending with land animals now occurs. Note that according to modern thought, billions of years have passed up until this point and that this process of creating living things also consumes its share of eons, finally culminating in:

10 - The creation of man

One renowned geologist, Wallace Pratt, once stated: "If I as a geologist were called upon to explain briefly our modern ideas of the origin of the earth and the development of life on it to a simple, pastoral people, such as the tribes to whom the Book of Genesis was addressed, I could hardly do better than follow rather closely much of the language of the first chapter of Genesis." Pr. Pratt also noted that the order of events-from the origin of the oceans, to the emergence of land, to the appearance of marine life, and then to birds and mammals-is essentially the sequence of the principal divisions of geologic time.

Chapter 2 of Genesis apparently adds some details. However, it is not another account of creation in conflict with that of chapter 1. It just takes up at a point in the third "day," after dry land appeared but before land plants were created, adding specific details that were pertinent to the arrival of humans-Adam the living soul, the planting of his garden home, Eden, and the woman Eve, his wife.

This can be determined from the treatment of the creation account in the rest of the Bible. Never is there any reference to a conflict in their interpretation nor is one preferred over the other. Jesus Christ quoted from both chapter one and chapter two of Genesis, and the apostle Paul did likewise, and thus two witnesses established that both accounts were considered trustworthy. -Matt. 19:4-6; Mark 10:3-9; 1 Cor. 15:45, 47; 6:16; 2 Cor. 4:6; Eph. 5:31; Heb. 4:4, 10.

Finally, you said: "Please provide three or four facts which support the Genesis account of creation. Not things which you think discredit evolution, but rather observed facts of reality which clearly and unambiguously support the Genesis story."

1) The stages of geologic development themselves.

2) The law of biogenesis states that life comes only from previous life. Where as there exists many theories on the origins of earlier, simpler life (such as prebiotic synthesis) none have been proven with any success. In addition, some have suggested that there are certain principles, such as irreducible complexity, that have disproved these explanations entirely. In their book, Astronomers and evolutionists Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe discuss the probability of such claims: "If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court."

This first reason depends upon what we can know for a certainty. No can prove with the smallest amount of certainty that life could ever arise from chance. It requires an Eternal Being.

3) If Genesis is correct, gaps should exist between families and species in the fossil record. This has proven to be the case. Of course there will always be inadequacies in the fossil record, but as is explained by Talk.Origins, these gaps do not follow the pattern evolutionist expected. Instead it supports a "characteristically abrupt appearance of new species." This is an observable fact that fits the creation story.

4) This is really a side-point to reason two. The fact arises that many intricate biological structures (such as the eye, the feather, etc.) arise equally spontaneously and have NO intermediate forms documented in the fossil record. If the Genesis account were true, this is what we'd find. The argument could be made that this is only true because they simply have not been discovered yet. However, I do not agree with this (after all, how many billions of species have existed with this intermediate form?) and even if this were the case, the existing facts rest on the side of creation.

5) If Genesis were true, mutations would be harmful to complex life. Here I am not referring to simple gene mutations that allow for variety in a population. These kinds of alterations would not be adequate in explaining Punctuated Equilibrium. Far more drastic changes would be necessary and these kinds are either lethal or undocumented.

There are several others, but let's discuss these before we move on. Again thank you for my introduction to Talk.Origins and as always, I look forward to your response.

Have a great day,

Craig

12/6/97

Craig,

When I called your arguments fallacious, I did not mean to imply that they were intentionally deceptive. I meant that they were unsound and invalid. The term "fallacious" has a couple of different definitions.

Rather than go point by point over your entire e-mail in a linear fashion, I prefer to start out by examining one point in particular. In your previous e-mail you said that "Genes may pair to create new combinations but they will always resemble their parents who resembled their parents who have been having offspring for milleniums." With this statement you were clearly indicating that the genes and therefore the traits of plant and animal populations do not change over time. When I pointed out that we have selectively bred wolves to produce many wildly different pedigrees of dogs, you retreated from your absolutist position that change does not occur to the stance that, well, change does occur "but that does not mean that they will ever become another kind of animal." Lets just focus for a moment on what has happened here. You originally said that genetic change does not take place in populations of organisms over the generations. When I presented you with an undeniable fact of reality-dog breeding-you changed your position because it was obviously no longer defensible. The reason I am focusing on this is because it shows that you are now admitting that biological evolution does, in fact, take place whereas before you were denying it entirely.

Of course, you only want to go so far with your acceptance of evolution. You say that you accept microevolution but that you do not accept macroevolution. My question is why? Why does micro-evolution have to magically stop before it becomes macroevolution? What is the process that would prevent this? You include a quote from a page on Talk.Origins to make it appear as though micro and macroevolution are necessarily two different processes, and use it to say that some evolutionists would "vehemently" dispute my contention that macroevolution is accumulated microevolution. I think you are going way beyond what the quote implies by using the word "vehemently," but even more importantly-you neglected to include the whole quote, the last part of which I have put in bold for emphasis: "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change. Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution." Why did you leave this last part out?

Let's cut to the chase, shall we? Please explain to me why, in your mind, it is not possible for a culmination of microevolution to result in macroevolution (otherwise known as transpeciation)? If you do not give me a coherent, logical, supported explanation of why you think evolutionary change has to stop dead at some point, I will have to assume that you have no real reason apart from your religious bias. I ask this question because we have observed transpeciation directly. Macroevolution occurs, it is not in dispute. I want to know clearly and specifically why you think micro-evolution cannot produce macro-evolution, and then what you think the real cause of macroevolution is.

Now on to some other points...

Regarding virtual particles: We have good evidence for the existence of virtual particles and we have good evidence for the Big Bang, but I don't know for certain that there is a link between the two. I am not an astrophysicist. I was being somewhat facetious when I said that the idea of a virtual particle igniting the Big Bang was at least as plausible as the Hebrew creation fable. I think it is, in fact, a far more plausible explanation for the creation of the universe.

2001: Regardless of whether you were referring to the book or the movie that was made from it, your 2001example for design is not applicable. You compared inanimate machines designed and manufactured by an intelligent race, and a rock arrowhead chipped and chiseled by a human, to biological organisms which grow, reproduce and evolve naturally. There simply is no analogy because the items you are comparing are totally different. Arrowheads are not alive, nor are fictional rectangular alien beacons on the moon. If we found black rectangular monuments on the moon we might surmise that they were put there by an intelligent race. If we found an obviously manufactured arrow point in a pile of rocks, we would speculate about who made it. But the complex, dynamic living organisms that exist on this planet have perfectly natural explanations for their "design"-biological evolution. We don't need to surmise about designers and creators for biological life. As I said before, life is explained by physics, chemistry and evolution. The argument that complexity and life requires a god is absurd on its face. If a god-a powerful conscious entity-existed, it would certainly be complex and alive, and by the premise of the design argument it would also require a god as a designer. This argument would necessitate an infinite series of gods designing and manufacturing one another.

In your e-mail you described the evolution of eyes as being impossible. Eyes are evidence of design, you said. I don't agree. Please go here to see why:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/vision.html

There is actually much in the "design" of animals which would point to a confused and careless "designer." Please go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/jury%2Drigged.html

The Thomas Aquinas first cause argument is similar to the design argument and it has two fatal flaws. The premise of the argument is that everything needs a cause and so the universe needs a cause. Aquinas' conclusion is that the Christian god is this cause. The first problem with this argument is that you cannot declare that everything needs a cause and then make an exception to this absolute rule you have just manufactured. If everything needs a cause, then the cause needs a cause. What is the cause of God? Aquinas avoids explaining the cause of God by concocting the phrases "necessary being" and "uncaused cause." These are nothing more than theological presuppositions masquerading as logical axioms. There is no evidence for a "necessary being" or for the requirement of its existence. If you think otherwise, please explain what this evidence would be. The second problem with this argument is that Aquinas automatically assumes that his "uncaused cause" must be the Christian god rather than anything else. Why? Why couldn't this cause be another god, a leprechaun, or simply a natural principle of physics? Why can't the universe itself be the "uncaused cause"? This "argument" is little more than a series of unsupported and ultimately self-defeating assertions, with some invented terminology tossed in for good measure. It is goes nowhere.

You apparently did not understand my point about the extinction of species. My question was this: if your god designed plants and animals, why are the majority of the species that have existed on this planet now extinct? Was your god a lousy designer? Why would he design plants and animals that he knew beforehand would die off? Is your god an idiot? The fact that most of the plants and animals that have existed on this planet are now extinct is predicted and explained by evolution, but it goes completely against "special creation."

I was very keen to hear when you thought the Adam and Eve incident took place, so I was somewhat disappointed that you did not address this question in your last e-mail. Therefore, I will ask the question again. Did the Adam and Eve apple tree fiasco occur before or after the reign of the dinosaurs, which lasted some 160 million years? According to the genealogies of Jesus given in the Gospels, Adam lived only six thousand years ago. So, did Adam and Eve actually live only six thousand years ago or are the Gospels in error? What evidence is there that the Adam and Eve story is true in the first place? I would ask the same questions about the Noah's Ark epic.

You asked why humans have less muscle mass than their "supposed" ancestors. First of all, we are not descended from apes, as you implied. This is the third time you have made this mistake. Our hominid ancestors were actually quite small compared to humans. Even if our hominid predecessors were bigger than us, this would not invalidate our understanding of evolution. You are assuming that size and strength alone determine survival, when intelligence can play an even more important role. Changes in the environment can also favor the survival of smaller, and thus weaker organisms-large size can be a disadvantage. It is believed that a comet strike 65 million years ago killed off all the big "strong" dinosaurs, and all the small, "weak" little mammals then flourished their place. It is clear that you just don't have a grasp on how natural selection works. It really isn't too hard to understand.

You spent a great deal of time trying to explain how the Genesis creation fable fits in with modern thought. One of the ways in which you attempted to do this was by saying that a Genesis day is not a day, which you also claimed in your previous e-mail. However, despite your mountain of verbiage, you still have not shown that a Genesis day is anything other than a 24-hour period. Merely saying that the Hebrew writer intended the word "day" to mean billions of years does not quite show that he did, in fact, intend a "day" to equal billions of years. In making this claim, you also did not acknowledge that for virtually all of Christianity's history, the six days of creation described in the first chapter of Genesis were six literal days. It was not disputed. Six literal days were six literal days. Period. Then, in the last couple of centuries, when scientific inquiry showed that timeline to be ridiculous, Christians went to extraordinary lengths to second-guess the writers of Genesis and reinterpret chapter one in order to make six literal days equal to billions of years. I cannot help but see your "billion years" assertion as a similar ad hoc rationalization.

As far as your point by point description of the stages of development described in Genesis, it does not conform to what we understand about the stages of the development of the universe. Specifically, the earth and its plants and animals did NOT exist prior to the existence of the stars and the sun, as Genesis chapter one states. Genesis is wrong.

You also tried to say that chapter two of Genesis is merely a continuation of Chapter one after the third day. Wrong again. In chapter 1 Jehovah created 1) trees, then 2) animals, then 3) man, while in chapter two Jehovah created 1) man, then 2) trees, then 3) animals. Chapter two is not a continuation of chapter one, it is a completely different story.

By the way, you did not explain how light can exist prior to the existence of stars.

You provided a few "facts" of reality which you say support the Genesis account of history. Lets go through these "facts" one by one, shall we?

1) You say that the stages of geologic development support the Genesis account for creation. Could you be a little more specific? I am not interested in quotes from some supposed authority-I want to hear your explanation of how geology supports the creation story in Genesis. So far, "fact" numero uno does not support Genesis.

Strike one.

2) You say that the law of biogenesis states that life can only come from life. I have never heard this one before, but I suspect that this "law" is being taken out of context and misapplied. Where does it come from? If such an axiom were true, then Genesis can not possibly be authentic since God is said to come from non-life.

You also quote Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's statistics for the probability for life. The problem with their numbers is that they assume that the formation of life occurred purely by chance-they often use the example of the formation of life being equivalent to the formation of 747 from a windstorm in a junkyard. This is a complete fallacy. The scientific position is that life arose from observed, predictable, non-random natural processes. Therefore, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe's numbers are invalid because they are based on a completely erroneous foundation.

Strike two.

By the way, I sent you links to articles which show how life can come from non-life. Did you take the time to check them out?

3) Please explain in a little more detail how gaps in the fossil record support Genesis. I don't get it. One reason why gaps exist is because very few plants and animals are fossilized in the first place, many fossils are destroyed, and very few of the remaining fossils are ever found. Yet despite this, the fossil evidence for evolution is overwhelming. A new idea called punctuated equilibrium also explains these gaps. Elsewhere in your e-mail you insinuated that punctuated equilibrium somehow nullifies evolution, which simply isn't true. Here are some quotations from the Talk.Origins site and from the Secular Web which should help you understand this idea a little better:

"Eldredge and Gould proposed that most major morphological change occurs (relatively) quickly in small peripheral population at the time of speciation. New forms will then invade the range of their ancestral species. Thus, at most locations that fossils are found, transition from one species to another will be abrupt. This abrupt change will reflect replacement by migration however, not evolution. In order to find the transitional fossils, the area of speciation must be found." "Some Creationists claim that the hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium was proposed (by Eldredge and Gould) to explain gaps in the fossil record. Actually, it was proposed to explain the relative rarity of transitional forms, not their total absence, and to explain why speciation appears to happen relatively quickly in some cases, gradually in others, and not at all during some periods for some species. In no way does it deny that transitional sequences exist. In fact, both Gould and Eldredge are outspoken opponents of Creationism."

and...

"Punctuated equilibrium and the low probability of fossilization are both scientific explanations for the scarcity of transitional forms, and are not characterized by the contrived nature so evident in the creationist's use of the "appearance of age" and "test of faith" ploys. The evolutionist's explanations for gaps in the fossil record are derived from experimental data and an understanding of natural processes, and must be reasonable to become accepted by the scientific community. The fact that there is much debate about punctuated equilibrium clearly shows that the scientific community is not desperately clutching at straws. Note also that all evolutionists still predict the existence of at least some transitional forms, as opposed to the creationist's predictions of none. If we still did not know of any transitional forms today, after more than a century of paleontological research, the idea of transitional forms would be adequately falsified. But given the numerous transitional forms that have indeed been found, all falsifiable forms of creationism find themselves falsified."

4) You say that there are no intermediate forms or structures found in different animals, and that this supports Genesis. You are simply wrong.

Strike three.

Please re-read the following, which I sent to you a few e-mails back:

"Another prediction made by the theory of evolution is that the fossil record should yield transitional forms -- special creation, on the other hand, predicts a complete absence of transitional forms. As it turns out, transitional forms do exist, despite the attempts of creationists to deny them out of existence with wishful thinking. Archaeopteryx lithographica, displaying a distinct blend of major reptilian and avian characteristics and highly resembling the theropod reptiles of its time, is unquestionably a transitional form. Basilosaurus isis is the name given to a whale whose 40-million year old fossilized skeleton features a small pelvis with hind legs. The rhipidistians link the crossopterygian fishes to the icthyostegid amphibians through a clear temporal progression of vertebral and skull characteristics. Diarthrognathus sports both reptilian and mammalian jaw joints. Tetraceratops links the pelycosaurs to the therapsids (the pelycosaurs and therapsids are themselves reptile-mammal transitional forms). Creationists honest enough to acknowledge that the listed creatures exhibit obvious transitional characteristics and exist at precisely the right time periods and in precisely the right places where evolutionists would expect to find them, have no route left but to assume that God created all of those creatures directly. But why would God create creatures that look so much like transitional forms, unless He wanted to trick man into believing in evolution and rejecting Him as Creator -- or unless He actually instituted the process of evolution. But this runs counter to the will of the creationists, who wrongfully wish to portray evolutionists as atheistic sinners who reject the "obvious truth" of special creation out of wicked, godless pride."

Please explain to me why whales have pelvises.

5) I really did not understand what you were saying about mutations. Some mutations are harmful. Other mutations are neutral or beneficial. What is your point?

So far, your attempts to support Genesis have been very weak. Until you clarify these points and/or offer more, I will have to assume that that you know of no factual evidence for the "special creation" story in Genesis.

Better luck next time around,

Brooks

Subj: Response 6
Date: 98-01-06 18:30:17 EST

Brooks:

1) "Genes may pair to create new combinations but they will always RESEMBLE their parents who RESEMBLED their parents who have been having offspring for milleniums." For some reason you took the word "resemble" and defined it as "identical". You therefore interpreted my statement as an "absolutist position that change does not occur." However the word has no such implications. It means "similar" or "likeness" and allows room for change within a group. I have never taken such an "absolutist position".

In the same e-mail, I also asked: "Is it logical to assume that these variations will ever result in an entirely different animal?" What did I mean by "variations"? Here I was obviously referring to minor changes that do occur in real life. For instance, there is good evidence that suggests the entire human family grew from a common ancestor. However, there is a variety of people today - blacks, whites, yellows. They arrived by means of a form of evolution. You must think very poorly of me to assume I did not already know this.

I often go to great lengths to avoid the statement: "I believe in evolution!", not because it isn't true, but because it could very easily be misunderstood. Besides, the statement: "I believe in evolution, but not 'superspecies macroevolution'", is not easily understood by most people.

This is a common misconception by evolutionists. Often times a creationist will raise an objection to "evolution" but he is generally referring to macroevolution. The evolutionists will then answer the question from the perspective of microevolution which then makes the creationists claim look foolish even though their reasoning is sound.

For someone who is constantly accusing others of making "straw man" arguments, you certainly construct your fair share of them. 2) Macroevolution vs. Microevolution

According to Talk.Origins (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html):

"What a biologist will consider as a speciation event is, in part, dependent on which species definition that biologist accepts." Some scientists claim that speciation occurs when two groups of the same species begin to "breed at different times. This may be different times of the year or different times of day." This does not fit the definition of macroevolution, nor do the majority of speciation definitions.

Talk.Origins defined macroevolution as "referring to evolution at levels higher than the populational. [This] view…was that evolutionary change at the level of speciation and above, could not occur through natural selection or drift. Recently, the term has been used simply to refer to large scale change, mostly at the superspecies level…."

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/precursors/glossary.html)

When I say I do not believe in macroevolution, this does not mean I do not believe that two different groups of the same species will begin to breed at "different times of the year or different times of day" and thus form a new species. In a broader sense, I also do not mean that it is not possible for my dog's descendants to be hairier, bigger, and maybe even grow more teeth, thousands of years in the future (microevolution). Conan's children will still be dogs, even with a few changes in their features. What I AM saying, is that my dog will NEVER sprout wings or grow gills.

"Why does micro-evolution have to magically stop before it becomes macroevolution?" You are thinking of two entirely different things. The contrast between changing previous characteristics and inventing new organs and limbs is substantial to say the least!

Furthermore, to claim that there is some sort of connection between the two is to make a positive assertion. That would mean that the burden of proof lies on you. However despite this, you demanded that I give you "a coherent, logical, supported explanation" of why minor evolutionary changes cannot magically create new features.

You then threatened that if I did not, you would "have to assume that [I] have no real reason apart from [my] religious bias." This made me somewhat nervous, as I have, apparently, had great difficulty in communicating solid reasons to you in the past. I have therefore opted to provide a brief outline and send you to a website that elaborates each reason. It is brief, to the point, and fits in well with what we have discussed. The author, Darel Rex Finley, seemed to write straight from my mind.

A) The first point is wholly mine and more personal. It has to do with my recognition of the authenticity of the Bible. However I could never debate this point with an atheist and therefore only mention this to support previous remarks that my believe in God is not based on "evolutions duplicity". Finley's opening statement deals with the influence of biases, either religious or atheistic. Let me comment on this just briefly. Finley lists his biases but he does not include the possibility that God does not exist. I want you to note however, that mine does and that at one time I took this possibility very seriously. On the other hand, you're are strictly biased against the possibility that a god might exist. You are therefore closing your mind to what many people consider very relevant possibilities. You are thus forced to ignore profound evidence (such as what is presented at this website) since it does not sit with your preconceived ideas.

B) The estimated age of the earth (4.5 according to Talk.Origins) is not adequate for allowing microevolution to culminate in macroevolution.

C) As I have mentioned before, the fossil record does not support the gradual appearance of one species from another. This is well discussed in another essay titled: "Analysis By Frank De Angelis". There should be a link for it on the navigation bar across the top of your window. It is written in the form of a response to an evolutionist's rebuttal referring to Finley's essay. I highly recommend it.

D) I have vaguely referred to irreducible complexity in the past. Here Finley elaborates on this in what he calls "feature interdependence" which is slightly different, but along the same lines.

The site is located at: http://www.ghgcorp.com/smokin/evolution/

3) Let me just make a few comments on something before I move on. You were apparently accusing me of fraudulently 'bending' the truth by taking a quote about the mechanisms of macroevolution and microevolution out of context. In my defense, I used the first part of the quote to bring to your attention the discontinuity that exists among scientist regarding this matter. The second half you already knew, therefore there was no point in bringing it out. I used the word "vehement" which, to me, was implied by the words "major controversy" in the following quote:

(http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html)

"The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 [that micro- culminates in macro-]. There are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model…is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases."

Finally, moving on:

4) There is good evidence that the earth and life on it has not always existed. It is therefore only logical to conclude that something must have caused it. However, there is no evidence to suggest that God has not always existed. In fact, due to the immensity and eternity of the universe there is reason to believe that He is equally immense and eternal. There is no reason to look for a cause for something that has always existed, as no cause would exist. Right?

On the other hand, there is evidence that suggests that "physics, chemistry, and evolution" have not always existed. What is the cause of these miracle-working agents? It is a mystery. However, in an attempt to give credit to their godless thesis, some have claimed that these mechanisms just "popped" into existence by means of virtual particles. In other words, basically uncaused, unwarranted, and ultimately unreasonable. The idea that the universe just happened into existence is the stuff of fairytale legend and make-believe. For a serious individual to consider it is to give oneself over to the desperation of irrationality and absurdity!

5) Webster's 1996 Collegiate Dictionary defines analogy as a "resemblance in some particulars between things otherwise unlike" or a "comparison based on such resemblance". I often use analogies to outline a method of thought. When comparing an eye to an arrowhead, you objected by saying: "the items you are comparing are totally different." That is what an analogy is. I was asking you to focus, not on their differences, but on their similarities to help you understand my point. An arrowhead and an eye are both tools used for a specific purpose. Both rocks and organic matter go through cycles and changes that can affect their appearance - especially rock. However, to expect an arrowhead to jump out of a rock is just as absurd as expecting an eye to jump out of a face - even after millions of years of cycles and changes.

You then sent me to a website to explain how an eye could reasonably grow on a face. However, I don't think you read it - because it didn't shed much light on the subject. But I'll give you this: I am willing to admit that evolutionists have a perfectly wonderful explanation for how this miracle came about. But that does not mean that there is any proof that it happened, that it is even possible in reality, or that it's even reasonable!

An offshoot site to Talk.Origins, and composed by the same man, commented: "In fact, nature displays progressions of simple to complex visual structures (Ecker, 1990, 65-66)…such that one can see how the gradual development of complex structures could be possible." (http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html`#4.2)

Please note what the source for this evidence is. These are not intermediate stages that can be found in nature or in the fossil record. In other words, although there is no evidence that the eye evolved, scientists will create models stringing together various levels of visual acuity today in order to further their dubious conjectures. Is this 'proof' by any means? What can we be sure of?

"Certainly no one has documented the gradual development of the eye…"

The creationist's model predicted that this is what we would find. To search for the many missing pieces to the evolutionist's puzzle is to guess and assume and make believe. It is to search in vain forever.

6) "If your god designed plants and animals, why are the majority of the species that have existed on this planet now extinct?" Why did Jehovah create animals in the first place? Why do animals die at all? Why are species becoming extinct today? Just how exactly does God think?

This may be somewhat of a cop-out response, but until all of these questions are answered definitively, my response to your question could only be conjectural at best. In addition, although I believe in Jehovah, I have made no great effort to argue His existence. My arguments have focused on the existence of ANY god, such as the god of deism. For me to argue the existence of the God of the Bible specifically would be futile since you do not even admit the possibility of any kind of god.

7) "According to the genealogies of Jesus given in the Gospels, Adam lived only six thousand years ago." Actually, the estimation of about six thousand years comes from a collection of various quotes in Genesis and throughout the Bible. However, these various references are not clear and some Bible scholars put the date at about 10,000 years, and one calculation includes even as far back as 200,000! I have only read evidence in support of the 6,000-year estimate and tend to favor it. This would be much later into the sixth creative day after dinosaurs were probably created and most likely long after they were extinct.

If a trustworthy friend told you he had once worked as a mail carrier - would you believe him? This is how I tend to look at the Bible - like testimony from a trustworthy friend. If it makes a claim that I consider reasonable from the source, I tend to believe it. If it tells me that the earth was once flooded with water and that (knowing only a fraction of the power of God) He was capable of overcoming any of the problems that might arise with such a task; I tend to believe him.

I have never looked into the 'timing' of the flood.

8) William Wilson's Old Testament Word Studies defines the Hebrew word yohm, translated "day" in Genesis, as: "A day; it is frequently put for time in general, or for a long time; a whole period under consideration . .. . Day is also put for a particular season or time when any extraordinary event happens." This is not a religious interpretation or current historical view. It is the meaning of a real Hebrew word as defined by a secular authority.

In addition, I have provided a list of various scriptures that use this word to represent various lengths of time. As I have mentioned before, Moses did not have a concept of 'billion.' He did, however have the concept for the word definition above. On the basis of modern day archeology, this is likely what he was inspired to write. This is also evident in Genesis 1:5 when God himself is said to divide day into a smaller period of time, calling just the light portion "day."

That fact that Christendom has killed in the name of Jesus does not make murder right. And the fact that they interpreted the word yohm as 24 hours does not make it right either.

I made it very clear in my last e-mail that this account is written from the perspective of someone on earth. I said:

"Remember, the perspective of Genesis is from the viewpoint of an observer on earth. From what we know of the atmosphere of the primitive earth, it would have been too dense for heavenly bodies to be visible at this time. But light would filter through from a pre-existing sun, moon, and stars."

You said: "you did not explain how light can exist prior to the existence of stars." How would Moses have answered? Did he not know where light came from? So I ask you, is Moses just a blind idiot? Or is there another more reasonable explanation for what he wrote such as the one above?

The book The Bible: God's Word or Man's has this to say about Chapters one and two of Genesis:

"Additionally, the way a narrative is constructed can lead to an apparent contradiction. At Genesis 1:24-26, the Bible indicates that the animals were created before man. But at Genesis 2:7, 19, 20, it seems to say that man was created before the animals. Why the discrepancy? Because the two accounts of the creation discuss it from two different viewpoints. The first describes the creation of the heavens and the earth and everything in them. (Genesis 1:1-2:4) The second concentrates on the creation of the human race and its fall into sin.-Genesis 2:5-4:26."

"The first account is constructed chronologically, divided into six consecutive "days." The second is written in order of topical importance. After a short prologue, it logically goes straight to the creation of Adam, since he and his family are the subject of what follows. (Genesis 2:7) Other information is then introduced as needed. We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name "every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens." Now, then, is the time to mention that "Jehovah God was forming from the ground" all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene.-Genesis 2:19; 1:20, 24, 26."

This is not uncommon in the bible. For instance, Matthew's gospel account focuses more on Jesus discourses with a kingdom theme but Luke's has more of chronological approach.

"You also tried to say that chapter two of Genesis is merely a continuation of Chapter one…" This is not true. I said that it was "two narratives focusing on different aspects of the same story." It is not a simple continuation.

9) I'm dying to respond to your critique of my facts supporting Genesis (especially since you seemed to dismiss them based on your lack of understanding) but I feel that I have already written too much for one e-mail. Let me know what you thought of Finley's essay and we can get back to this later. Also, if it's convenient, please do not resend my e-mail in your correspondence - I always keep a copy and it makes it difficult to find what I want from your message.

As always, I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Craig

P.S. Sorry about an additional delay, I had to order a new keyboard.

Craig,

I still have a problem with your earlier statement that "some scientists would vehemently disagree with" a relationship between the processes of micro- and macroevolution. Your statement was based on this quote from Talk.Origins- "Some biologists feel the mechanisms of macroevolution are different from those of microevolutionary change." You did not cite where you got this quote from on Talk.Origins, so I was not aware of the second part of the statement-"Others think the distinction between the two is arbitrary -- macroevolution is cumulative microevolution." Indeed I only happened to stumble upon it by chance, and I found it interesting that you only quoted the first half.

Nothing in this quote justifies the word "vehemently." You can't go from "some scientists feel" to "some scientists would vehemently disagree" without twisting and mangling the intent of the original quote. This seems like a small point but your use of the word "vehemently" seems, well, duplicitous. In your next e-mail, you tried to explain your "vehemently" statement by citing another Talk.Origins page, using this quote:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/modern-synthesis.html

"The major controversy among evolutionists today concerns the validity of point #3 [that micro- culminates in macro-]. There are many who believe that the fossil record at any one site does not show gradual change but instead long periods of stasis followed by rapid speciation. This model…is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases."

The controversy you are alluding to with this quote is not one over evolution itself, but over the relative importance of the various processes responsible for it, as the section following your citation makes clear:

"The debate is over the relative contributions of gradual versus punctuated change, the average size of the punctuations, and the mechanism. To a large extent the debate is over the use of terms and definitions, not over fundamentals. No new mechanisms of evolution are needed to explain the model."

Obviously your "argument" is that there is no connection between micro and macroevolution, that there is some impossible gap between what you erroneously assume are two completely disparate processes. You accept microevolution because the evidence for this is obvious to everyone, but what you are not appreciating is that there is no inherent difference between the processes of micro and macroevolution, only in the degree of change. The following quotation explains the origin of the two terms, defines them and demonstrates why your objection to macroevolution just does not hold water.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

"The history of the concept of macroevolution"

"In the 'modern synthesis' of neo-Darwinism, which developed in the period from 1930 to 1950 with the reconciliation of evolution by natural selection and modern genetics, macroevolution is thought to be the combined effects of microevolutionary processes. In theories proposing 'orthogenetic evolution' (literally, straight line evolution), macroevolution is thought to be of a different caliber and process than microevolution. Nobody has been able to make a good case for orthogenesis since the 1950s, especially since the uncovering of molecular genetics between 1952 and the late 1960s."

"Antievolutionists argue that there has been no proof of macroevolutionary processes. However, synthesists claim that the same processes that cause within-species changes of the frequencies of alleles can be extrapolated to between species changes, so this argument fails unless some mechanism for preventing microevolution causing macroevolution is discovered. Since every step of the process has been demonstrated in genetics and the rest of biology, the argument against macroevolution fails."

"Conclusion"

"There is no difference between micro- and macroevolution except that genes between species usually diverge, while genes within species usually combine. The same processes that cause within-species evolution are responsible for above-species evolution, except that the processes that cause speciation include things that cannot happen to lesser groups, such as the evolution of different sexual apparatus (because, by definition, once organisms cannot interbreed, they are different species)."

Here is an e-mail discussion similar to ours, which also drives home the point I am making about macroevolution.

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/e-mail.htm

"Evolutionists loooove to call evolution a fact. However, what they (conveniently) forget to mention is that what we've really only proved is microevolution. Now, to the general public, they think "Gosh, if the scientists say it's true, then we MUST have evolved." Not proven. Now, how misleading is that?"

"Not at all. Macroevolution is demonstrated by a whole slew of fossil transitionals. Anyway, since there is no biochemical difference between microevolution and macroevolution, it is incumbent upon the creationists to support THEIR claim that macroevolution is impossible, by citing for us a biochemical mechanism that MAKES it impossible. They can do no such thing. I think we'll be adding this one to the growing list of things that creationists are either lying about or don't know what they are talking about. Evolution, micro AND macro, is just as well established as is the fact that the earth revolves around the sun."

At one point in your e-mail you assert that 4.5 billion years is not enough time for transpeciation to take place, apparently confident that Darel Rex Finley's argument is valid. The problem is that we have observed macroevolution numerous times over the last several decades. Your claim-and Finley's argument, are blatantly wrong. Please go here to see more on observed macroevolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Frankly, I am growing tired of arguing about evolution because it appears either that you cannot understand it or that you will reject it no matter how good the evidence for it is, and that you will continue to spew out discredited creationist claims. I mean, what's the point? I have shown you numerous, clear, undeniable transitional fossils, but you ignore them. I have gotten you to admit that change takes place in populations, but then you come back with the ridiculous statement that your dog will never sprout wings or gills, completely disregarding the fact that evolution occurs over time in POPULATIONS of organisms-not individuals. I have explained to you that there is no difference in the process of macro and microevolution. You object to this, but are unable to explain why, just asserting that there is not enough time for macroevolution, which, as I showed above, is patently false. I asked you to present evidence for creationism, and this is the "evidence" you presented:

1) "Geology supports it"
2) the law of biogenesis forbids evolution, it's statistically improbable
3) Fossil gaps disprove evolution
4) no intermediate structures
5) gene mutations are lethal

I either explained to you why these things did not support creationism or asked you for more information, which so far has not been forthcoming. So, as it stands now, you have neither made a case for biblical creationism nor shown that evolution is in any way false. By the way, I would strongly suggest that before you trundle out any more tired, fallacious creationist assertions, you go here first to see them all debunked:

http://icarus.uic.edu/~vuletic/cefec.html

Each and every "argument" you have used so far is dealt with here. If, despite this friendly suggestion, you do send me any of the worn-out creationist attacks on evolution that are addressed on this page, I will simply cut and paste the appropriate reply in my next e-mail, or better yet just send you the page link again.

I accept that evolution has occurred and is occurring, and so do most Christian denominations. Even the Pope accepts it. It is obvious that you object to it because as a fundamentalist you are committed to a literal interpretation of Genesis. Most people accept the evidence for evolution and simply say that evolution is God's method of creation. They are not handicapped by a literalist interpretation of Genesis.

You keep talking about evolution's "duplicity," but have not explained what this duplicity is. The only duplicity I see in this debate is on the side of the creationists, who have manufactured bogus academic credentials and have been caught re-using their discredited creationist arguments even after agreeing that the arguments were invalid. Just who is being duplicitous here?

Please go here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-creationists.html

http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/doctor.htm

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/credentials.html

Regarding the 300-year-old Galileo controversy: the reason I find it funny that you brought this subject up is because you are displaying the same irrational hostility to evolution that the Catholic Church displayed towards the idea the earth revolves around the sun, and your hostility springs from the exact same source-this untenable literal interpretation of the Bible.

You laugh at the idea of the universe "popping" into existence, but have no problem with an intelligent being, a god, arising from nothing. Seems a bit hypocritical. As I stated before, there is a natural explanation for the origin of the universe.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/vacuum.html

Even if we never discover exactly how the universe arose (indeed it may be forever beyond our ability), this ignorance does not function as evidence for Christianity or for any god. We are aware of the universe and of change that takes place naturally in the universe, but we are not aware of an intelligence intitiating or somehow controlling the universe.

You say that I am strictly biased against the possibility that a god exists. If I am biased against the idea it simply is because I do not see any evidence for it. I will always be biased against claims for which there is no evidence. All you would have to do to convince me that a god exists is to present good arguments and evidence for such a thing. So far you have not done this, but have instead directed all your energy into attacking evolution with debunked creationist blather. (By the way, I could not find arguments on Finley's site for the existence of God, just attacks on evolution.) I have to reiterate that even if you showed that evolution does not occur, this would not necessarily make the existence of a god true by default. You just don't seem to be getting this point.

Furthermore, you are not arguing for just any god, as you claimed, but are specifically arguing for the existence of the god of the Bible and for the infallibility of the Bible. You seem to believe that Christianity depends on a literal Bible. I hope you are aware that many Christians, maybe even most, do not accept this idea. You have continued to claim that Genesis is a verbatim account of actual events, yet your arguments for inerrancy have the appearance of desperate ad hoc rationalizations. For example, you stated that each "day" used in the first chapter of Genesis can be equivalent to billions of years. That is an interesting claim, since each mention of a day is preceded by this: "and there was evening and there was morning, a second (third, fourth...) day." If a Genesis chapter one day is equivalent to billions of years, why is it qualified with the phrase "evening" and "morning"? If you continue to claim that a Genesis day is really billions of years, then how could plants have been created before stars? Plants were created on the third "day," but stars-including the sun-were not created until the fourth "day." If a day is equivalent to billions of years, then how could the plants survive billions of years without sunlight?

In an effort to harmonize the two different accounts of creation in chapters one and two of Genesis, you say that in chapter two, God was already in the process of forming animals before he made man and that the various items he created are listed in order of topical importance rather than their chronological order of creation. Let's read what you specifically wrote about chapter two, shall we?

"The second (chapter) is written in order of topical importance...We learn that after his creation Adam was to live in a garden in Eden. So the planting of the garden of Eden is now mentioned. (Genesis 2:8, 9, 15) Jehovah tells Adam to name 'every wild beast of the field and every flying creature of the heavens.' Now, then, is the time to mention that 'Jehovah God was forming from the ground' all these creatures, although their creation began long before Adam appeared on the scene."

Hmmm...if the animals' creation "began long before Adam appeared on the scene," then why does the Bible specifically say this:

"Then the Lord God said, 'It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make a helper fit for him.' So out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the air, and brought them to the man to see what he would call them." ? (RSV)

(This form of the verse is in not in the NIV-which came after the RSV. The NIV version reads: "Now the Lord had formed..." It is obvious that whoever wrote the NIV wanted to paper-over this glaring problem of chronology)

Clearly, the creation of animals was in response to the loneliness of Adam: "it is not good that the man should be alone. I WILL make a helper fit for him." "I will make" is future tense. Not past tense. Not present tense. It is future tense. How could this possibly be made more clear to you? Why was Adam alone? Because animals had not yet been formed. The word that is used (in the RSV) is not "forming" as you said but rather the progression: "So....God....formed every beast and every bird of the air..." The word "So" is important. God created animals "So" Adam would have a helper and not be alone. The creation of animals was in response to Adam's loneliness and need for a helper. The creation of animals followed, was posterior to, the creation of man in chapter 2. There simply isn't any other way to interpret the progression of events. There is absolutely no way to reconcile chapter one and chapter two of Genesis. Chapter one and chapter two are two different stories and Bible scholars, Christian and non-Christian, acknowledge as much. Here is the contradictory order of events once again:

Most recent update: 6/2/01