[MSTed] Evolution vs. Creation [2/3]
Brian N. Pacula
>
> Many people think life was once created in a test tube from
>chemicals and energy in the 1950's.
MIKE: This life-form later came to be known as Michael Jackson.
> This is known as the Miller-Urey
>experiment
CROW: It's Miller time!
> (which is covered in detail in Eastman's book). Here is
>what occurred. They sparked ammonia, methane, hydrogen and water,
TOM: Got their hands on the Anarchist's Cookbook, they did.
>condensed it, and ran it through a trap (do you think the early earth
>had traps and condensers? The samples had to be isolated from the
>spark because a second spark would have destroyed any molecules that
>were formed). The results of these experiments were mostly tar and
>carboxylic acid, but a few amino acids were formed.
CROW: <50's Scientist> Life! I have created life! I'm the God!!! I'M THE
GOODDDD!!!!
> Amino acids may
>be called the building blocks of life. But it is either gross
>ignorance or a lie to say they created life in this experiment.
MIKE: <BillyJack> And this totally debunks the theory of evolution! Ha! I'm
right! Admit it! I'm right!
>
> Life requires many things. Long amino acids chains make
>proteins...chains in the proper order and shape. Miller's experiment
>did NOT produce any chains. Life also requires DNA, RNA and never has
>any experiment produced DNA or RNA from base materials. Never have
>chains of DNA or RNA been produced.
TOM: Um, yes, they have.
CROW: Hm?
TOM: Scientists *have* synthesized RNA.
MIKE: Tom, how do you know all this stuff?
> A cell membrane has never been
>produced.
MIKE: An enzyme has never known love.
>
> The faith that even one protein arose by chance is tremendous.
TOM: Oh, this guy is so full of skit.
MIKE: Skit?
>Lets look at statistics. Proteins are made up of chains of amino
>acids, just like a train is made up of box cars.
TOM: And just like a box car, proteins carry passengers. Perhaps you
have a city of elves living inside you!
> A chain of box cars
>makes up a train. A chain of amino acids makes up a protein. Humans
>have 20 different types of amino acids that make up our proteins, and
>the average human protein is 400 amino acids long.
CROW: Length doesn't matter, it's what you *do* with your amino acid
chain...
> Remember, the
>arrangement of these amino acids is crucial to the function of the
>protein. If it is the proper arrangement it does its job, if the
>order is mixed up, it is worthless chemical junk.
TOM: Like Zima.
>
> Imagine many box cars at a train station, and these box cars are
>made up of twenty different colors.
CROW: Having trouble imagining it? Get rip roarin' drunk! It helps a *lot!*
> The owner of the station tells
>you he wants a train to be 400 box cars long, and you are to pick the
>combination of colored box cars, but if it is not the order he has in
>mind (and he didn't tell you it) he will fire you.
MIKE: In that case, I'd sue for unlawful termination.
>
> What are the odds you will get the box cars in the right order?
>They are the same odds the amino acids will align themselves by chance
>to make one protein in you. The odds are 20 to the 400th power! This
>is the same as 10 to the 520th power, that is a 1 followed by 520
>zeros! You have better odds of winning California Super Lotto
>
>TOM: <Singing annoyingly> Tricia...Tricia, please waaaake up...
>
> every
>week for 11 years than the odds of one protein in your body having the
>amino acids being properly aligned by chance. The odds are really
>much worse because the amino acids must be left handed,
CROW: So they have a hell of a time using scissors.
> they must form
>a chain "in series," no parallel branching, their shape (proteins are
>wound up like a ball of yarn)
MIKE: Protiens make fun playthings for kitty.
> is crucial, you need an oxygen free
>environment, etc etc. And remember, this is for just one protein.
>Your body has countless trillions of proteins.
CROW: You think maybe the reason Joel always looked so sleepy is because
he was chock full of tryptophane?
>
> The model that a brilliant designer made proteins requires much
>less faith than to trust random chance and natural processes.
>
>
>5) Living Animals
>
>QUESTION: IS CREATION OR EVOLUTION SUPPORTED BY WHAT IS OBSERVED IN
>LIVING ANIMALS?
TOM: Question: Are we sick of this post yet?
>
> The Creation Model predicts animals will reproduce after their own
>kind. The Evolution Model predicts that all plants and animals came
>from a common ancestor.
CROW: Enid McClure of Trenton, New Jersey. Let's hear it for her.
> What is observed every day with living
>animals? Your parents were human, your grandparents were
>human.....
TOM: *Ours* weren't.
> etc, etc etc..that is what is observed and recorded. Dogs
>make dogs, hogs make hogs, frogs make frogs, cats make cats, rats make
>rats (especially in New York)
MIKE: D'ohhooh! It's the wacky side of BillyJack!
TOM: Hyuk, hyuk!
> bats make bats. Every birth since
>recorded time has supported the creation model. The foundation for
>science is observation. What is observed? The Creation model is what
>is observed, animals producing their own kind.
CROW: <BillyJack> I like to watch anmals reproduce. For purely scientific
reasons, of course.
>
>
>6) Dead Animals (Fossils)
>
>QUESTION: DOES THE FOSSIL RECORD SUPPORT CREATION OR EVOLUTION?
MIKE: The fossil record had no comment.
>
>Creation Model Prediction:
TOM: The New York Mets will take home the pennant!
> The fossils will be as easy to classify as
>living forms of plants and animals. There will be variation within
>forms, but no transitional evidence of invertebrates to vertebrates,
>fish to amphibian, amphibian to reptile, reptile to mammal. The
>characteristics of the fossils will be stasis
CROW: Hypno-Helio-Static-Stasis!
> (stay the same) and
>sudden appearance (no transitional forms).
>
>Evolution Model Prediction:
TOM: Liz Taylor will marry again and stay fat.
> The fossils will show the stages through
>which one type of animal or plant changed into a different type.
CROW: Shapeshifters! Aaagghh!!
>Fossils should show the in between characteristics of presumed common
>ancestors (a leg becoming a wing, a scale becoming a feather). A
>series of links would be expected to be seen in fossils.
MIKE: Or so the Germans would have us believe.
>
>Some quotes for you:
TOM: "Madam, I may be drunk, but--"
CROW: "That which does not kill us only--"
MIKE: "The place where optimism most flourishes is--"
TOM: "He learned almost too late that man is a feeling creature--"
CROW: "Time for go to--"
MIKE: Okay, that's enough of that...
>
> "No real evolutionist uses the fossil record as evidence in favor
>of evolution over creation." {Quote by Mark Ridley, zoologist, New
>Science magazine, June 1981 page 831.}
TOM: <Heavy Sarcasm> Ohh, *thank* you, Mr. REAL Evolutionist.
>
> "The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support
>for gradual change..." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, June-July
>1977, page 22.
MIKE: A jailbait quote. Sound scientific evidence.
CROW: "Jailbait...?"
TOM: Oh, I get it.
>
> "The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at
>the tips and nodes of their branches;
MIKE: Ohhh, say "tips and nodes" again...
> the rest is inference, however
>reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." Stephen Jay Gould, Natural
>History Magazine, May 1977, page 14.
TOM: Go to bed, old man!
>
> "Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and
>paleontology does not provide them." David Kitts, Evolution Magazine,
>September 1974, page 467.
CROW: We all know that scientific knowledge doesn't improve much in
twenty-two years.
>
> "The known fossil record fails to document a single example of
>phyletic evolution..."
TOM: Mommy, Steven said a bad word!
> Steven Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and
>Process, 1979, page 39.
MIKE: Steven Stanley, steamin' mad at evolution.
>
> "To the unprejudiced, the fossil record of plants is in favor of
>special creation." E.J. Corner, Botany Professor, in "Evolution in
>Contemporary Botanical Thought, "1961 page 97.
CROW: Nineteen-sixty-one!? Who's he gonna quote next, Pope Paul V?
>
> "The geological record has so far provided no evidence as to the
>origin of the fishes." J.R. Norman, "A History of Fishes," 1975, page
>343.
TOM: Eat them up, yum.
>
> "The origin of rodents is obscure...no transitional forms are
>known." A.S. Romer, "Vertebrate Paleontology," 1966, page 303.
MIKE: <BillyJack> Rodents spring fully-grown from human skulls.
>
> "The [evolutionary] transition to the first mammal ...is still an
>enigma." Roger Lewin, Science Magazine, 26 June 1981, page 1492.
CROW: That was a really bad movie...
>
> "The fossils that decorate our family tree are so scarce that there
>are still more scientists than specimens. The remarkable fact is that
>all the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be
>placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin." Dr. Lyall
>Watson, Science Digest, May 1982, page 44.
MIKE: Well, aren't we morbid.
>
> The above quotes are all from evolutionists! There is a book
>entitled "The Revised Quote Book,"
TOM: Which is very useful for revisionists.
MIKE: Give a copy to the Nazi apologist on your Christmas list.
CROW: Hey, you guys are jumping to conclusions.
> which has over one hundred
>referenced quotes from evolutionists falsifying their own theory.
CROW: Ha ha. Suckers.
>This book and many other books and videos on this subject, applicable
>for all ages and can be procured by calling the Institute for Creation
>Research (619) 448-0900. (I don't work for them, I just am happy to
>provide you with a resource for more information).
MIKE: How objective do you suppose the Institute for Creation Research is?
TOM: Come on, let's go...
<Theatre exodus. Whiirr, shoomp, click, etc.>
MIKE: So, guys, what do you think of this weeks experiment so far?
CROW: I've been trying not to.
TOM: It's a load of horse patooties, is what it is. Total bunk.
MIKE: See, Tom, that's the kind of statement that's gonna offend most
religious people.
TOM: Mike, please. If there's anyone they should be offended by, it's
Mr. BillyJack. It's the fruitcakes that try to force their beliefs on
people who aren't interested that give normal Christians a bad name.
Besides, as I believe I mentioned, unless you insist on interpreting
the Bible literally, why couldn't evolution be the means by which God
created advanced life on Earth?
CROW: Tom?
TOM: Yyyyyeah?
CROW: You're taking this way too seriously.
<Commercial sign light goes off>
MIKE: We'll be back in a moment <slaps button>.
<More commercials! Think flowers.>
<Back to the theater>
>
>CHALLENGE:
CROW: Riddle me this, Batman!
>The next time you see a case made for a human ancestor, determine what
>the actual fossil evidence is, and then decide for yourself if the
>conclusions fit the data. Recently from a piece of one shin bone, the
>"scientists" told us
TOM: Oh, criminy. <Sighs> Look, you can believe whatever you want, but don't
drag God into science.
> what this "ancestor" looked like, how he lived,
>where he lived and how long ago he lived.
CROW: <Scientist> Ahh, his name was Todd, he was a file clerk, he lived
in Akron, Ohio in the late 70's.
> Decide for yourself if you
>think that a piece of one shin bon can objectively tell you that much
>information, or is it someone's imagination that takes a little data
>(one shin bone) and turns it into a human ancestor or a "missing
>link."
MIKE: <BillyJack> I have decided for myself not to name the scientist,
date, or situation in which this event transpired.
> (Remember, there is a great variety within a species. A pro
>football player has bigger thicker shin bones than a child, but they
>are both human).
TOM: Thank you, Dr. Obvious.
>
>
>7) THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION KEEPS EVOLVING
CROW: Rather appropriate.
>
>QUESTION: IF YOU BELIEVE IN THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION, WHICH THEORY DO
>YOU BELIEVE IN?
>
MIKE: That one. No, wait, that one.
> It is true that there a couple of different Creation theories
>circulating today. Some people think God used evolution to create.
TOM: <BillyJack> Those sons of bitches.
>Some believe in two creations, (the Gap Theory).
CROW: The theory that God created all those The Gap stores?
MIKE: Makes sense to me.
> Both of these ideas
>are new, unbiblical and unscientific (they do not comply with
>observable evidence).
TOM: Oh, like we've *ever* observed God.
> The literal account of Genesis (what I believe)
MIKE: Okay, he's a Biblical literalist. Open season, guys.
TOM: Muah hah hahhh...
>is thousands of years old and has not changed for thousands of years.
CROW: Some people would call it a little dated, but they're wrong.
TOM: Yeah, how many people do you see coveting their neighbor's oxen
these days?
> It is also true that just because many theories may exist to
>explain something, does not mean that every explanation is false.
MIKE: <BillyJack> Just yours.
> The general point of the Theory of Evolution is that life
>originated as single celled organisms and over time became all the
>living things we see today.
CROW: Kiss the paramecium! Show respect for your elders!
> All evolutionists seem to agree with
>that. The science end of that conclusion is the mechanism. It is
>with the science end that the evolutionists disagree vehemently with
>each other.
TOM: This has lead to many a slap-fight at MIT.
> My teachers never told me that the "scientists" disagreed
>on the mechanism of evolution, I had always been lead to feel
>comfortable that the "scientists" agreed on how evolution occurred.
> However the students and public are never told about these
>conflicts. It is similar to a family fight being kept private.
CROW: <Hushed> Never tell anyone what goes on in this house.
>However I feel the ramifications are so important, that all students
>should be told about it. Students should ask their instructor: "Which
>Theory of Evolution are you teaching us?"
MIKE: Yeah, that's a good way to get lots of nasty glares from everyone
else in the class.
> Remember, the science of Evolution is the mechanism.
TOM: Yeah, whatever.
> Mechanism #1 was Darwin's, also know as Darwinian Evolution or
>Gradualism, or think of "slow" evolution. Darwin proposed animals
>evolved into other animals by small, gradual steps.
MIKE: Baby step to lungs...baby step to lungs...baby step to lungs...
baby steps to living on dry land...
> There are two
>problems with this, no living evidence and no fossil evidence (as
>previously discussed).
CROW: Oh, we should expect *lots* of living evidence of a process that
takes place over the span of thousands of years.
TOM: Especially since we've only been looking for it for just over a hundred,
maybe two hundred years or so.
> Many evolutionists recognize this problem. One evolutionist who
>recognizes this very problem is Stephen Jay Gould, a Professor of
>Geology at Harvard, and perhaps the most prominent evolutionist in the
>United States.
ALL: And an old friend.
> Dr. Gould and others had one of three choices to make
>regarding the empirical evidence:
> 1) Hold onto Gradualism despite the lack of evidence to support it.
TOM: <Singing> Hold on for one more dayyy...
> 2) Accept the Genesis account that an intelligent designer instantly
>created plants and animals
MIKE: Didja let your hand rest on the space bar for a minute there?
> and these plants and animals would
>reproduce after their own kind.
> 3) Reject Gradualism and come up with a new theory.
CROW: <Dr. Gould> Scrap it boys, some crackpot on the internet has us
figured out.
>
> What do you think they chose? If you guess #3 you are correct. A
>new Theory arose.
TOM: Oh, like good scientific theories never change.
> This Theory is called "Punctual Equilibrium," a big
>long scary word
CROW: Yeah, if you only read at a third grade level.
> that means the changes happened too fast to be
>observed. If you inquire into this, be ready to be "comforted" by the
>response:
MIKE: Just hold me. Tell me it'll be alright.
> "you must understand...fast in Evolutionary terms can be
>millions of years."
CROW: Do you want to go faster...?
MIKE & TOM: Yaaaayyy...
CROW: Raise your hands if you want to go faster...
> But don't lose focus! Whether these "fast"
>changes occurred over one million or four billion years, they were
>still unobserved. The foundation of science is observation. The
>punctuated equilibria camp admit there is no observational evidence to
>support their belief.
TOM: <Losing it> YES! That's RIGHT! There is NO WAY FOR SCIENTISTS TO
OBSERVE SOMETHING THAT TAKES PLACE OVER SEVERAL MILLION YEARS!!! AAAARRGHH!!
MIKE: Tom, Tom, take it easy!
TOM: Don't touch me.
> Their presupposed conclusion drives them to
>gloss over observational evidence. They will not allow anything,
>including evidence, to falsify their belief that the Theory of
>Evolution is truth.
CROW: Because they're evil, and have a hidden agenda.
>
> A third Theory of Evolution is that God used Evolution to create.
>These people have the same science problems the atheists have...no
>observational evidence.
CROW: Ride the waves, Tom. Don't let it get to you.
> They have even more problems (if their God is
>the God of the Bible).
MIKE: <BillyJack> Which it probably isn't. If you're an evolutionist you
probably worship Dagon.
> There are no verses to support their belief.
>They typically will say Genesis is not literal, and explain the
>original Hebrew supports this.
CROW: Hmmm...how do they say "we can't dance" in Israel?
> Unfortunately for them, the original
>Hebrews took it literally and so did hundreds of generations of Hebrew
>scholars after them.
TOM: Ancient Hebrews knew a lot more about the world than modern man. Right.
> These people should not be so quick to twist a
>clear message by interpreting what it says in the Hebrew, when the
>Hebrew experts would disagree with them. My opinion
CROW: Oh, *do* tell us your opinion.
> is that peer
>pressure resulted in these people's conclusions more than an in depth
>study of the Hebrew language.
MIKE: A conspiratorial air is always nice to fall back on.
>
>
>8) CAUSE AND EFFECT
>
>QUESTION: IS THERE ANY CAUSE FOR THE UNIVERSE, OR FOR YOU?
CROW: Tom, Joel didn't want me to tell you this, but...you were an accident.
MIKE: Crow!
>
> Cause and effect is the most basic scientific principle. It is
>fundamental to all branches of science as well as philosophy.
TOM: Philosophy?
> Cause and effect is the principle that an event which is observed,
>can be traced to an event that preceded it.
MIKE: Yes, assuming you have a *record* of the event that preceeded it...
TOM: You see where he's going with this, don't you?
> For example, an observed
>event (an effect) could be a house, the cause is a place to live. An
>observed event could be a painting, the cause is beauty or expression.
MIKE: But is it *ART!?*
> Creationists trace the entire Universe to a "First Cause," God.
>Atheists say there was not a "First Cause," for the Universe.
> Isn't it curious that Evolutionary Scientists accept the principle
>of cause and effect EXCEPT when it comes to origins?
CROW: I guess it is, if you don't have anything else to think about.
> An Evolutionary
>Scientist would argue that there was a cause for a chair, but not for
>a human being.
MIKE: Well, no, he wouldn't.
[end part 2]
-- Brian Pacula (http://users.aol.com/gb8b/)