Date: Sat, 6 Mar 2004 14:36:31 +0000 (GMT)
To: nmsrdaveATswcp.com (please replace the AT with an "@")
From: "Hermit" <hermit_au@yahoo.com>
Subject: Your Put Up or Shut Up Award

Hi,

I thought your award to Dr. Sarfati was a little stupid. I've always understood the biblical "kind" to be ... if two animals can breed and produce fertile offspring then they are of the same kind.

Your demand that Creationists produce a list of all the kinds is unreasonable and ridiculous. Obviously, creationists can't produce a list of all the kinds; to do so, they would have to conduct breeding experiments with millions of animal combinations ... rather beyond their resources, I would think. Still, the definition is plain enough.

And you can ridicule all you like, but science has yet to demonstrate anything coming from nothing. Science has never demonstrated something non-living becoming alive. There has never been any demonstration of evolution involving the addition of useful genetic information - only new forms which result from a loss of information. The fossil record shows anything but the gradual evolution of animals.

It seems to me that the evolutionists are the ones who need to put up or shut up.

Regards,

Kerry Green.

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 01:29:23 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Hermit" <hermit_au@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Your Put Up or Shut Up Award
To: "Dave Thomas" nmsrdaveATswcp.com> (please replace the AT with an "@")

Hi again, Dave.

You say you find my "assertion to be totally and completely wrong", then ignore everything I said, challenging and disproving none of it.

You just ignore the definitions Creationists do give, then say they won't give definitions. You also mis-state the arguments of Creationists, and then accuse them of not backing up what they say with science. The "unwritten axiom" of creationists that you supply is "unwritten" because its not what Creationists believe or say.

Let me quote from the AiG website: "From Genesis 1, the ability to produce offspring, i.e. to breed with one another, defines the original created kinds. ... If two animals or two plants can hybridize (at least enough to produce a truly fertilized egg), then they must belong to (i.e. have descended from) the same original created kind." This was published in May/June 2000. For more qualifying information and greater depth, see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/docs/v22n3_liger.asp.

If two animals can breed together and produce fertile offspring, they are of the same kind. To look at the examples you gave: if horses and zebras can breed together and produce fertile young, they are of the same kind (I believe they can, but not sure). If bison and cattle can breed together and produce fertile offspring, they are of the same kind. Humans and chimps are not of the same kind, because they cannot breed together and produce fertile offspring.

That's 2 times now I have stated to you what the KINDS are, and please note the AiG information was published at least 4 years ago - so please stop saying Creationists won't give definitions. This information has been published MANY TIMES and for MANY YEARS - hence, your "Put Up or Shut Up Award" is given ignorantly and without basis, as one has come to expect from evolutionists.

It's NOT ABOUT whether small changes can ever add up to a big change - but how interesting that you already know (without any evidence) that the Creationists "unwritten axiom" is "obviously false".

Micro and Macro-evolution are your terms, not theirs. What Creationists generally believe is that some changes can and do occur, but this is always due to the loss or corruption of genetic information. No changes, small or large, ever occur (without human intervention) due to the "accidental" addition of new useful genetic information. That's what your "pond scum to man" evolution scenario needs (millions of times) - but doesn't have any evidence for.

Thus, Creationists do not accept that tracing changes from wolves to poodles, for instance, is evidence of true evolution, as such changes are within a kind. Creationists accept that changes within a kind do occur (due to the loss or corruption of genetic information), and have no conflict with natural selection.

However, to be honest, surely you admit that the fossil record does not show a succession of small changes which ever add up to a big change? There is no gradual progression evident in the fossil record at all.

regards,

Kerry.

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 02:02:32 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Hermit" <hermit_au@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Your Put Up or Shut Up Award
To: "Dave Thomas" nmsrdaveATswcp.com> (please replace the AT with an "@")

So its not a DEFINITION of Kinds you want now, it's a list? As I have stated earlier, "Your demand that Creationists produce a list of all the kinds is unreasonable and ridiculous. Obviously, creationists can't produce a list of all the kinds; to do so, they would have to conduct breeding experiments with millions of animal combinations ... rather beyond their resources, I would think. Still, the definition is plain enough."

And as Dr Sarfati put it: "Tell you what: first you provide a list of all the true 'biological species' in the world as defined by reproductive isolation. Please provide a statistical analysis about how many 'biological species' correspond to a taxonomic single so-called 'species', and how many so-called 'genera' and even 'families' are really a single polytypic 'biological species'".

You say "your letter is plagued by the same old mistakes and untruths that creationists have been telling for a lot longer than four years". I will answer the two examples you provide when I have time - although it has probably already been done by others.

Your position is basically dishonest. There are no "oft-disproved creationist fantasies". You are not slaying the slain more than once - Creationism has yet to be slain. You adopt the usual evolutionist stance and declare yourself the victor in a debate without putting up a sound or reasonable argument.

One day you will stand before God, and will then know that the fantasizing was on the part of the evolutionists. "Every knee will bow, and every tongue will confess, that Jesus Christ is Lord". I pray that you will face the truth before that day.

regards,

Kerry.

Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 02:10:29 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Hermit" <hermit_au@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Your Put Up or Shut Up Award
To: "Dave Thomas" nmsrdaveATswcp.com> (please replace the AT with an "@")

I note the following dishonesty:

Your site: "The reason Sarfati was given the "Put Up or Shut Up" Award was that he described, in his figure 3 of the "True Creationist Orchard," a model that creationists have never, ever defined. No creationist has ever had the guts to define what the "baramin" (kinds) actually are, and for good reason."

• Dr. Sarfati gets the award for failing to define "Kinds".

•  I show you that there was a definition published four years ago.

• You then reply "no, creationists have NEVER supplied the list of  "kinds"."

So you give an award for NO DEFINITION, you find out there WAS a definition, so then you suggest the problem was there was no LIST (which you know would be impossible to supply - and evolutionists have never published an equivalent list either).

No wonder Creationists can never satisfy you and your ilk, and your dishonesty is noted.

regards,

Kerry.

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm has been adequately answered by AiG: "another example of a ‘defect’ being an advantage, but totally irrelevant to evolution."

The website above gives an example of "new information", using the computer ASCII code by way of explanation. They (attempt to) show how a mutation can result in "new information".

Of course, Creationists accept that mutations occur, and readily acknowledge that this can sometimes result in changes which are not detrimental to the survivability of the organism, and may actually be advantageous. This DOES NOT SHOW new information being added to the genes. This is accidental mutation resulting in different information — the organism has not increased in complexity — there is no movement, no evolutionary progress towards a different "kind" of being - and that is what evolutionists must demonstrate to establish their theory of evolution of all life from one ancestor.

http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html: Here we have two foram fossils which are similar but different. Evolutionists theorize that the one has evolved from the other, or both have evolved from a common ancestor, and that the differences evident are the result of slow change.

Please note, this is very likely to be change within a single Kind, which Creationists have no problem with. It does not demonstrate gradual change from one kind to another, and so has no relevence to the Creation/evolution debate. Further, animals which are similar but not identical are not uncommon - look at the varieties of elephants which exist today - hardly evidence for evolution. Such animals have almost certainly come from a single ancestor kind. Similarly, Creationists believe that lions and tigers are of the one kind, and that their ancestors, created by God, contained virtually all the genes now present in lions and tigers.

Note, too, that these alleged changes (mentioned in the web page above) have occurred in single-celled entities, and do not show the addition of new genetic information. In fact, they may show the loss of genetic information. Evolutionists want to use this "evolution" from foram to foram to prove their "pond scum to man" evolutionary belief?  Gradual change within a species is hardly remarkable and proof of nothing.

Even where similarities exist between different "kinds", this is not evidence of evolution or gradual progression. Similarities exist because certain forms are successful and functional, and because they have a common Designer, in much the same way that different Boeing aircraft share similarities in design.

Sadly, we find over and over that evolutionists present "evidence" like the above, which does not conflict in any way with the stated beliefs of Creationists, then proclaim that they have proven their "pond scum to man" evolutionary belief and won the Creation/evolution debate. It is pitiful and pathetic.

Then they use put-downs and suggest there is no point debating further "... I could find numerous other rebuttals, but what's the point? You haven't shown anything beyond the ability to regurgitate oft-disproved creationist fantasies".

You see - they produce NO EVIDENCE, CLAIM THEY HAVE PROVEN THEIR CASE, and "CAN'T BE BOTHERED" TO PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER.

I trust any person with integrity will see their tactics for what they are - dishonest posturing, without substance of any kind to prove their fanciful theories.

Against such fanatical athiestic belief we will probably make little ground, but creation-believing scientists (and there are plenty of them) engage in the debate so that you can see that you can trust the Bible, you can believe what God says. The world will hate you and call you a fool, because they hated Jesus and will hate those who follow Him.

Nevertheless, you are not a fool -

“The fool has said in his heart 'There is no God'”.

“For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools.”

Romans 1: 20- 22 (NIV)

PostScript:

Dave has contacted me a number of times recently, insisting that I publish further emails I have received from him. Mind you, another email he sent me he has forbidden me from publishing. Dave obviously believes that he should be permitted to control the content of creationist's web sites, not unlike Roger Scott (see Sarfati Stumped! Oh Really?). I believe that the correspondence has gone far enough, and there is nothing to be gained from continuing ad nauseum. Dave will probably never accept that there is a Creator God, and I will never accept the nonsence that a human being can appear from non-living pond scum by random chance. Whilst I considered publishing one more of his emails, I am not willing to publish everything he cares to write on the subject indefinately. One has to stop somewhere.

Dave does not believe he is dishonest. I think he is, for the reason clearly spelt out in the above correspondence. He thinks I have acted without a "modicum of human decency". I don't think I've misrepresented him in any way. Apparently, he thinks he is allowed to ridicule and disparage Dr. Sarfati, giving him insulting "awards" for reasons which turn out to be completely baseless, but I am without a modicum of human decency for daring to publish his emails to me on the subject. (He has quoted Dr Sarfati's emails to him on his web page, but that is quite different, apparently.)