Re: Glenn wrote:

Ron Chitwood (
Tue, 26 May 1998 16:07:47 -0500

>>>Fraud means
that one knows what he is doing is false but does it anyway. There was
data supporting the apish view of neanderthal but it turns out to have been
wrong. <<<<

Non sequitur again. Where do you get the idea I used the term 'fraud'?
Come to think of it, many museums did NOT change their dioramas even though
the truth was different from their exhibits. Isn't that fraud by your

>>>>Orgel??? an antievolutionist????? I think it is an atrocious
> misrepresentation for anyone to claim that Leslie Orgel is an
> antievolutionist considering that he is one of the leading origin of life
> researchers. He was coauthor with Joyce of "Prospects for Understanding
> the Origin of the RNA World" in The RNA World ed. R. F. Gesteland and J.
> Atkins, circa p. 19<<<

Quote from Hayward's book CREATION AND EVOLUTION, pp. 15. "We must explain
how a prebiotic soup of organic molecules...evolved into a self-replicating
organism. While some suggestive evidence has been obtained, I must admit
that attempts to reconstruct this evolutionary process are extremely
tentative. The origin of the genetic code is the most baffling aspect of
the problem of the origins of life and a major conceptual or experimental
breakthrough may be needed before we can make any substantial progress"
This sounds to me like an evolutionist who at least questions his theory
and admits that large questions appear that are, at present, unanswerable.

Another is Erik Nordenskjold, an Scandinavian biologist, writing in THE
HISTORY OF BIOLOGY, translated 1929, " Darwin's theory of Origin of Species
was 'long ago abandoned. Other facts established by Darwin are all of
2nd-rate value'. This quote came from CREATION AND EVOLUTION by Hayward,
pp. 21. He specified the source of this quote, but not the page number.

>>>You, and unfortunately Alan, miss entirely the point. They may disagree
> with the mechanism of evolution, a Darwinistic gradualism, but they don't
> doubt evolution. Darwinian gradualism is not the only view inspite of
> certain people write.<<<

Darwinian gradualism, neo-Darwinism, PE or the 'hopeful monster' theory are
just ideas at odds over the details of evolution. One really has only 2
choices. A) chance+environment+time - or B) creation by design

>>>You appeared to be claiming that the dove was proof of a global flood.
> merely pointed out that it wasn't.<<<<
Agreed. The dove had nothing to do it. The scripture, as you are well
aware, was pointing out the nature of the flood, how it covered the whole
earth, or land, or whatever you want it to read. THAT was the point I was
making but your somewhat sophomoric answer was a typical attempt to deflect
that fact.

Trust in the LORD with all your heart,
and do not rely on your own insight.. Pr. 3:5
Ron Chitwood