Re: i am new

Glenn R. Morton (
Thu, 04 Jun 1998 22:14:27 -0500

At 04:48 PM 6/4/98 -0700, Steven Warren Blake wrote:
>I am new to this topic of creation. I want to learn more, but it
>seems terribly complicated. Can you point me in a direction to learn
>the basics about some of the more common theories?

If you want to know the young-earth creationist position then there is no
better work then John Whitcomb and Henry Morris' The Genesis Flood.

The Progressive creation Position you need to read people like Hugh Ross

Theistic evolution, Howard van Till.

>I am not sure that I agree with your views but I am impressed with
>the way they are thought out. The logic seems mostly solid. I am curious
>to know: how sure is science about the pseudogene not having a
>purpose? It seems like things in the past which have no purpose
>have been found to have a use afterall.

It is impossible to prove a negative. Thus it is impossible to prove that
there is no function for the pseudogene. However, given that the processed
pseudogenes discussed by Edward Max are identical to working genes except
that they are missing the instructions on how to use the information, I
personally doubt there is a function for them. It is something like trying
to read a disk written by a TI 99-4a computer from the early 1980s. The
'instructions' on how to read such a thing (the disk drive) is missing today.

>one more question about your logic from a webpage of yours:
>" If you remember the
>verse Genesis 3:19 God said, "for dust you are and to dust you shall
>return." A dead body is "dust." Adam came from dust and to dust he now
>will return.~
>Those who will object that a dead body is not "dust" should consider this.
>If you say that 'dust" must be DUST, then why does God call the
>living Adam 'dust'? Genesis 3:19 states, "...for dust you are and to dust
>you will return." (NIV) When that was spoken Adam was a living being
>and so the dust does not mean dirt! And one can not ignore the fact that
>when Adam died he would become a corpse(i.e. a return to dust). "
>You say that a dead body is dust. "Then why does God call the living Adam
>'dust'?" By your own logic this cannot mean that a dust is a dead body.

I think God was pointing out to Adam (and now to us) that we are not
separate from the creation no matter how much we think of ourselves. The
material that Adam was made from was dust, the material that his body now
is, is dust and he will return to dust (at his death). In the article on
my web page I was emphasizing the fact that at death adam would return to
dust, a cadaver, and equating it with his beginning (something no one had
done before and many don't like). Only by doing what I suggested can I
have a special creation of Adam AND explain the connection with the apes.
The genetic and molecular data clearly shows we are related to the apes. I
either give up the special creation of man and go strictly with evolution,
or I do what I did.


Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information