Have you looked for mutations? If not, then what is your basis for
this claim? If you are not a professional biologists, how can you
judge this matter? <This assumes that evolution is a fact, whereas it is not
even a provable scientific theory.>
The scientific community considers it a validated model of reality as
it has passed every test for validity so far. The alternative to
evolution is a vast series of miracles all through geological time,
so carried out as to exactly resemble an evolutionary sequence.
If you mean by proof an absolute determination as being true, this is
not what any science can offer.  <Using the scientific method, one must be 
able to observe & repeat to demonstrate the veracity of a hypothesis.  
When the hypothesis is demonstrated to be true under numerous testings 
and observations, it becomes a theory. Evolution is not demonstratable, 
repeatable, or observable, therefore it is not a working hypothesis, 
therefore it cannot become a scientific theory>
Evolution is descent with modification and a change in alleles over
time in a population. These events are seen repeatedly in the lab and
in nature. These experiments have been repeated. They have been
observed. What more do you want, a replay of the Jurassic period?
New species have been seen to appear in nature and have been produced
in the lab. They were fruit flies. I can give the names of the newly
produced species if you wish. Tell me the source of the scientific
professional literature which refutes evolution and accepts animals
and plants without ancestors and a young earth+universe.
Variations from one species has been observed, as I said. Larger
changes to genus or higher classifications can not occur in nature in
the short time scientists have been observing nature. The fossil
record is the place to look for these larger changes. They are
reflected in the differences and similarities in protein and DNA
sequences beteen organisms. If you wish to refute the data in Strahler 
and Dalrymple, then read their books or similar material available 
elsewhere. 
It is not hard to get hold of modern geological literature in Tulsa.
The technical data of age determination is quite complex in detail and
an untrained person would have to study a considerable amount to judge
this material. The core of the evidence is that the study of
radioactive elements and their daughter products give the time since
the rock was formed. The rate of decay can not be modified by normal
processes. The species of past ages are not the same as modern species and
modern species are less represented as one goes back farther in time.
No modern species is found in the Mesozoic or before. 
The second law speaks of energy and heat. My thermo books do not
discuss relating it to biological evolution.

The works of I. Prigogine do discuss the evolution of complex self
organizing chemical systems. This has application to chemical systems
associated with life processes. Tell me the details of the Creation Model of
reality derived totally from observation of physical reality.
I note you did not reference any professional journal about the
date-fossil relationship but some story about a museum guide of
unknown education. The date of the formations is determined by
radioactive dating of ignious minerals formed at that time.
The uniqueness of the fossils of each period is a fact, determined
long before Darwin wrote anything and verified by world wide
observations ever since then. How much geological experience have you
personally had?  I have done this material for decades guided by
professional geologists. The rocks contain material of a radioactive nature 
and these are clocks keeping time since the formation was deposited. 
There WAS a Cambrian period and do you deny it? The exact details of
dating are still a matter of study but nothing supports any exception
to the general outline of geological time scales. The library is full of books 
on these subjects if you can not find  Strahler. I bought my own copy.
The central idea of all this is that you are attempting to judge
material you are not familiar with and that leaves you unprepared to
judge the subject. You have no direct experience in geology and
paleontology.
=============
When you buy into a religion, you lose the power to critically judge
its claims as your mind is molded to see all things in agreement with your
faith. Things opposed to it are all automatically wrong and even evil, to be
opposed with all methods possible. It is easy to be religious. It takes little
knowledge or intelligence to do so, just a ready emotional system, apparently
common throughout the race. Think how many different religions there are, all
based on faith. Christians used to claim that the sun went around the earth,
based on many parts of the Bible. They also used to burn people at the stake.
Why did they change? Might they once more return to the old ways if they once
more obtain great political power? 
I have NEVER met a Christian who had a general opposition to the God commanded
baby slaughter in the OT. When you have convinced that these things were
morally acceptable, the torturing and killing of others becomes much easier.
---------------
It appears that ideas based totally on emotion cannot be considered evidence
for much of anything. It appears to be similar to falling in love. Emotions
are not a reliable guide to physical reality.
All religions are accepted by faith and there is a wide diversity in ideas
accepted as true by the followers. That shows that faith is not a reliable
guide to reality and validity.
Those who claim they communicate with one or more deities report a wide
variety of conflicting ideas received. Is it more likely that the deities are
telling each person something different or that people are deluding
themselves?
-------------
I have seen no evidence that any deity exists. I have seen that
 people invent deities to explain nature and attempt to control it.
All attempts I have seen to "prove" the reality of a deity have
derived from misunderstanding of the facts of nature or a will to
 believe some religious tradion for personal reasons.
 It is one thing to not have adequate knowledge concerning observed
 events like those in nature and another thing to admit ignorance on
ideas not derived from observation, like the idea of a deity.
If you propose to support the reality of invisible silent deities
known ONLY from ancient traditions from the childhood of the race or
from emotional feelings, then it is up to you to show the proposed
deity is real rather than imaginary. It is not up to me to disprove
this tradition. 
Science arose in Christian Europe where belief in the Christian God
was very common. The early scientists tried bravely to explain nature
in terms of the Bible traditions. like the Flood, and the personal
intervention of God. After centuries of failure to obtain any
scientific success with this approach, it has been eliminated from
modern scientific models. You propose that an error was made by
eliminating the activities of God in scientific models. How can this
be demonstrated since no progress has occurred in the past with this
approach and much success has occurred in ignoring all deity stories.
Individual scientists have told of their personal faith in God but
they realize that this is a personal choice not associated with the
science they practice, and never included in their scientific models.
The term "by accident" carries philosophical baggage not useful in
scientific work. Things in nature occur by operation of natural law
and adding the activities of a deity has never increased the
predictive power of any scientific model. 
If ghosts, ESP, aliens and such in the fringe of science really
exist, then eventually adequate scientific evidence will develop.
Some problems are difficult to investigate and time must pass before
it is adequately tested and studied.
Look how long an adequate explanation for the rainbow was developed.
I have investigated ESP for some years and my experiments tend to
support its reality. Present science can not explain it and has shown
some of the investigators made errors and even hoaxes.
If I am expected to believe a religion with no evidence, which of the
thousands of faiths am I to accept uncritically, Mormon, Catholic, J.
Witnesses, snake handlers, Christian Science, Koresh teachings, or
even your present faith? If I accept your present faith, what if you
get another insight and change your beliefs in whole or in part? Am I
supposed to change my mind because you changed yours?
Which of these religious ideas should be coupled with science to make
a good combination to solve problems? 
I read widely in the area of religion and the more I read the less
believable the stories seem. 
 
<We see life on earth is no accident but demonstrates DESIGN
and there is no design without a DESIGNER>
The term design here has two meanings, one involving complexity and 
the other involving an intelligent creater. The fact of complexity 
does not necessarily involve a personality. This is creationist 
propaganda. Unless you know far more than you apparently do, you 
don't know enough to make this claim.
<As for the Bible, it's outlived ALL its critics. >
It is still around but it is no longer regarded as a good authority 
on science. The universe appears to have a long evolutionary history 
rather than a short magical history.
<Now they know that there are more than 150 different
things ABSOLUTELY essential and that must be congruent for even the 
most elementary forms of life to have the slimmest chance of survival.
If things were not like they are, then we would not be here to 
comment on it, however unlikely it is. It is possible that life is 
more likely than you can imagine. It appeared within less than a 
billion years of the formation of the earth
apparently by natural processes. Since the details are still 
partially a mystery, you can propose as many miracles as please you.
That is called "God of the Gaps" which is proposed as explanations 
for any present scientific mystery. When science fills that gap, 
then this deity retreats to another gap, to run things by miracle.
==============

The Christian churches over the ages have seen most or all science as an
attack on the ultimate truth system vital to the wellbeing of all mankind.
That is why they felt necessary to use ALL methods to eliminate these
automatically mistaken, therefore satanic, ideas from
public expression. Galileo's opinions struck at the vital regions of the
TRUTH as they  understood it at the time that they felt it
necessary to threaten him with torture and settled for a public apology
and lifelong house arrest. The Christians of the US thought modern science
was so evil that they felt it necessary to threaten thousands of public
school teachers with prison if they taught any
such matters. These laws were in full effect in several states with no
serious opposition from the Christian commumity, so it obviously
represents the majority viewpoint. It was not the love and wisdom of the
Christian community which ended it but the Federal court system.
At one time they had a major crusade against witchcraft and now is is
almost wiped out. Maybe if they get the power they desire, the same
methods will suffice to stamp out equally satanic science.
========
Obviously the Flood story in the Bible did not occur as described.
There is not the additional 5.5 miles of water needed to flood the
world. There is no way to get rid of it. The water of the earth is
known within a few percent. The Handbook of Chemistry and Physics in
the geophysics section gives the total earth water. The atmosphere
carries only one inch on the average. The polar caps if melted would
contribute only about 200 feet and the polar caps preserve 160,000
yearly layers over 2 miles of earlier ice. The maximum evaporation
rate is 160 inches a year in the desert. The ocean sediments show the
end of the ice age was the last world event about 12,000 years ago. 
The preservation of salt and  gypsum surface deposits would not
occur. The distribution of animals and plants show long periods of
occupation and not migration from Turkey. The great genetic diversity
of animals and humans shows no bottleneck the Noah story would cause.
The disease smallpox could not survive in only 8 people. The required
environments of all living things would no longer exist. half of all
species live in rain forests. This and many other problems, like the
energy involved in such an event, show the Noah story did not occur,
The traditional date was about 2500 BC and many civilizations existed
at this time. 
=============

The main difference between comparing molecular similarity between species and
building materials is the buildings are not alive and do not have a genetic
code to mutate and be passed on to offspring. Skyscrapers do not lay bricks
which hatch out cottages to grow into other skyscrapers. Your comparison is
not a good model. The fundamental law of biology is that since the first cell
or cells, The fossil record shows a sequence of living things which constitute
either a true series of evolutionary events or a vast series of special
creations indistinguishable from such a sequence. Since descent with variation
is commonly seen and special creations from nothing has never been seen the
naturalistic explanation is to be the logical choice. 
The fossil record is incomplete as almost all living things do not 
get fossilized. That means that the common numerous individuals are
most likely to be fossilized and found and rare unstable
intermediates living in small habitats are very unlikely to be
fossilized and found by paleontologists. There are enough fossils to
give a good set of data points to determine evolutionary changes. The
mammals of the Karoo formation shows an amazing variety of
intermediate stages in the modification of the reptile jaw form to
the mammals jaw form, with special reference to changes in hingeing
and incorporation of jaw bones to become part of the ear bones used for
impedance matching.
The Journal of Geological Education and American Biology Teacher,
(about 1981) had a three volume issue on these mammal like reptiles.
The rate of mutation of any particualar codon is apparently constant 
but the selective pressure to preserve the resulting change is not
constant. Thus certain parts of a molecule may be restricted in its
form and others parts might be quite variable. 
The 98% identity between the chimp and human DNA supports a common
ancestor not too far back. This is supported by the fossil sequence
showing the same sequence toward a common ancestor. The presence of
common psuedogenes are too much tobe just a coincidence. Psuedogenes
are noncoding genes once active before a mutation deactivated them.
The DNA of modern birds contains the instructions for producing
teeth, of a reptilian structure. These can be made to express
themselves if mesochyme is added to the growth medium. 
This is discussed in HEN'S TEETH AND HORSE'S TOES by Gould.
The horse once had side toes, now fragmentary internal structures.
Fossil horses had these side toes externally. The fetal modern horse
has tiny hoofs on these reduced side toes. The fetal form of the
Whalebone whale develops teeth which go away before birth.
None of this makes sense outside of an evolutionary model of reality.
That is why the scientific community accepts this model rather 
than the model based on ancient Hebrew tribal traditions.
The newsgroup talk.origins has much discussion of htis material and
has a FAQ area on the internet documanting much of this material.
at   http://rumba.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/    .
=============
<Ken Ham is a highly respected creationist >
Does the scientific community respect his claims? What are his discoveries in
geology or any other area of science? What has he published in the
professional literature?
His work is in religion, not science. 
The scientific community decides what is valid science and their
professional journals accept evolution to be a valid model of reality. 
Almost all of biology and geology works assumes evolution is valid and none
refute it. Which technical journals accept a young earth+universe, animals
without ancestors and a world wide flood?
The idea of an ancient earth and the sequence of geological periods was
established long before Darwin published his Origin and other works. Much of
this work was done by people who were Christians.
The divisions between the different periods are marked by changes in
deposition and a change in fossils found there.  They could determine the
order of deposition by the idea that in undisturbed layers, the older are
beneath the younger,(Steno). An old earth is the ONLY model which explains
what is observed. The earlier geologists could not determine the absolute date
of these formations, only the relative age. Atomic dating allowed absolute
determination of ignious rock ages
associated with these formations.
All of this system is internally consistent and obeys the laws of
nature and these processes can be seen taking place on earth today. 
This system has been found to have great predictive value in finding mineral
wealth. Good predictive power is the measure of the validity of the
assumptions and methods of a scientific system.
In science, all ideas and claims are open for investigation and none
are immune to criticism. It is not bigotry to point out factual errors in
scientific claims. It happens all the time in the
professional literature. Ham is free to speak and publish all he wants. The
scientists are not trying to have him put into prison or physically attack
him. 
Creationism was the world view of many early scientists but the earth and
universe showed a completely different sequence of events than that described
in the tribal traditions of the ancient Hebrews.
The scientists went with the evidence and this approach led to valid
predictions and logical models of reality, leaving out magic and myth. 
================
There is nothing in the whole of geology to support a world wide flood. It is
not found as a modern model in modern geology works.
The story violates too many laws of nature and more rational explanations are
available to explain the observed fossils and formations. Many of the
formations are not flood deposits, like salt, limestone, slate, lava, gypsum,
anhydrite and such. 
Most fossils are not modern species and modern species are not found
associated with the extinct fossils. The magnetic field directions in the
formations show long periods of time involving repeated reveral of the field
direction. The continental drift effect took millions of years to occur. 
There have been ice ages all through geological time, by the tillite observed
and glacial scratches on bed rock. 
There is no physical process by which the atmosphere could support much more
than the one inch of water observed. 
If you propose water in vast caverns gushed out, where are these
caverns and how much water was involved and what would force the water
out?
Where can I go to see the vast ignious outpouring you mention, which occurred
about 2600 BC? 
=========

glk
(This concerns a creationist)
You stated he was an engineer. Does that mean he has no direct professional 
experience in geology, biology and paleontology? Could you list his major 
claims, like a young earth and universe, animals and plants without ancestors, 
a world wide flood a few thousands of years ago, the sun standing still and 
backing up or any other standard creationist claim?
Has he had any scientific success in applying his radically different model of 
the earth and universe? I can only add my personal limited geological and 
paleontological experience to the discission. Others with vastly more 
authority would be the ones to discuss the matter in adequate detail. I have 
read much of this type material from the ICR and similar organizations. It 
all reduces to special pleading to admit as unquestionable fact the details 
of Genesis, all based on faith in the Bible.
There are many who claim to have alternate world views superior to the 
standard model. Velikovsky is one of the more famous ones. His wild astronomy 
is supported by those who doubt the reality of standard gravitational 
mechanics. The scientific community has had enough revisions in the last 
400 years to produce an appreciation that science can not be based of fixed 
dogmas. 
There are well established systems which seem to closely match physical 
reality, like the atomic, heliocentric, quantum, and evolutionary models. 
So far, nobody has observed any evidence for animals and plants without 
ancestors, like in Genesis.
The evidence for an earth of 4.55 billion years old is quite complete. The 
age of the universe is less well known but is obviously billions of years 
older than the earth. The sum of all scientific knowledge points of a model 
of reality, which supports the modern evolutionary sequence of events. The 
whole petroleum industry is based on this model, and has had great success. 
How many oil fields have the creationists found with their assumptions and 
methods? Has your friend found any oil fields?
If the people with alternative viewpoints generate a series of scientific 
uccesses superior to the standard evolutionary series, then, and ONLY THEN, 
will they be seriously considered as having a model worthy of serious study.
I met with a group of fundamentalist Christians who supported the earth 
centered astronomy of the Bible. They had similar sad tales about how the 
academic community was discriminating against their models of reality. None 
of their people can get their models accepted by standard scientific journals 
either. It is obviously part of the same conspiracy which you speak of.
What does he say about the details of the fossil record? What area of the
 subject has he made a professional study of? 
===========
 
> I agree the Bible was constructed by these people, but through the holy
>spirit. I believe they were in the will of the Holy Spirit, plus the fact that
>the word says "The word is God" That alone says to me that God would
>make sure at what the Bible consisted of, of course he had human
>hands construct it, why should he have had to Supernaturally construct
>it himself when he had humans in his will doing it?>
Some preacher or priest told you the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible and you 
chose to believe him.
There are enough errors in the Bible to show its purely human origins.
><Most people I meet tell me about the nature and will of their deity. They
>disagree greatly.
>That would indicate they do not know what they are talking about but
>only  repeat what they have been told.>
You repeat what you have been told about your religion.
> <Apes came from earlier mammals which came from reptiles,
>amphibians, fish, multicalle sea life and back to bacteria or something
>simpler.>
 So you also lack the burden of proof...As you "bash" me for not
>knowing everything about Biblical beginning you also are guilty of the
>same.

The fossil evidence is clear worldwide that this is the order of events.
A fundamantal law of biology is continuity of organisms. That means they ALL 
come from their ancestors, since the first living cell. This is a fact, not 
like a religious doctrine, based totally on faith. If you do not like the 
standard scientific model, you are free to develop your own. How do you 
explain the fossil record? How do you explain the fact that modern species are
not found in the fossils record before the Tertiary period. Science works with
validity. Proof is for math. How much geology and paleontology have you 
studied? I doubt it is enough to give you a realistic understanding of these 
matters you are so critical of.This antiscience attitude is one of the sad 
byproducts of religious indoctrination.
>First of all how could something come from nothing? What caused
>this "Big Bang" and where did these this "Big Bang" matter come from ? It
>didn't just appear, that's not possible>

Again you speak without checking the facts first, a common habit among 
Christians.
Ordinary simple minded understandings  do not apply to quantum mechanics.
I bet you do not know about virtual particles. They come from empty space.
> <Much has been discovered and you will discover some of this
>knowledge unless you retreat into a shell of certainty, where the ultimate
>truth is assumed to lie in some Holy Book or the claims of some
>preachers, priests, cult leaders, or gurus.>
 Just because something has been discovered, doesn't mean it's factual. 
Because it could just be evidence to support a *theory*, and the theory is 
still a theory...>
A fact in science is based on observation. A theory is an explanation for facts.
An example of a scientific fact is that animals and plants come from their 
ancestors, with variation. An example of a scientific theory is the idea of 
natural selection promoting speciation. 
><Scientists have a reputation for honesty. Preachers have problems in
>this area as their message has been determined by ancient priests and
>modern church officials.>
  Sounds to me like you have simply been to the wrong churches...I'll remind 
you that that is your opinion and not a fact...I have talked to hundreds 
of preachers and they tend to be careless with their claims.
They are used to speaking to fools, who will believe anything they are told.
<Religion was created by fallible people too. If you make it absolute, you
are meaking a great error.> 
>Notice that word Religion, You are correct and I agree with you. Religion
>is mans way of trying to reach God, while Christianity is God trying to
>reach man. Religion is some man-made doctrine that does not lie in-line
>with the scriptures, though they believe this, they simply "Distort", and
>don't "inturperate." >\
Christianity is called a religion. It differs from other religions only in
the particular
set of  dogmas, traditions and ceremonies used.
><I have read it and found it to reflect an obsolete world view of the
>ancients.

When I read of animals and plants appearing without ancestors, a world wide 
flood, talking snakes,  trees before sun moon and stars, it does not need too 
much intellectual ability to see this is an obsolete world view, appropriate 
to a simple prescientific people.
 >Well, if you go into it with the mind-set to Criticize, how do you expect 
to get anything out?>
I check things for validity before believing them. 
That is not a common approach in the Christian community, where faith rules.
 You will always find something you can  "bash" when reading it that way.>
If  I find an error, then it exists. I was not the first to recognize the 
many errors in the Bible.
> Though the Bible is to be read and understood with the heart. >
The heart is a muscle which pumps blood. If you mean the emotions, then 
they can mislead you as they have mislead many before you.
>Reading it as a intellectual person you will
>always try to be "Humanly Reasonable," while I believe that the true
>reason it the reason of The Lord Jesus Christ.>
Should I read it as an unintellectual person?  Many do. It is easier this way
as you need little logic or education with this approach.
><Many people claim to understand it but they disagree with each other.>
>It's the same with science and scientist, there are many different beliefs
>of how the evolutional process happened, yet all these ways are correct
>to the individual scientist but maybe not to others, while they both believe
>they have the answer. >

Scientist vary in their ideas when the facts are yet unclear. 
When the facts become adequately clear, then the scientists agree.
Science has methods for discovering error and correcting it.
Theology lacks such a corrective process, as it is all based on in ancient 
fixed traditions.
>This my friend is just the nature of humanity. It's 
>everywhere as well as in the Church...Just because Christians may
>believe differently on different matters, does not make Christianity
>wrong. We all see things differently though many agree. (insert your
>own scenario here where there is something existent yet both sides
>know it but see it differently)  
What does make a religious idea wrong except a disagreement with the external
facts?
Christianity disagrees with the external facts in enough places to make it 
highly unlikely as a factual system.
><The Bible morality includes slavery, genocide,conquest, and baby
>slaughter, all supposedly commanded by God.>
> hehe You really read that stuff wrong...>
I bet you ONLY know the Bible through your church and Sunday School lessons. 
These leave out the vicious and stupid parts.
Read I Sam. 15, Exodus 21. Numbers 31 and Ps 137.
>I'd like for you to come to my church sometime then we can
>get together and talk about what you want to... :)  >
I have been to many churches and talked with hundreds of preachers.
They tend to get confused and then furious when I inquire about their 
systems of thought.
So far, you have not given me any facts which support  Christianity as
more than another religion, one of many.  If you think you can explain the 
facts of the universe 
better than the whole  scientific community, then give it a try. 
Many religious people before you have tried. 
They always fail.
==========

glk
The scientific community and the Federal Courts both agreed that evolution is 
valid science and should be taught as such in public schools. They also both 
agree that Creationism is totally a religious matter and has no place posing 
as science in the public schools. Evolution is simply descent with variation 
in a population, as time passes. More are born(hatched) than can survive.
Only survivors can breed the next generation. Observation of nature shows that
some smaller evolutionary changes are occurring within the time of human
history and the fossil record clearly shows the great changes in life over 
the last 3.8 billion years that life has been on earth. There is no 
Creationists Theory in science because a scientific theory is more than a 
guess. It must have a record for making good predictions and explaining 
processes in nature. In the centuries that Creationism has been proposed by 
pious people, it has NEVER resulted in any new scientific knowledge or 
discovery. Animals and plants without ancestors is mythology, not science.
Evolution is both a fact and a theory. It is a fact in that it is observed
in the natural world and in the laboratories of the scientists. There are 
associated theories which attempt to account for the fact of evolution. 
Mutation and natural selection are two major theories explaining the process
of evolution. The present theories are expected to be corrected and
modified as new data becomes available. Science has methods for finding 
and correcting error. Creationism is totally based on a literalistic 
interpretation of the religious traditions of the ancient Hebrews. 
St. Augustine wrote a message to his people warning them of claiming to 
have superior knowledge of nature, just because of their faith. Much of 
present science is expected to be modified, or even replaced, as future 
scientists make new discoveries. This change is taken as a weakness in 
science by the Creationists when it is actually progress. If Creationism 
were introduced into the classroom, then it would be open for public 
investigation and criticism, as are ALL scientific ideas. Would the preachers,
who worked so hard to have it introduced, stand for their system of beliefs 
to be publically criticized in such a manner? I doubt it. If you want more 
on this, the WWW has much on both sides. The prime source for education 
and criticism on these matters is
http://www.talkorigins.org . An excellent book on these problems is 
"Science and Earth History"  by A. N. Strahler(Prometheus).
END**************************************************************