A Response To Adam

Hi, Adam. I sincerely wish that you and I could meet in some different “atmosphere” other than what you had to say to me. It really hurts that people have become so intolerant of another’s beliefs. I don’t know why you are so angry. Your cursing and name calling did not give me a very good impression of you. I know you don’t care about that. However, we should all look for truth in a particular matter regardless of where it leads, and be open-minded in that search, and respectful in our communication about it.

Because I believe in a Creator, you say that I am an idiot, but, do you know that the great early advances in science came from “believers”? I know you must be very busy at the university and you don’t have time to look at the “other side”. And I’m sure your Professors don’t want you reading websites like: icr.org, oranswersingenesis.org, or creationstudies.org, or creationontheweb.com, or creationmoments.com, and their links to various other scientific sites that support Creation. You may not realize it, but there are hundreds of highly credentialed (some former evolutionary) scientists that support Creation (some are members of The Creation Science Society). And I am sure that many more just won’t or can’t let someone know their true feelings. Adam, I am afraid you and many others are in a “thought prison”, and even though the doors of truth open in front of you from time to time (like in my website), your mindset refuses to let you go through the open prison doors into the real world that God created. When I began to see the truth years ago, it really changed my outlook. 

Do one-celled animals evolve into animals with an organ system? Of course not. There is an unbridgeable gap between animals like the amoeba (which really loves to “dine” on paramecium) and the “more complex” animals like mice and “us”. There is no such thing as a truly two-celled animal. That’s just one reason why much of the evolution theory is “silly science”.

I assume you know about Stanley Miller’s experiments back in 1953, where “life” was produced in the lab. I’m sure you don’t know the “particulars” about the apparatus he built, because your textbooks won’t tell you about the deception involved in it all. For instance, Dr. Miller knew that (outside the lab) the sun’s rays would destroy the few amino acids he produced, so he protected them from the sun. He also protected the process from oxygen (oxygen will also destroy amino acids). But if no oxygen were present (outdoors), there would be no ozone layer to protect the acids from the sun’s rays. One other thing that wasn’t mentioned was the fact that the amino acids making up the protein chain in living cells are only “left handed”. Chirality, which means “handedness” is built into living cells. If only one “right handed” acid is in the amino acid protein chain, the whole thing is useless! And Stanley’s “deception” only produced a 50- 50 mix! The only way to “get what you want” is to take the acids from aliving cell. 

I don’t know if the “Peppered Moth” story was “spoon fed” to you, but if it was, here’s the problem with the “evolution” part of the story. The only thing that was “produced” was a change in the ratio of dark and white moths. I don’t doubt that “natural selection” is a real process, but it WILL NOT produce a new animal. No new animals were produced by this so-called natural selection. So their “Wonderful example of evolution seen today” is a complete deception. Besides, your textbook probably didn’t tell you that moths hide under leaves, and not on the bark of a tree. Those moths were dead, and pinned to the trees for the “photo op”. If you want more info on the moths, go to one of the websites I mentioned.

I pray that God will open the doors that hold you inside your “thought prison”, so that you can at least be open to the prospect that supernatural power is around us. 

I’m sure you know about the fruit fly experiments. Evolutionary scientists have been attempting to turn the fruit fly into some other type of animal for many decades. They subject the larvae to X-rays, gamma rays, electrical shock, heat, light, and so on. All they have for this work is proof that mutations won’t make a new animal. Only sick fruit flies are produced. I may have mentioned that in my website.

By the way, please be very specific about where I have “distorted and perverted scientific fact” in my website. It is new, and I am always looking for ways to improve it. I don’t want to mislead anyone, especially young folks like yourself. Give the article name, and the sentence in a particular paragraph so that I may know what to change. I want to be scientifically accurate in my writings. You may have seen something that the Chief Technical Advisor of the Creation Studies Institute missed when he visited my website recently.

In your comments to me, you gave examples of how artificial selection (using human intelligence) can select desirable traits in dogs, allowing only those “selected” to reproduce.  What you didn’t show me is how intelligently controlled selection can produce a new kind of animal.  And evolution requires new kinds in almost untold numbers, since they claim (unscientifically) that every animal came from another kind.  Selection (intelligent or natural) can only bring about changes within kinds. The process cannot produce a new kind of creature or plant. Selection always eliminates (causes the loss of) a trait.  If something is “selected”, then something will be removed (or deselected) from that gene pool.  That means the process (even when controlled by intelligent selection) is a conservative process that will not allow you to “go back” to have the choices or the adaptive ability that was inherent in the original created kinds.  Dealing with a pack of dogs in the wild, if some have long fur, and others have short fur, and the weather goes completely “bonkers” into a very cold winter, more of the dogs with long fur will survive to reproduce.  More harsh winters could eventually eliminate the gene pool for the short-haired type.  If you artificially breed dogs to have short legs, you lose the ability for that group to produce dogs with long legs.  

I know you don’t think “intelligent design” can be argued for. But I would like for you to think for a moment about your hand. Take either one, it doesn’t matter. The skin covering the hand must be designed to match the bones, tendons, and muscles, etc. This skin fits your hand better than any intelligent manufacturer can ever design. On the back of the hand, the skin is different from the palm. You see the loose skin at each joint? That’s a design, the lack of which would cause you not to be able to easily bend your fingers without tearing the skin. Wouldn’t you agree that intelligence was needed to place those loose areas (fourteen on just one hand) in exactly the right spot? The skin of the palm is thicker than at the back of the hand, to better protect that side as you work (we are designed to work with our hands). The fingers are exactly the right length to fit into the balled up fist. There are parts (fingernails) at the end, designed to protect our fingers. They are not on the bottom, because that would make it hard to pick things up. How do you think they got to the right place, with the correct orientation? There is a high concentration of nerve endings at the ends of each finger, designed to allow us to easily examine what we touch. The bones in the hand have specifically designed joints to allow for certain movement. For instance, hold your wrist very tightly, and try to twist your hand. You can’t, because those bones are designed for sliding from side to side, and up and down, but not to twist. The twisting is accomplished by the two long arm bones and muscles, preceding the wrist. These bones are designed with a bend, which allows for twisting without those two bones interfering with one another. If you examine the bones of a gorilla’s hand, you will notice a bend near the knuckles. This is to allow him to easily grasp limbs, and to “knuckle walk”. We can’t bend our fingers past 90 degrees, because we were not designed to knuckle walk! Their wrist also has a locking mechanism to allow for walking on all fours. The hand must have a supporting apparatus (the arm) and also a controlling program (in the brain). All the nerve connections must be correct to control motion and feedback. You may think that all those items are simply “mistakes over time” but what about the other hand, and arm, and brain control? Think of the other “mirror images” in our bodies. Surely you don’t think ears, semi-circular canals, kidneys, eyes, feet, lungs, etc. etc. happened over time, by mistake.

In the case of bacterial resistance to antibiotics, there are some bacteria which needed no change at all to resist the poisons. They would able to do so even before the antibiotics were invented. Besides, bacteria are stillbacteria, even if they don’t “ingest” a specifically shaped toxin. The changes on the “inlet” area are not the result of upward and more complex evolution into some other creature.

I’ll just tell you, Adam, if you believe in evolution, and that all of life is the product of mutations….well, you’re just on the wrong side of reality. Besides, the evolutionists cheat from the beginning by “mutating” a creature that God has already created. By the way, my God is spelled with an uppercase “g”. Your god (naturalism) is the lower case one. Respect is a wonderful thing. Try it sometime.

In His love,
Harry Moore

Ephesians 4:14 Be henceforth no more children, tossed to and fro, and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the sleight of men, and cunning craftiness, whereby they lie in wait to deceive.