Glo die Bybel

Johannes 17:17 ...U Woord is die waarheid.

Sindikasie

Glo die Bybel Glo die Bybel
Hennie Mouton, Francis Thackeray en Mail & Guardian PDF Afdruk E-pos
Geskryf deur Hennie Mouton   
Vrydag, 30 Julie 2010 11:54

Onderstaande is 'n reeks e-pos-kommunikasies wat tussen 'n joernalis van Mail & Guardian en my, Hennie Mouton, as skeppingsleerder en prof. Francis Thackeray as evolusionis plaasgevind het.

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Yolandi Groenewald
Sent: 17 February 2009 02:38
To: Johan Kruger; Hennie Mouton
Subject: Artikel vir Mail & Guardian

Geagte Johan, Hennie

Ek werk vir die Mail & Guardian koerant as omgewingsjoernalis en aan en af wetenskapsjoernalis.

Daniel Louw het julle aanbeveel as uitgesproke kreasioniste wat ek kan kontak vir 'n artikel wat ek aan werk. Soos julle seker weet was dit laas week die 150ste herdenking van Darwin se Origin of the Species en die Mail & Guardian wil graag 'n artikel dra oor hoe relevant Darwin se teoriee in die 21ste eeu is en hoe meeste Suid Afrikaners daaroor dink, asook of kreasionisme enigsins nog ‘n plek het in die 21ste eeu.

In die stuk wil ek beide evolusioniste en kreasoniste se standpunte wys en dat die gehoor op die ou [einde] tot hulle eie gevolgtrekking [kan kom]. Die idee is om debat te stimuleer oor die onderwerp. Die persoon wat ek genader het om Darwin en evolusie se standpunt te bespreek is Dr Jurie van der Heever van US, wat julle seker ook goed ken.

Die idee is nie om ‘n debat direk teenoor mekaar daar te stel nie, maar eerder twee opinies teenoor mekaar neer te lê, deur 'n onderhoud met julle te doen. Ek is oopkop en het geen finale besluit oor evolusie en "creationism" nie, dus kan julle my as gehoor neem om Suid Afrikaners te oortuig van julle standpunt. En julle hoef nie bang te wees om Darwin en evolusie ten volle aan te vat nie.

Ek kan 'n telefoniese onderhoud of vrae per epos stuur, laat my weet wat julle sal verkies en of julle bereid sal wees om deel te neem aan so 'n stuk. Ek is in Johannesburg, so indien een van julle in Johannesburg-omgewing is, sal dit miskien lekker wees om ‘n persoonlike onderhoude ook te doen. Indien julle nie kans sien nie, kan julle iemand anders aanbeveel?

Julle hulp sal erg waardeer word.

Baie groete
Yolandi
Yolandi Groenewald | Environment & General Reporter
E-mail: xxx

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Yolandi Groenewald
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 4:50 PM
To: Hennie Mouton
Subject: Vrae van Mail & Guardian

Hello Hennie

Jy sal sien ek het die vrae probeer hou by die skeppingsverhaal en evolusie en nie uitgebrei na Noag se ark en ander feite van die Bybel wat gedabetteer [sic] word nie. Ek het ook vrae gestuur oor die wese van kreasionisme en veral kreasionisme in Suid Afrika om dit relevant te maak vir ‘n Suid Afrikaanse gehoor.

Ek sal dit waardeer as jy die vrae so eenvoudig as moontlik (maar defnitief nie simplisties) sal antwoord, om dit verstaanbaar te maak vir so wye gehoor as moontlik. Onder is die vrae wat ek aan Jurie ook gaan stuur.

My artikel gaan ongeveer so 800 woorde wees, dus sal ek baie feite moet kondenseer, maar dit artikel nog steeds relevant en interessant hou. Lesers hou veral van lekker metafore en interessante quotes wat ek van jou kan gebruik, as jy dit in gedagte kan hou.

Ek stuur ook ‘n artikel van ons susterskoerant in Brittanje, wat met Britste kreasioniste gepraat het om jou miskien ‘n idee te gee van wat werk, alhoewel die joernalis se standpunt in die stuk te sterk deurkom.

Ek hoor graag van jou.

Groete
Yolandi

-----------------------------------------------------------

Questions to the creationist -- [ answered by dr. Hennie Mouton ]:

1. According to creationism the earth is only 6 000 years old, a big diversion from accepted science on the age of the earth, which dates it at millions of years. Can you explain how scientists got the ageing wrong?

[ Most scientists have got the age wrong, but definitely not all of them. There are scientists on both sides of the creation and evolution debate. The two major methods for determining the long age of the earth are the so-called geologic column, which is interpreted as a long period time column, and radiometric dating.

Many unproven assumptions are needed to interpret the geologic column as a long period time column, for example the concept of uniformitarianism -- on average all things happened in the past at the same rate as what is observed today. Therefore according to evolutionists the Colorado River, which is relatively small to the size of the Grand Canyon, carved the canyon over millions of years because the river is carving it now at a small rate. Creationist scientists however start with the assumption that the Bible is correct, also where it describes historical events, and therefore there was a worldwide flood some 4300 years ago. Most of the geologic column was laid down during the Noahic flood, and most of canyons like the Grand Canyon was formed when the water that covered all of the earth, ran off the continents into the newly formed basins of the current oceans, at the later stages of the flood. Therefore the geologic column does not represent a time period of billions of years, but a very small period of about one year. Uniformitarianism does not allow for something like a global flood in the past, when things obviously would have happened at a much faster rate than today. Therefore evolutionary scientists interpret the same geologic data vastly different than creationist scientists do.

The question of course is what model is supported better by the evidence in all those sedimentary rocks and the surrounding environment. According to creationists many features can only be explained by a flood or floods, and are incompatible with very slow accumulation over billions or even millions of years. There is nowadays a generally growing realization that only catastrophes can explain certain geologic structures, so much so that the term neo-catastrophism emerged amongst the evolutionists themselves.

Radiometric dating likewise involves many assumptions, for example the unknown initial ratios of mother and daughter elements and the high probability that the sample was not properly isolated over a long period of time, therefore leaching could have changed the ratios. Radiometric dating has well-known theoretical problems, but numerous practical examples of failures are really the proof of its unreliability as an age determinator. To list a few:

1. Mount St Helens erupted in 1980. Subsequently the dome started forming again. About ten years later the age of the dome material was determined by Potassium-Argon radiometric dating. The answer should have been 10 years. The highly respected laboratory, who did not know where the material came from, reported dates of 340 thousand to 2.8 million years. These dates are tremendously wrong, and the problem is that this is no exception, even when applying the latest correction factors.

2. The well-known in radiometric dating circles, G. B. Dalrymple, published radiodated ages for various historically known lava flows. The radiodates varied from 110 thousand to 1.6 million years although it is known from history that the eruptions occurred 90 to 2120 years ago.

In all these cases the radiometric date should have been the date of the solidifying of the rock.

All these examples and many more show that the long ages are not nearly as certain as they are often proclaimed to be. In fact they are not merely inaccurate, they are out by orders. ]

2. Did God create the earth in seven days? Please explain.

[ Yes He did. I believe God is capable of doing miraculous things and He did many during creation week. The scientific way to test this is to find evidence for the earth to be only thousands in stead of millions or billions of years of age. Such evidence does exist, for example the small amount of helium in the atmosphere, the small amount of salt in the ocean, the creationist magnetic model of the earth and planets that has been confirmed by later measurements of the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune, the length of the Niagara Gorge, the small amount of continental erosion and the number of people on earth, to list a few. Another piece of evidence would be if people and all animals, like dinosaurs, lived at the same time.

Quite a lot of evidence for this is available, for example many rock drawings of dinosaurs that people obviously must have seen alive. ]

3. Where do dinosaurs, ape-men (as has been uncovered in the Cradle of Humankind) and Neanderthals fit in?

[ I have already mentioned that dinosaurs and people lived at the same time, but there is also evidence of relatively fresh dinosaur bones (of T. rex) that was published by the evolutionist Mary Schweitzer. The freshness of these bones was such that it is impossible for them to be older than a few thousand years at most, although Schweitzer did not dare to come to that conclusion. The restrictions, even on evolutionists, to publish conclusions that contradict the evolutionary long age belief, is severe. An excellent documentary DVD "Expelled - no intelligence allowed", available from www.creation.com exposes this clearly.

There are no ape-men nor have there ever been -- there were only apes or humans. Australopithecines were specialized apes, that died out. Gorillas and Chimpanzees are apes that did not die out. Homo erectus, Homo ergaster, Neanderthals, Cro magnon and Homo sapiens are all descendants of Adam and Eve, and part of one human race. There is no convincing transitional form between humans and any living or extinct ape. Neanderthals made fire, made music, buried their dead, and did various other things that normal humans would have done. They lived with modern looking people and even married them.

Museums, like at the Cradle of Humankind, distort the evidence to portray their evolutionary beliefs. Extinct apes are portrayed as far more humanlike than they were, and ancient humans as far more apelike than they were. For example the feet and hands of Lucy are shown in museums as almost identical to human feet and hands, although Australopithecus afarensis is known to have had very curved fingers suited for swinging in trees, and no feet of this species have been discovered up to now.

No sorted out hominid family tree exists, and most paleo-anthropologists are nor willing to compile one. Well-known evolutionists admit this as follows:

· Mary Leakey:

... in the present state of our knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern.

· Robert Martin:

So one is forced to conclude that there is no clearcut scientific picture of human evolution.

· David Pilbeam:

The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story. ]

4. How accepting do you find South Africans toward creationism?

[ Fairly accepting, especially those who are willing to look objectively at evidence. I believe the percentage of South Africans in favour of creationism is growing. ]

5. How did Darwin get it wrong? Is there anything that he got right?

[ Darwin lost his little girl which probably drove him to the point of wanting to explain all of nature without God. Many people nowadays still have this problem of reconciling a loving and almighty God with pain, cruelty and evil in the world.

This is especially difficult to understand if the origin of sin and subsequent suffering as explained in Genesis, is not believed.

Darwin's use of natural selection to explain differences in species was correct, although his extension of this concept to explain the origin of kinds, was wrong. There is still no evidence for one kind changing into another kind. Darwin was also not the discoverer of natural selection, because others, like the creationist Edward Blyth, defined it long before he did, and although he knew of their work, he did not give them proper recognition in his writings. ]

6. Is creationism a part of Christianity or is it a science on its own?

[ Creationism is a science based on the assumption that the Bible is true regarding origins, and further it applies normal scientific methods.

Evolution is a science based on the assumption that all things in nature, including all origins, can be explained as if there is no God. Not all evolutionists are atheists, but many are.

Intelligent Design is a science that is willing to explain things in terms of natural prosesses or intelligent design, whatever fits the evidence the best. Christians and non-Christians are found in this group. ]

7. Do you believe that evolution should be taught at school. What about creationism?

[ I believe both should be taught at school, but the teachers and learners will need proper material on both sides. ]

8. What would you see as the biggest argument for your point of view?

[ The Bible, the evidence supporting it and the growing amount of scientific data that can be better explained by creation models than by evolutionary models. ]

9. And evolutionists weakest argument?

[ Evolution has no reasonable explanation for the origin of the so-called Big Bang, the origin of stars, the origin of galaxies, the structure of the universe, the origin of the first life on earth from dead matter, the origin of information, and the natural increase in information for man to have appeared eventually, starting only with a single cell organism. ]

10. Do you believe that there might be any truth in evolution?

[ Evolution has such a wide definition that some of it must be true. The part of it saying that different species can develop through natural selection is true. ]

11. How many creationist organisations exist in South Africa?

[ Creation Ministries International (CMI) is the most influential one, but I think there might be up to five others. ]

12. How is creationism relevant for the 21st century?

[ Creationism has and can convince people of the truth of the Bible that can lead them to faith in Jesus Christ which is most important no matter the century. Creationists have a far better chance of really progressing in origin and history sciences than people who don't take the information in the Bible seriously. This for example has been found in archaeology and even in astronomy. ]

13. What about the Big Bang theory? Surely scientists and government would not have invested billions of dollars into the big experiment in Switzerland, if it was a bogus theory? Can creationism in any form relate to the Big Bank theory?

[ Useful discoveries can be made at CERN, regardless of whether the Big Bang is true or not. There are certain aspects of the Big Bang theory, for example the past expansion of the universe, that is accepted by many creationists, including myself.

But most aspects are not accepted, for which I have given some of the reasons in 9. above.

Scientists and governments spending lots of money on certain projects, is no guarantee that it is not a bogus idea. SETI (Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence) is such an example where a calculation of time, distance, speed of light and chance can show that the whole idea is ridiculous.

Evolution is another such an example. ]

14. Is creationism in South Africa similar to that of the US or other countries and what do South African creationists endeavor to do?

[ CMI-SA is part of CMI that has branches in 6 countries. We try to let people and even churches discover or rediscover the truth of the Bible, and we endeavor to advance origin and history sciences. We expose the lie of evolution by showing that the evidence does not fit the evolutionary models, and by showing that the evidence far better fits the creationist models. ]

15. If you believe in evolution, does it make you an atheist?

[ No not necessarily, but it sometimes happens, like Richard Dawkins who proudly admits that evolution turned him into an atheist. The evangelist Charles Templeton was another sad example. ]

16. Any other notes?

[ Creation Ministries International's website www.creation.com is an excellent site to get much more information, by means of search blocks, books and DVDs. ]

-----------------------------------------------------------

Ek het van die begin af, saam met die vrae wat ek moes beantwoord, ook die vrae gekry wat aan die evolusionis gestel sou word (kyk ondertoe).

Later het Yolandi my die evolusionis se antwoorde op sy vrae gestuur, want die oorspronklike gedagte was dat ek op sy antwoorde kommentaar sou lewer en hy op myne.

Prof. Jurie van der Heever was glo nie beskikbaar nie en daarom het Yolandi vir prof. Francis Thackeray gekry om die evolusionistiese kant te stel.

My verdere e-posse met Yolandi het soos volg verloop:

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Yolandi Groenewald
Sent: 18 February 2009 11:21
To: Hennie Mouton
Subject: Re: Answers to questions - Francis Thackeray

Hennie

Dit sal gaaf wees as jy wel kan antwoord op ‘n paar punte wat jy voel nodig is. Vir die artikel redigeer ek die mees interessante punte in die antwoorde en ek dink tog jou kommentaar hierop sal erg interessant wees.

Groete
Yolandi

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Yolandi Groenewald
Sent: 18 February 2009 10:07
To: Hennie Mouton
Subject: FW: Answers to questions - Francis Thackeray

------ Forwarded Message

From: Francis Thackeray
Date: Wed, 18 Feb 2009 08:59:58 +0200
To: Yolandi Groenewald
Subject: Answers to questions - Francis Thackeray

Questions to Evolutionist – answered by Prof. Francis Thackeray, Director of the Institute for Human Evolution, University of the Witwatersrand, [ with comments on his answers by Dr. Hennie Mouton ]:

1. According to creationism the earth is only 6 000 years old, a big diversion from accepted science that the earth is many millions of years old. Is there any science that supports such a theory?

There is absolutely no doubt that the earth is older than 6000 years. There are geological clocks which provide irrefutable proof that the earth, as part of the solar system, formed more than 4000 million years ago. Rocks from the moon and meteorites are also pointing to ages of that order of magnitude. The suggestion that the earth was formed only 6000 years ago was based on a strict reading of the Bible in which ages were given for the lifetimes of certain individuals in a sequence of generations before Christ. That way, Bishop Ussher declared that the world must have originated 4004 years before the birth of Christ. This was an honest attempt to date the earth, but the chemistry of the rocks gives us a profoundly older date, which is awesome.

[Hennie: Obviously prof. Thackeray does not know, or does not want to know of the many evidences for a young earth, and the many problems with the methods that indicate long ages.]

2. Did God create the earth in seven days or over millions of years? Please explain.

The chapter of Genesis in the Bible represents an attempt by ancient people to understand the origin of the earth, but the authors of Genesis did not have access to the extraordinary scientific techniques which we have today. The story as revealed in the scientific analysis of rocks tells us without any doubt whatsoever that the earth was formed over a very long period of time, most certainly more than 7 days.

[Hennie: Genesis in the Bible is no attempt from ancient people in any way, but was revealed by God and subsequently written by ancient people. Of course this has to do with the authority of the Bible. If scientific analysis of rocks gives us the age of the rocks without any doubt whatsoever, why does the same method give vastly different answers when applied to different material in the same piece of rock, as described in a scientific article?]

3. Can the Bible coexist with evolution and can Christians believe in evolution at all?

Some people who are deeply religious are simultaneously immensely awed by the reality of evolution, without accepting that everything written in the Bible must be true.

[Hennie: Christians can believe in evolution, because believing in 6 day creation or a young earth, is not the saving faith -- belief in Jesus Christ as one and only saviour is. But such a belief is inconsistent in itself, and have caused many to doubt the validity of the rest of the Bible too, which lead to atheism in many cases.]

4. How accepting do you find South Africans toward evolution?

I am encouraged by the fact that in South Africa there appears to be a growing awareness of the significance of fossils such as “Mrs Ples”, a distant relative of all humankind, more than 2 million years old from the Sterkfontein caves in the Cradle of Humankind. In 1996 I conducted a survey in South Africa, which showed that less than 10% of interviewed people had heard of Mrs Ples. Within the last 12 years there has been a dramatic increase in public awareness of fossils such as Mrs Ples, “Little Foot” and the Taung child. This has happened partly through the efforts of palaeontologists and archaeologists to “spread the word” about the excitement of their discoveries, with the help of the media and through public exhibitions at places such as Maropeng, Sterkfontein, the Origins Centre, and several museums in the country.

Palaeontology is an exciting field of exploration, as demonstrated by scientists such as Professor Ron Clarke and Professor Lee Berger of Wits University, and by the educational efforts of organizations such as the Palaeontological Scientific Trust (PAST). More and more young South Africans are learning about the story of life as revealed by fossils. This is very encouraging. My perception is that an increasing number of South Africans are accepting evolution with a sense of pride in our African heritage as part of world heritage.

[Hennie: Creationists also find all discoveries, especially those of so-called hominids, very exciting. They normally strengthen the creation case, because the differences between apes and humans are getting more clear the more fossils are unearthed. Regarding "Little Foot", I am especially interested, because hopefully this one will shed sufficient light on the feet of "Australopithecus" so that their lack of normal bipedality, according to creationist expectations, can be solidly established, and all the misrepresentations in museums can be removed.]

5. How did Darwin get it right? Is there anything that he got wrong?

Darwin was exceedingly thorough in basing his conclusions on an accumulation of many observations of the diversity of life which he had witnessed during his voyage around the world on board the Beagle. He was reluctant to publish “The Origin of Species” because he wanted to get things right. In the very first chapter of his book he admitted “This abstract, which I now publish, must necessarily be imperfect…no doubt errors will have crept in, though I hope I have always been cautious”.

The amazing thing is that Darwin’s basic concepts of change through long periods of time, and the fundamental concept of common ancestry of closely related species, have stood the test of time in the 150 years since the publication of The Origin of Species. Imperfections in his book are related for example to the fact that he did not have access to an understanding of genetics – the process by which “descent with modification” takes place. It was through people like Mendel, a contemporary of Darwin, that genetic variation began to be understood, but it was not until just over 50 years ago that the structure of DNA could be fully revealed by scientists. Darwin would have been thrilled by genetics and palaeontology if he were alive today.

[Hennie: I think Darwin would have abandoned his theory of evolution if he were alive today, because of the still missing links on all levels of his family tree of the animal kingdom. In his days the excuse was that too little fossils have been found. Today enough fossils have been found but the missing links remain missing.  He would also have been shocked by his friend Ernst Haeckel's later proved to be fraudulent embryo drawings, which he regarded as the strongest evidence for his evolutionary theory. The final nail in the coffin of his theory for him would perhaps have been the fact that family trees based on DNA molecules and proteins turned out to be absurd. Or perhaps the problem of the so-called Cambrian explosion that demonstrates that the concept of a family tree is not at all supported by the fossil record.]

6. Is creationism a part of Christianity or is it a science on its own?

In a country such as South Africa, with our remarkable Constitution, creationists have a right to believe in what they consider to be the truth, and they have a right to challenge scientists, without asserting that creationists necessarily have all the answers to questions regarding the diversity and age of life on earth. Similarly, scientists have a right to believe what they consider to be irrefutable evidence, and they have a right to challenge creationists, without necessarily asserting that science has all the answers.

[Hennie: The problem with this friendly statement is that it puts creationists on the one hand and scientists on the other hand, failing to recognize that there are scientists, with very reasonable arguments and proposals, on the creation side too.]

7. Do you believe that evolution should be taught at school.

Absolutely yes. I have a dream, that every school in South Africa should have replicas of fossils such as Mrs Ples and the Taung Child, to supplement the educational material that is now available to schools to relate the reality of evolution. I have been encouraged by the responses that I have received from school children who are young and receptive to ideas that scientists want to share with the broader community. The excitement of the story of evolution should not be confined to just a privileged small group of scientists. As a South African scientist, I am convinced that the study of fossils will develop in our country only if we encourage young South Africans to turn to palaeontology and archaeology as a career. To do this we need to convey a sense of excitement to learners who have the potential to follow in the footsteps of famous scientists such as Professor Phillip Tobias, Ron Clarke and Bob Brain.

[Hennie: My question to Yolandi: What happened to the part of the question "What about creationism?" to prof. Thackeray?

I would also have encouraged young people to study palaeontology and archaeology if only they were taught to think objectively about the data they investigate.]

8. What would you see as the biggest argument for your point of view?

There is absolutely no doubt that changes have occurred through time, as revealed by fossils in the rocks of South Africa and elsewhere in the world. Just as a story can be told in books, so too can a story be told in layers of rocks, such as those in the Karoo where we find amazing fossils that change through time, in “pages” represented by layers of rocks in a sequence of ages. It is a challenge to “read” the story of evolution in rocks and fossils, but with a sense of humility scientists can try to understand the reality of change through the time, which is the essence of evolution.

[Hennie: No creationist doubts the fact that changes occurred and still do occur. The question is whether they crossed the boundaries of kinds, and that is where evolution falls flat.]

9. And the creationists’ weakest point?

Taking the Bible too seriously.

[Hennie: No, this is our strongest point, for example this is why creationists could solve the problem of clashing Egyptian and Assyrian chronologies, by believing biblical information.]

10. Do you believe that there might be any truth in creationism?

I believe in the reality of evolution, based on evidence in rocks and fossils that tell a convincing story that the diversity of life has changed through time, going back thousands of millions of years. This story can be believed without accepting that every word in the Bible must be true.

[Hennie: The Cambrian explosion, called such by evolutionists, shows that all kinds of animals appeared suddenly and simultaneously in the fossil record, therefore refuting the evolutionary development from a common ancestral single cell organism to more complex organisms. Therefore there is no convincing story of evolution in the rocks at all.]

11. If a person believes in evolution, does it make that person an atheist?

Not necessarily. Scientists who embrace evolution have the right to accept or reject the concept of a God.

[Hennie: Three categories of evolutionists can be found:

1. Atheists like Richard Dawkins who directly attack Christianity and all religion,
2. Atheists who try to convince Christians that if they want to believe in a god, it is fine, because their god could have used evolution to create, and
3. Christians and other believers who believe that God or gods used evolution to create.]

12. How is Darwin and his ideas relevant for the 21st century?

Darwin is relevant in the current century because he laid the foundations for understanding the nature of our world as it exists today, as a product of evolution in the past.

[Hennie: Darwin is relevant because the lies of evolution have crept into many disciplines of the modern world, and these lies should be exposed and replaced with truth and proper science. The Intelligent Design movement for example is doing a great job of this, because it is showing that evolutionists are not objective and honest at all, because they reject even other scientific proposals that can not be linked to any religion. It is blatantly clear that any criticism of the evolution hypothesis is unacceptable for evolutionists, even though the best evolutionists cannot answer many questions remotely reasonably.]

13. How can the Big Bang theory be reconciled with the Bible?

The Big Bang is one big idea that attempts to provide an understanding of the origin of our universe, based on astronomical observations. The authors of the Bible lived at a time (several thousands of years ago) when they were not as privileged as we are in having access to the kind of information that the SALT telescope in Sutherland, or the Hubble telescope in space, can provide. The theory of the Big Bang and the account of Genesis do not necessarily have to be reconciled.

[Hennie: Some aspects of the Big Bang can be reconciled with the Bible, but many not. Creationist cosmologies are available that do not clash with the Bible and tie up with astronomy observations, even with those that the Big Bang does not fit.]

14. What do you tell creationists when they question the existence or relevance of the so-called “apemen” fossils and that of Neandertals?

The australopithecine and Neandertal fossils are part of the reality of a changing diversity of distant relatives of our species, Homo sapiens. We have the remarkable opportunity to reflect on the fact that we are products of evolution through long periods of time.

[Hennie: Evolutionists themselves cannot compile a reasonable hominid family tree as I have written in my own answers and have confirmed with quotations from their writings. The long periods of time are very doubtful, even from scientific arguments only.]

15. Any other notes?

Palaeontologists can draw attention to the fact that Homo sapiens as a species is just one component of an enormous diversity of organisms that has changed through time on a planet that has supported life for more than 3 billion years.

South Africa is a remarkable country which has fossil bacteria that are 3500 million years old in Mpumalanga, fossil dinosaurs 200 million years old in the Free State, and distant human relatives that lived in our part of Africa more than 2 million years ago. I would like to see more young South Africans turn to palaeontology as a career. I appeal to government to support both education and research, as well as the creation of more jobs in palaeontology in our country which is blessed with an absolutely extraordinary diversity of fossils.

[Hennie: All of nature is a remarkable testimony of the power of a Creator God, and the truth and authority of His Word, the Bible. Proper origin and history science points to special creation, but the blindfolds of evolutionary science and its unwillingness to even consider alternative scientific explanations must be removed.]

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Hennie Mouton
Sent: 27 February 2009 09:04
To: Yolandi
Subject: Nog geen artikel?

Yolandi,

Ek sien nog geen teken van die skepping/evolusie-artikel in M&G nie.

Enige nuus?

Ek hou van die foto op die aanlyn-M&G van die Ileret, Kenia-voetspore wat daarop dui dat Homo erectus se voetspoor soos die van 'n moderne mens was.

Dis jammer julle het nie 'n artikel daaroor nie, want ek sou graag daarop kommentaar wou lewer -- hierdie soort ontdekkings bevestig die skeppingsleerstandpunt.

Dit bring onder andere die hele kontroversie betreffende die beroemde Laetoli-voetspore weer na vore.

Groete,
Hennie Mouton

-----------------------------------------------------------

From: Yolandi Groenewald
Sent: 03 March 2009 09:18
To: Hennie Mouton
Subject: FW: Mouton

Hennie

Ek was verlede week in Kaapstad vir ‘n kongres en kon toe nie verder aan die storie werk nie, maar ons wil graag die storie vir hierdie week doen. Hier onder het ek die comments van die proffie wat ons gebruik vir evolusie gesit vir jou om op kommentaar te lewer as jy wel tyd het. Kyk maar wat jy gedoen kan kry.

Ek waardeer jou insette.

Groete
Yolandi

-----------------------------------------------------------

Yolandi,

Ek sal antwoord op onderstaande, maar vir jou om 'n sinvolle kort artikel te plaas, gaan al moeiliker word, want die evolusionis gaan weer wil antwoord op my antwoorde, ek dan weer op syne ens....

Daarom dink ek eintlik jou eerste artikel (met die enkele wysigings waarmee jy saamgestem het) was goed, en onderstaande verdere debat moet dalk 'n volgende artikel word.

Groete en sterkte,
Hennie

-----------------------------------------------------------

Yolandi,

Hier's [ my kommentare ] op die prof se uitlatings.

Groete,
Hennie

-----------------------------------------------------------

Comments

1. Mouton is challenging not just Darwin’s theory of evolution, but the whole edifice of science. “Young earth” creationism contradicts established scientific knowledge in evolutionary genetics, paleontology, geology, goemorphology, physical anthropology (the origins of man), archaeology, cosmology etc. How can Mouton contradict all of the science that has become fact? It seems he just accepts those scientific findings that suit his religious prejudices.

[ Evolutionists think far too much of evolution if they equate challenging of evolution to challenging of all of science. One must distinguish between operational science and origin science, and origin science can again be divided into evolutionary origin science and creation origin science. Origin science has to do with interpretation of scientific data (rocks, fossils etc.) where one's presuppositions are playing a major role. Evolutionists' major presupposition is that all of origins can be explained without any Creator, whereas creationists' presupposition is that there is a Creator and He originated all things as revealed in the Bible. There are much too much uncertainties and unanswered questions in theÂÂevolution hypothesis regarding all relevant fields to call it fact. Claiming that it is fact in spite of all the problems and contradictory evidence, is really showing that evolution is a belief. A number of quotes from evolutionists confirm this, but perhaps one for now from evolutionist prof. Michael Ruse in 2000 will suffice:

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. ... Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ... Evolution therefore came into being as a kind of secular ideology, an explicit substitute for Christianity. [My underlining] ]

2. His typical approach is to point to unsolved mysteries, or failures of scientific method, as proof that science is false.

Why conclude this, rather than say: let’s keep looking? With his approach, there’d never be any attempt to carry out further research or refine scientific method.

[ No, certain unsolved mysteries and failures are evidence that the evolutionary hypothesis is false, not that science as such is false. Creationists are 100% in favour of scientists to keep looking for new data in all scientific fields -- the difference lies in the interpretation of what is found -- not in the data. The more the data the better the chance of getting the correct models of origins. Of course, if every now and then new discoveries turn one's model upside down, like the evolutionary family tree for hominids, something very few evolutionists are nowadays even willing to propose, then one's model is becoming increasingly suspicious. Well-known evolutionists admit their inability to propose a proper hominid family tree as follows:

· Mary Leakey:

... in the present state of our knowledge, I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern.

· Robert Martin:

So one is forced to conclude that there is no clearcut scientific picture of human evolution.

· David Pilbeam:

The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story.

It seems that the typical approach of evolutionists is to ignore all the unsolved mysteries. ]

3. He regards the Bible as literal and historical truth. How does he know this? Where’s his proof? He denies scientific knowledge, while all his thinking is based on an untested blind belief! Why should we believe the creation myth of the ancient Babylonians – the origin of Genesis, according to scholars – rather than the many creation myths of other cultures?

[ The evidence for the truth of the Bible, apart from belief, is that all scientific origin data that has been investigated up to now (not the evolutionary interpretation thereof), is consistent with the history and origins as revealed in the Bible.

Genesis is not the creation myth of ancient Babylonians as some scholars believe and expound. The reason why there are some similarities between the Gilgamesh stories, many flood stories all over the world, and the Genesis account, is that all nations descended from Noah and his sons, and therefore many twisted versions of the original truth exist. This is not proof that the Genesis account is true, but it shows that the evidence is consistent with Genesis being true. ]

4. He says Christians don’t have to be creationists. But surely, according to him, Christians who accept evolution are denying the truth of the Bible. Aren’t they denying God’s works, as described in the Bible? Isn’t that a mortal sin?

[ Christians don't have to be creationists to be saved. Believing in Jesus Christ as your personal Saviour is the one and only saving faith. There are Christians who misunderstand Genesis, and other parts of the Bible, which is very sad, but no -- it's no mortal sin -- denying Jesus Christ as Saviour all of your life is. ]

5. If he believes in the literal, historical truth of Noah’s Ark, were there kangaroos and emperor penguins in the Ark and if so, how did they get from Australia and Antarctica to the Middle East? Or were there no animals in these places in Noah’s day? Why, then, are kangaroo fossils found in Australia? Scientists estimate that 99% of all historical species are now extinct – were there T Rexes and brontosauruses in the ark? Did Noah have the technology, 5 000 years ago, to produce a boat that could accommodate, separate and feed hundreds of thousands of species for 40 days and nights? Where did he keep and feed the world’s endless array of insect species, living and extinct? How were animals which need a specific habitat to survive, like polar bears, accommodated?

[ First of all, all animals (everyone of them) did not go on the ark, therefore to take the example of the kangaroos -- most kangaroos at the time of the Genesis flood died in the flood of which many were fossilized because they were buried under flood sediments, but only two of them went into the ark. These two kangaroos did not have to walk from Australia to wherever the ark had been built (we anyway don't know where that was because the whole geography before the flood was different from what it is today), because they were probably much more widespread then, as we know for example was also the case for elephants (remains of mammoths in America).

Secondly, all species did not go on the ark, only all kinds. Many species developed after the flood from each kind and that is because God originally created the ability into most (probably all) kinds to allow speciation. Most evolutionists have a misconception of the creationist well-published viewpoint on this matter. Insects (and fish) are not required to have gone on the ark according to the Bible. Insects could have survived on floating logs and other material, and fish could do what they always did -- swim. If it is true that 99% of all historical species are now extinct, it is rather a problem for the evolution hypothesis because evolution requires historical evidence that species and kinds increased over time, not decreased. Dinosaurs, probably younger ones, for the sake of size, did go into the ark -- yes T. rex or at least two of his kind too. Brontosaurus did not go on the ark as it never existed -- prof. Thackeray can go and discover that for himself -- the original Brontosaurus was a mistaken combination of an Apatosaurus body with a head belonging to another dinosaurus. (Piltdown man was another example of a wrong combination, but Brontosaurus was rather a mistake or a wrong guess than obvious fraud like Piltdown man was.) Yes, Noah did have sufficient technology to build the ark, and a well-designed plan, designed by the Creator of the universe. It is known from history that amazingly big wooden ships have been built by ancient people. Much more information can and should be given on this topic, but the size of the final article probably won't allow for it. ]

6. Where are Mouton’s claimed rock paintings of dinosaurs? Who says they are dinosaurs rather than, say, antelope? Can he point to one paleantologist who thinks dinosaurs appeared and disappeared during the past 6 000 years, or one archaeologist who thinks there are rock paintings of dinosaurs? Doesn’t his isolation on this issue suggest he’s talking rubbish?

[ It is not very difficult to distinguish between a dinosaur and an antelope, even on rock art and stone carvings. Some examples are: In the Nazca desert in Peru, in the San Rafael district, in the Havasupai valley in Arizona, in the Natural Bridges Natural Monument in the USA and in the 800 year old Angkor temples in modern-day Cambodia. The evolutionist dr. Mary Schweitzer became famous for her descriptions of red blood cells and soft tissue in dinosaur bones in a number of separate cases.

In her own words:

It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn’t believe it. I said to the lab technician:

“The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?”

Is it too much to ask of evolutionists not to be blinded by their own faith in millions of years? Dinosaurs are really a good demonstration of the point that the more data are found, the more the creation model is vindicated. ]

7. He claims homo erectus, neanderthals etc are all descended from Adam and Eve, in a kind of reverse evolutionary process. Weren’t Adam and Eve modern humans? How could neanderthals, whose DNA has been isolated and shown to be intermediate between apes and humans, be descended from them? And how far back did such evolutionary change go – was homo habilis, the first tool-user, also descended from Adam and Eve? Does Mouton really think evolutionary change on this scale could have taken place in just 6 000 years?

[ The one human kind, of which Adam and Eve were the original ancestors, had sufficient genetic information at the start to produce through their descendants a vast variety of people, as can still be seen today -- long, short, fat, thin, black, white, different shapes and types of hair et cetera. If those who are called Neanderthals were alive today, and dressed like modern people, they probably would not have drawn any attention, except perhaps that some might suspect them to be rugby players or weight lifters. Anyone visiting the museum at the Cradle of Humankind can check the representation of the Neanderthal face to come to this same conclusion, but there is much more evidence. Homo habilis is not a valid classification -- all of its members probably belong to other groups.

Richard Leakey, one of the famous Leakey family of evolutionary paleo-anthropologists, said the following:

Of the several dozen specimens that have been said at one time or another to belong to this species [Homo habilis], at least half probably don’t. But there is no consensus as to which 50 percent should be excluded. No one anthropologist’s 50 percent is quite the same as another’s. [My underlining]

Milford H. Wolpoff said:

The phylogenetic outlook suggests that if there weren’t a Homo habilis we would have to invent one.

Prof. Thackeray's statement on Neanderthal DNA is opposed by a very recent study, reported on in IOL Discovery, 15 February 2009:

"The Neanderthals are so closely related to us that they fall into our genetic variation," [Prof Svante] Paabo [of the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig] said. In other words, it would be difficult to distinguish Neanderthal DNA from the DNA of a modern European, Asian or African.

Many other Neanderthal activities like burying their dead, controlling fire, making flutes (and music), and many more can be listed for confirmation of the creationist viewpoint.

No, evolutionary change of the above-mentioned scale did not take place in just 6 000 years -- no evolutionary change happened at all, ever. Changes did happen, but far better theories than evolution can explain them. ]

8. What about fossils – were they planted by God to mislead us? Or is he denying all that is known about the fossilisation process to claim they emerged in under 6 000 years?

[ Does prof. Thackeray really believe that fossilization is only possible over very long periods of time, while rapid burial and lack of oxygen because of the burial would have been a far better explanation than some animal lying for thousands of years on the bottom of a lake, waiting to be covered, without rotting or decaying to dust?

Does he know of the many examples of objects, known to have petrified, in decades only? Rapid petrification is a generally known fact amongst geologists. An example of wood turning into stone in Japan in only 7 years is known. There is more than one example of fish giving birth to their young with both fossilized -- a long process of slow burial? -- obviously not.

No, God does not want to mislead us, to the contrary -- most of the fossils are evidence that the worldwide flood as described in Genesis was real and true.

As will be His coming judgment:

(2Pe 3:5 -7) For this is hidden from them by their willing it so, that heavens were of old, and earth by water, and through water, having subsisted by the Word of God, through which the world which then was, being flooded by water, perished. But the heavens and the earth now, having been stored up by the same Word, are being kept for fire to a day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men. ]

-----------------------------------------------------------

Op 30 Julie 2010 het Mail & Guardian steeds nie die artikel geplaas of my enigsins geantwoord op my laaste insette aan hulle nie.