the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time.

Convenient that you drag up that old PRATT. It was while researching that question that then-creationist Merle Hertzler realized how much evidence there is for evolution and how false creationism is.Merle was the first of extremely few honest creationists that I have encountered in the more than three decades I've been studying and discussing "creation science." On CompuServe around 1990, he was doing things that no other creationist would do: he would actually try to engage in a discussion, would actually respond to questions, would actually try to support his claims and statements, and when he said he'd go read something he would actually follow through and actually read what he said he would. He was an honest creationist, so after about a year he came to realize how false creationist claims are so he switched to arguing for evolution. As I understand, several members of this forum used to be young-earth creationists who learned the truth about YEC and now oppose it. I think that's why so many creationists are so dishonest, because they have to keep themselves deluded in order to avoid learning the truth.The following is a small excerpt from Merle's page, Did We Evolve? (itself a very small part of his site), in which a visit to the university library and the research there opened his eyes. I present it to you, because the evolution of the mammalian ear was the specific question he was researching.

quote:

---

Years ago I was fighting the good fight of creation on the Internet. I argued that evolution was impossible, for it required that the genetic code had to be changed to make new kinds of animals. It did not seem feasible to me that evolution could do this. I argued in the CompuServe debate forum, basing my arguments on Michael Denton's Evolution: A Theory in Crises. My favorite illustration was the difference between mammals and reptiles. The differences between living mammals and reptiles are substantial. Mammals all have hair, mammary glands, a four-chambered heart, and the distinct mammalian ear, with three little bones inside. These features are found in no living reptiles. I argued that this is because there is no viable intermediate between the two, that an animal could have either the reptile genetic code or the mammal code but could not be in the middle.

​

An evolutionist disagreed with me. He told me that in the past there had been many intermediates. He said that there were animals that, for instance, had jaw and ear bones that were intermediate between reptiles and mammals. How did he know this? He gave a reference to an essay in Stephen Gould's Ten Little Piggies . I wrote back that since the local library had a large collection of children's book, I should be able to find that book. (I thought I was so funny). I borrowed the book, and found an interesting account of how bones in the reptile jaw evolved and changed through millions of years to become the mammals' ear. That sounded like such a clever tale. How could Gould believe it? Perhaps he made it up. But there was one little footnote, a footnote that would change my life. It said simply, "Allin, E. F. 1975. Evolution of the Mammalian Middle Ear. Journal of Morphology 147:403-38." That's it. That's all it said. But it was soon to have a huge impact on me. You see, I had developed this habit of looking things up, and had been making regular trips to the University of Pennsylvania library. I was getting involved in some serious discussions on the Internet, and was finding the scientific journals to be a reliable source of information. Well, I couldn't believe that a real scientific journal would take such a tale seriously, but, before I would declare victory, I needed to check it out.

​

On my next trip to the university, I found my way to the biomedical library and located the journal archives. I retrieved the specified journal, and started to read. I could not believe my eyes. There were detailed descriptions of many intermediate fossils. The article described in detail how the bones evolved from reptiles to mammals through a long series of mammal-like reptiles. I paged through the volume in my hand. There were hundreds of pages, all loaded with information. I looked at other journals. I found page after page describing transitional fossils. More significantly, there were all of those troublesome dates. If one arranged the fossils according to date, he could see how the bones changed with time. Each fossil species was dated at a specific time range. It all fit together. I didn't know what to think. Could all of these fossil drawings be fakes? Could all of these dates be pulled out of a hat? Did these articles consist of thousands of lies? All seemed to indicate that life evolved over many millions of years. Were all of these thousands of "facts" actually guesses? I looked around me. The room was filled with many bookshelves; each was filled with hundreds of bound journals. Were all of these journals drenched with lies? Several medical students were doing research there. Perhaps some day they would need to operate on my heart or fight some disease. Was I to believe that these medical students were in this room filled with misinformation, and that they were diligently sorting out the evolutionist lies while learning medical knowledge? How could so much error have entered this room? It made no sense.

​

. . .

​

The impact of that day in the library was truly stunning. I didn't know what to say. I could not argue against the overwhelming evidence for mammal evolution. But neither could I imagine believing it. Something had happened to me. My mind had begun to think. And it was not about to be stopped. Oh no. There is no stopping the mind set free. I went to the library and borrowed a few books on evolution and creation--diligently studying both sides of the argument. I started to read the evolutionist books with amazement. I had thought that evolutionists taught that floating cows had somehow turned into whales; that hopeful monsters had suddenly evolved without transitions; that one must have blind faith since transitional fossils did not exist; that one must simply guess at the dates for the fossils; and that one must ignore all of the evidence for young-earth creation. I was surprised to learn what these scientist actually knew about the Creationist teachings of flood geology, of the proposed young-earth proofs, and of the reported problems of evolution. And I was surprised at the answers that they had for these Creationist arguments. And I was surprised to see all the clear, logical arguments for evolution. I read with enthusiasm. I learned about isochrons, intermediate fossils, the geologic column, and much more.

​

I would never see the world in the same light. Several weeks later I found myself staring at the fossil of a large dinosaur in a museum. I stared with amazement. I looked at the details of every bone in the back. And I wondered if a design so marvelous could really have evolved. But I knew that someone could show me another animal that had lived earlier and was a likely predecessor of this dinosaur that I was observing. And I knew that one could trace bones back through the fossil record to illustrate the path through which this creature had evolved. I stared and I pondered. And then I pondered some more.

​

Within days, I had lost interest in fighting evolution. I began to read more and speak less. When I did debate, I confined my arguments to the origin of life issue. But I could no longer ignore what I had learned. Several months later I first sent out an email with probing questions to a Creationist who had arrived on the scene. He never responded. I have not stopped questioning.

---

As I pointed out to you last night, you are arguing against popularized science. You need to address the actual science as Merle had done. Which I'm sure you won't do, because you are not an honest creationist.

The trouble with many evolutionary "explanations" is that they are untestable hypotheses relating to events that cannot be verified as factual - so in effect, they
are stories within stories. Story-telling isn't science.

Actually you seem confused. It is religious belief that is story-telling and untestable, and relating to events that cannot be verified as factual.

Deducing theories from evidence is science. You obviously don't know what "untestable" means in relation to evolution.Name a dozen untestable evolutionary explanations.In the philosophy of science, all deductions are tentative. There are many that are so solidly established that we might as well cal them facts.

Too funny.There is evidence. It comes in the form of fossils and genetics and geology and in fact every single line of scientific inquiry. And every new process or procedure or technology simply confirms that the reality is that evolution is a fact, that the Theory of Evolution is the only explanation for the variety of life seen now and in the past; that the Biblical Creation stories are not just mutually exclusive and contradictory but also factually false.No honest person today can remain a Creationist unless they also admit that all of the evidence shows Creationism is false and that they are choosing Creationism through willful ignorance.Creationism exists only by lying constantly to oneself. It begins with utter dishonesty and goes downhill from there. There is no culture of honesty in Creationism but rather a Cult of Ignorance and Dishonesty.

You're misunderstanding what verification means. It's true that we can't dig up Napoleon, resuscitate him and see if he conquers Europe again - but there are other ways to verify his existence and his actions. Maybe you should think about why you accept Napoleon before you reject evolution so casually.

Stop talking nonsense. You sound like a damned fool.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

This is a very poor analogy. There are thousands of eye-witness accounts of Napoleon's existence. How many eye-witnesses accounts are there that describe mammals evolving from a reptile?

It's usually pointless comparing religious faith to science, but ToE is like religion in that it relies heavily on faith.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

The theory that all life on earth evolved from unicellular organisms is untestable.The theory that the three cellular kingdoms (eukaryotes, eubacteria, archaebacteria) share a common ancestor cannot be tested. Any theory of how the three cellular kingdoms evolved from a common ancestor is untestable.The theory that a mammal's four-chambered heart evolved from a reptile's two-chambered heart is untestable. Any theory of how a four-chambered heart evolved from a two-chambered heart is untestable.The theory that milk production evolved in some reptilian "ancestor" of mammals is untestable. Any theory of how milk production evolved is untestable.The theory that human descended from a monkey-man cannot be tested. Any theory of how a human evolved from a monkey-man cannot be tested.I could go on. Suffice it to say that there would be literally thousands of Darwinist explanations that are untestable ... and I would venture to say that the vast majority of Darwinist explanations are untestable. Hence, ToE is heavily dependant on speculation, assumptions and faith - so it's just glorified story-telling, not science.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

"two-chambered heart"? What organisms have that? Amphibians and reptiles have three-chambered hearts: two atria and one ventricle. Please try to get at least your most basic facts straight.What's the difference between one ventricle and two? A septum that divides the one ventricle into two.What proof is there of that happening? Consider the crocodile. Reptile, born with a three-chambered heart. As it grows larger, that becomes a four-chambered heart. Without skipping a beat.Possessing such abysmal ignorance, what do you think you can ever accomplish? I mean besides making your side look ridiculous.

Oh, I get it ... an honest creationist is one who gets converted to evolution and the creationists who don't are all dishonest. I'm glad we got that straightened out.--------------------Poor, stupid, gullible Merle. He fell victim to the greatest hoax in the history of mankind. These medical students thought evolution could advance medical science? LOL! What deluded, brainwashed fools.Edited by Dredge, : No reason given.

A better example is a fish heart. It is nothing like the heart of its "descendants" - amphibians and reptiles.

No, an honest creationist is one who actually looks at the evidence. Someone who is willing to test his own side's claims. Even the New Testament commands to test everything and hold on to that which is true. Have you ever tested a creationist claim? You're afraid to, because deep down you know that it's false.Dr. Kurt Wise, a YEC, is another example of an honest creationist. He found and freely admitted that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming. He freely admitted that if all he had to go on was the evidence, then he would accept evolution. But he is a presuppositionalist, which means that he presupposes his YEC beliefs and proceeds from there. He's sure that evidence will be found to support his YEC beliefs, but we just haven't found them yet. In the meantime, he very much wishes that creationists abandon their fascination with being evidential and should instead be presuppositional. We recently discussed Dr. Wise (no relation to myself) with Phat, so if you use the forum's search function you should find more information and links to even more.The thing is that if you are all wrapped up about what the evidence says, then honestly following the evidence will lead you to evolution. The only way for you to avoid that would be to avoid the evidence, to deceive yourself. Lies and deception, that's all that creationism has to offer.The irony is that there is no inherent conflict between evolution and a Divine Creator, YHWH even. The only conflict is with YEC and its contrary-to-fact claims. If YHWH (AKA "your god") did truly create the universe, then no evidence from the universe, from the real world, could possibly contradict that. But if you hold false beliefs about Creation, then reality would indeed conflict with those false beliefs.When are you ever going to wake up and stop doing such stupid things? He asked the questions and sought the answers.You are the one falling for a hoax.

After you lied to us so outrageously about the reptile heart, why should we believe at all what you say about the fish heart? You have proven yourself to be a liar! You're just lying to us again, aren't you? That is after all what creationists do, isn't it? Lie about everything and anything. That is what their god demands, isn't it? What your god demands.Over half a century ago, I was a Christian. I was taught Christian doctrine. Everything that creationists do, including you, is contrary to that Christian doctrine. According to that Christian doctrine, everything that creationists do, including you, indicates that you actually serve and worship the Prince of Lies, the Great Deceiver.Why don't you just come clean and admit that you worship and serve Satan?