Alright, I appreciate that.  I want you to notice throughout this discussion today, Mr. Powers has referred a few times to Genesis being simpler.  I think there is a subtle connotation in here like; if you believe that you are dumb, scientists know… they know better.  You know, it is kinda an I'm smart, you are dumb philosophy and any philosopher should know that just not good logic. Ok.  And to say that Genesis is simpler, here you are saying that you know… I believe it is pretty simple, it is written and I believe that's exactly the way that it happened.  And I don't believe you have to be stupid to believe that, I have an IQ of about 160, I taught science for about fifteen years, I used to debate on this topic all the time.  There simply is no evidence for evolution.  I think it is simple to see that dogs produce a variety of dogs and to assume that this proves that micro proves macro which is what he said, I disagree one hundred percent.  It takes a giant leap of faith in logic to go from micro to macro.  Nobody's ever seen a dog produce a non-dog.
    What we have here is a classic case of bait and switch.  If I said, boys and girls I have a new Mercedes for ten dollars, people would line up for ten miles down the street to get that thing.  And when they got there I would say, well we just sold it how bout you look at this one, it is only ninety-nine thousand.  Bait and switch is illegal folks; people get thrown in jail for that for advertising.  False advertising.  And yet your textbooks at this university give the kids a classic case of bait and switch.  They give them a definition for evolution, like descent with modification.  This 1999 edition textbook that I just reviewed last week for the school system says that evolution means a change over time.  That's not really what they mean.  It says: "Evolution is defined as a change in species over time."  This is deceitful, what happens is they get the kids to believing in evolution with this definition, which is true.  But then they switch them.  They switch in the real meaning like cosmic evolution, big bang, organic evolution, the other five that I mentioned for which there is no evidence what so ever.
    I come from Illinois, corn country, there is all sorts of corn up there folks.  You can cross breed your corn.  They have to number them, there is so many varieties of corn that they have to number them.  But you'll never get a hamster, or tomato or a whale to grow on that corn stalk. Ok. You are going to get corn!  See variations happen, you are going to get a variety of dogs, a variety of cats.  Variations happen but they have limits and somehow the evolutionist either doesn't see it this or doesn't understand it or doesn't want to admit it.  But yes, we have variety but there are limits.  Farmers try to breed for bigger pigs, don't they?  You ever thing they will get a pig as big as Texas? No, there is a limit in there someplace and the limit is what Genesis said there would be, after their kind.  Roaches become resistant to pesticides after a while, they do.  They can never become resistant to a sledgehammer.  There is a limit to the resistance.  And I don't know how somebody can believe that we all came from a rock over 4.6 billion years.  Evolution doesn't happen, variations happen but they are the same kinds of animal.  You might get a big dog or a little dog but that is not evolution it is just a variety and the gene pool already contains that information.  Gene pool is much more limited of the new variety that's not evolution.  And genetic information is lost with all these changes nothing is gained.  And people like [Aldrigde] admit that there is no evidence for this theory but we'll get into that next time.

Terry Prewitt: First Rebuttal

    I want to start by saying that Darwin was not accepted at first and in fact Darwinian evolution is not accepted today in totality.  We fight with each other over the data and over theory.  If you talk to two evolutionists, one will be a proponent of punctuated equilibrium and another will be a proponent of gradualism and all of these things I'm not going to deal with until my next data section.
    But we are talking about Genesis here because ultimately the text that creation science uses as its basic check to see whether things are right is Genesis.  Now, all text require interpretation.  Let's consider the story of Joseph… let's not consider the story of Joseph, let's go to Jacob.  When he is living with Levin and he is taking care of his flocks.  Now you can choice to interpret what Jacob did to get on kind of animals on one side and another kind of animals on the other side and ultimately he ended up with all the flocks cause he ended up with all the striped ones or the spotted ones.  You can interpret what he did as micro-evolutionary knowledge, which is one way of looking at it or you can interpret what he did as magic and in fact Genesis implies what he was doing was magic.  Because in fact before we had a knowledge of genetics, all the stuff that we did that worked like that was magic.  In effect scientists are great magicians.  The point that I'm making is that the text of Genesis is the foundation of creation science, not the record and I could contend and refute every single contention that has been made against the fossil record, against the material record that has been made by my colleagues.  If we have enough time, we can take the time to do it.  I can refute every single claim, about Neanderthal, about Lucy.  I don't care so much about Lucy.  Lucy's knees… I thought her hips were pretty impressive. Alright and in fact, half truths is what you are hearing from the other side.  Half truths.  They tell the part of it that fits their argument; we leave out the part that doesn't fit.  And that is something that is not allowed in the rules of science.  The rules of science say to us, you live in the world and how ever the world comes to you, that's what you are going to contend with and if nature comes back and says 'No', if you are a theistic evolutionist the you are saying that God is coming back and saying 'No, you haven't solved it yet, you not supposed to have that perfect knowledge.'  I'll finish this by saying that Kenneth Pike who is very devoted Christian and supporter who is one of the founders of the [Withlo] Bible Translating Group said "that the perfect epistemology is the epistemology of God, that knowledge of what happens in its detail, in perfection.  I'm not perfect, I'm human, I have to deal with science."

Mike Schultz: First Rebuttal

    Well, I still contend I don't believe in theistic evolution, I don't believe in any form of evolution.  Especially that we came from a rock, there is absolutely no genetic material in a rock and that presents kinda a problem for theistic evolution unless you are looking for a miracle.
    But I will go back to what is being taught in our textbooks as truth and fact and that it is horse evolution; you don't even see it at the zoos.  Horse evolution is supposed to be the end all and be all to prove that horses evolved yet that's not what they are teaching the kids in school some crazy things.  Like these horses are evolving but the truth is they don't tell them that it starts out with eohippus, with 18 pairs of ribs and the you keep going on to the next generation and then you can't make up how many ribs they are supposed to have.  There a lot of problems with this horse evolution.  It is made up by [H.C. Marsh] 1874 from fossils scattered across the world and not from the same location, which was Lucy's problem, scattered over almost two miles at different depths.  Modern Horses are found in layers with or lower than ancient horses, if you believe in the geologic column that presents a problem for your theory.  The ancient horse is not a horse but is like the [Hirex] still alive today, I have seen one in a zoo before.  Ribs, toes, feet, everything is totally different.  South American fossils go form one toe to three toe and they are never found in the order presented, [Mothill] just put them together in the order he thought that they should go.  And it is all being taught as fact and peddling to push evolution as true.  And once you start to fall for this lie of evolution that has no evidence for it; scientific evidence, that which you can measure, taste, touch, weigh and smell and all of that.  Once you began to fall for that you'll have a hard time with the Bible.  And they are pushing that dinosaurs evolved into birds.  I just read an article on this in a magazine about a month ago; they are bringing back again.  Starting the [archeopritch] argument all over again yet they are not teaching the kids that it has proven to be a lie.  And what good is half an arm and half a wing for millions of years?  You just can't [catch that] dragonfly out of the way.  The problem with [archeopritch] was the feather imprint was shown to be a fraud in 1990 and this hoax is still being used in public school textbooks and the newspapers and on the Discovery Channel.  Because of the fake feathers the slab halves of both halves of this fossil don't even line up anymore.  Two real birds have been found that predated [archeopritch] again if you believe in the geologic column, that could present quite a problem.  They say the wishbone was a hole through the back of the wishbone and it was put in upside down.  Folks there's a lot of problems with what they are presenting, they are not presenting the whole truth about these fossils.  It's considered to be a little compy dinosaur that people saw in Jurassic Park the sequel.  And the feather imprint was only found in two of the six fossils and these have been proven to be fakes.  Somebody slap some cement… some cement on one of these halves and imprinted feathers in it is what [---] claiming.  There's not enough fossil record for when, where and how Homo Sapiens emerged.  This is from the evolutionist apart form…. I'm sorry I have to stop here.

Nick Power: First Rebuttal

    I'm not a biologist; again I'm not a theologian.  I think all I can rely on and recommend to you all is that you take in these facts and half truths, some facts, the fossil record is incomplete and some half truths… that… I don't know were to begin.  I just hope that you are taking in using your full critical reflective capacities.  That is evolution through natural selection.  You know?  That evolution through natural selection…  That is I hope you haven't lost sense of the discussion here before us today.  Why should you believe this theory, as opposed to an account based on Genesis?  We're talking about your adopting or revising a belief.  This evidence might be impressive if we knew how to evaluate it but unless you know what… again what vestigial organs are or what [archeoprtix] is and how gradual changes from a dinosaur to a bird.  If that doesn't even make sense to you, you see, you can't evaluate the claim that that's what in fact happened.  Right?  You don't have a leg to stand upon.  Unless you can have some reasonably informed and critical capacities to evaluate that claim, it's neither here nor there.  I can't, you know?  I've read Richard Dawkins' book Rivers Out of Eden; I recommend it to all of you.  It's got a beautiful discussion on how a capacity such as the eye or vision or a wing can evolve out of… form nowhere, so to speak, by a miracle.  I fully recommend that book to you as an account of how that process can happen, but until we have got that book behind us we can not evaluate these claims and many of these other claims.  In my next non-rebuttal phase I'll tell you why you should believe in evolution through natural selection. Ok? Promise.