Brent
POPE
V • ‘fj ''•* •- • • X ' - > -
‘New’Hollywood movies are just disastrous
Run for your lives! Here comes
another one of those movies about
volcanoes, tidal waves or a giant
hemorrhoid from outer space that’s
going to take out the whole placet.
You know what I’m talking about;
ever since “Twister” came out last
May, there has been a rash (the red,
irritating kind) of natural disaster
films.
Most people will agree that these
productions look really cool; they
have great special effects. The
problem is that none of these movies
has (gasp!) an actual plot. Not one
piece of floating debris in this flood
of man vs. nature films has a story
line even as sophisticated as “Dumb
and Dumber” (no offense, Lord
Carrey).
Filmmakers are in such a hurry to
release their own natural catastrophe
movie that they aren’t writing great
dialogue to match the special effects.
They just put in a few lines here and
there — like “Whoa! Look at that
twister go!” or “Watch out! The tidal
wave is coming for yo’ ass!”
And just when you think that this
trend can’t possibly continue, here’s
a list of even more natural disaster
movies coming soon to a theater
near you:
“FLASH FLOOD” — “DifTrent
Strokes” star Gary Coleman makes a
comeback in this tale of overflowing
riverbeds. Unfortunately, Coleman’s
character drowns before the flood
gets very high. (What you drowning
me for, Willis?)
“GLACIER” — This documen
tary was shot over a time period of
400 years. It shows the reality of life
in a village next to a glacier.
Although the residents living by the
large ice mass always have a sense
of impending doom, the glacier only
moves 7 inches from the beginning
to the end of the movie.
“THAT DARN DROUGHT’—
Walter Matthau and Jack Lemmon
play next-door neighbors (that’s
never been done before) living
through a 10-year drought. Here’s
an excerpt from the script:
MATTHAU: “Boy, do I wish it
would rain.”
LEMMON: “You moron! The
last time it rained here, you still had
your own teeth!”
MATTHAU: “You putz! You
wouldn’t know rain if it kicked you
in the balls!”
LEMMON: “Hey moron, this
drought’s making me thirsty!”
MATTHAU: “Me too, putz!”
“GODZILLA VS. ACID RAIN”
■ A large black cloud from the
United States filled with acid rain
rides the Gulf Stream overseas to
challenge Japan’s favorite hero. It’s
an intriguing matchup: Acid rain vs.
a guy in a big rubber suit. (Who do
you think wins?)
“TAPEWORM HAILSTORM”
■ A freak shower of hungry
parasites engulfs a small Kansas
town during its summer barbecue.
No death or destruction here —
everyone just gets really skinny.
Iv
TTiat’s right, folks, Hollywood is
definitely on a Mother Nature kick
right now and there’s no end in
sight. The way I see it, you have two
choices:
1. Wrap yourself up like a
mummy and hope that the tape
protects you.
OR
2. Head for the hills, because you
still haven’t heard about “The Killer
Aurora Borealis” or “The Fog That
Whistles Dixie.”
Pope is a senior broadcasting
major and a Daily Nebraskan
columnist.
Matt HaneWDN
Guest
VIEW
a Season
.... ... .. . s
Editor’s note: This is the first in a
two-part discussion on the origins of
life.
SAN JOSE, Calif. (U-WIRE) —
For more than a century the theory of
evolution has supported a false mes
sage to our society and educational
institutions. It has given us the notion
that we were evolved from nonliving
matter (algae), which eventually
evolved into fish, reptiles, apes and
finally man over billions of years. It
tells us that we are a descendant from
a tiny cell, a blind product of chance
and not special and unique, created in
the likeness of God.
This theory, which has been ac
cepted as fact by our universities, sci
entific community and many everyday
citizens, has a glitch. It has no scien
tific evidence to back it up.
That’s right, not one scientific fact!
And what about the famous geologi
cal column, the fossil record, dino
saurs and transitional forms to which
evolutionists cling? Are you ready to
learn the truth?
Hie fairy tale
We’ve all heard the nursery tale as
children about the frog that turns into
the prince. Well, today’s evolutionists
are trying to tell the old nursery tale
about a frog being transformed into a
prince and sell it as fact.
Except that in this case, the magi
cal transformation is not instanta
neous, but manipulated by the evolu
tionists (the story tellers).
For evolution to be possible it must
allow for spontaneous generation to
occur over billions of years. The only
problem is that this goes against the
well-established law of biogenesis,
which states that life can only come
from pre-existing life.
This was proven by Louis Pasteur
130 years ago and is found in every
biology textbook. So, how can nonliv
ing matter become living as evolution
ists suppose? It can’t because it is sci
entifically impossible. No one has ever
made nonliving matter live.
The evolutionists’ fairy tale begins
with the notion that we can ignore this
law and continues with the creation
of the geological column.
The geological column
This—the primary scientific evi
dence for evolution — exists only in
the evolutionists’ minds. Nowhere in
the world has this column been seen,
and there is much less evidence to sus
tain it. To substantiate evolution’s
claim (which is merely an assumption)
the geological column was needed.
(So, to fit the story, geologists created
it to fit or prove evolution.)
The strata (layers of sedimentary
rocks) containing certain fossils were
dated by the fossils themselves, ac
cording to the evolutionists’ assump
tion that simpler fossils (fish, inverte
brates, protozoa) evolved first.
Strata with simpler fossils were put
on the bottom of the column while
strata containing more complex forms
(amphibians, reptiles, birds, apes, etc.)
were put toward the top of the column.
Tom Kemp, a curator at the Uni
versity Museum of Oxford, acknowl
edged in “A Fresh Look at the Fossil
Record; New Scientist Vol. 108 in
1985”: “A circular argument arises:
Interpret the fossil record in the terms
of a particular theory of evolution, in
ject the interpretation and note that
it confirms the theory.” Well, it would,
wouldn’t it?
Thus, the assumption of evolution
was used to arrange the sequence of
fossils. The prime evidence for evolu
tion is then the assumption of evolu
tion and of a geological column! This
is a perfect example of circular rea
soning.
Of course, if the geological column
is nothing more than a fairy tale made
up by scientists, then it should be no
surprise that it is riddled with contra
dictions. There are many cases where
fossils are found in the wrong strata
and instances where older blocks of
strata are found on top of younger
strata. The Grand Canyon is riddled
with older blocks of strata found on
top of younger ones.
Contradictions
An example of this is the mis
placed strata found in Glacier National
Park, where there is a block of Pre
cambrian limestone (supposedly 1 bil
lion years old) on top of Cretaceous
shale formation (supposedly only 100
million years old). This “misplaced”
block of limestone, which is about 350
miles long, 35 miles wide and 6 miles
thick, obviously demonstrates that the
Precambrian rocks were actually de
posited after the Cretaceous rocks and
that the geological column and time
table of earth history is totally mean
ingless.
Dinosaurs
The theory that dinosaurs roamed
the Earth millions of years before hu
mans is as much a misconception as
the geological column. In Arizona and
Rhodesia, dinosaur pictographs have
been found drawn on cave or canyon
walls by man.
Numerous contemporaneous hu
man and dinosaur prints, which have
been verified by reliable paleontolo
gists, have also been found in Mexico,
New Mexico, Arizona and in other
U.S. localities.
It is also quite interesting that in
1977 a Japanese fishing ship snagged
the decaying body of a possible “ple
siosaur” 900 feet under water near
New Zealand. On June 1,1968, Will
iam Meister, amazingly, discovered
fossils of several trilobites in the fos
silized, sandaled man’s footprint.
Trilobites, sea creatures, became
extinct 230 million years before man
ever lived, according to the geologi
cal column! These findings prove not
only that the geological column is not
only false but also that all creatures
lived together at One time. This is in
harmony with the creationists’ view
and the book of Genesis.
Absence of transitional forms
Another major discrepancy with
evolution is the absence of transitional
forms. This is perhaps the most seri
ous of defects in the evolutionary
theory.
If life has constantly been evolv
ing slowly over millions of years of
transmutation from one form to an
other, then we should definitely hope
to find many fossils of the intermedi
ate stages between the different forms.
For example, according to the
theory of evolution, reptiles became
birds over a long period of time. We
should, therefore, find fossils of sev
eral animals between reptiles and
birds.
What do we really find? None!
Even the father of evolution himself,
Charles Darwin, acknowledged this
fatal flaw: “As by this theory, innu
merable transition forms must have
existed. Why do we not find them
embedded in the crust of the earth?
Why is all nature not in confusion in
stead of being as we see them, well
defined species?
“Geological research does not yield
the infinitely many fine gradations
between past and present species re
quired by the theory; and this is the
most obvious of the many objections
which may be argued against it.”
Darwin hoped that the missing
forms were because of an incomplete
fossil record. In time, he thought as
we found mare fossils we would find
these transitional forms (the substan
tial evidence). But instead of having
more, we actually have less. Let’s
leave it to the evolutionists to explain.
Evolutionist and paleontologist
David Raup, Ph.D. states in “Natural
History Vol. 86, No. 5” in 1977: “Dar
win was embarrassed by the fossil
record. We are now about 120 years
after Darwin and the knowledge of the
fossil record has been greatly ex
panded. We now have a quarter of a
million fossil species, but the situa
tion hasn’t changed much. We have
even fewer examples of evolutionary
transition than we had in Darwin’s
time.”
Evolution geologist and paleon
tologist Stephen Gould, Ph.D. con
fesses in the “Paleobiology Vol. 6” in
1980 that the lack of evidence is a
well-kept secret from those in the gen
eral public (specifically you and me):
‘The extreme rarity of transitional
forms in the fossil record persists as
the trade secret of paleontology.”
Now the secret is out and evolu
tion is exposed for what it is: a foolish
theory that has no scientific evidence.
Will you still choose to believe the
lie that you are a descendant from a
tiny cell, a blind product of chances
and that your ancestors are monkeys?
That you are purely a biological prod
uct and that once you die, that is it. In
short, that you came from nothing and
that you are nothing.
Ur will you choose to believe that
you are a special creation by God, cre
ated in his image and that you differ
from the animals, not only in degree,
but in kind? That your creator de
signed every DNA particle in you just
right?
That your creator loves you so
much and wants to have a deep rela
tionship with you so much that he sent
his son to die for you on a cross 2,000
years ago? That he has created you
with a purpose and plan for your life
and has given you the word of God to
help you? The truth is that God was
very much involved in his creation and
he designed all life for a reason and
purpose. On this note, our lives have
meaning, purpose and direction.
We were not just a mistake as the
evolutionary model would like us to
believe but special and unique. The
mistake is believing in the nursery tale
of the frog and the prince.
The Guardian
