An Evolution Primer for Young Earth Creationists

What I find interesting is how the Creationists have basically surrendered their homeland in order to fight a battle on the frontier.

Consider: they oppose the idea of non-directed origin and evolution of life because it removes the need for a divine Creator. And of course the Creator is the whole point of any religion.

But in order to fight against "evolution" they've increasingly tried to borrow the authority of science. In other words, they have abandoned the whole idea of Divine authority and instead have tacitly accepted that science and reason are the arbiters of truth in the modern world.

I personally have more respect for a Biblical literalist who says the fossils were planted by Satan than I do for Creationists who try to be "scientific." The literalist at least has made the choice of faith over reason, while the "scientific creationist" has neither faith nor reason.

Cambias, Amherst, MA
December 01, 2006 7:35am

An excellent point that I agree with - stay tuned for an entire episode on this specific issue.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
December 01, 2006 7:41am

For serious reading-look up Dawkins, Maynard and Gould. Yes an excellent point above but the average Joe won't be able to see anything but an argument over points of view. Points of view are, strictly scientifically irrelevant, if not backed up by observation and experimentation; in short EVIDENCE. Here are some for instances:-

Have you ever seen a short Giraffe, munching on its short tree? No?
Well maybe that's because they've evolved to suit each other. Imagine a time when there were short, medium and tall Giraffes. Why not? You can have short, medium and tall horses/dogs/people. So, let's say they munch on short, medium and tall trees, too. But each one munches on whichever it can reach. Well, the first result of this THOUGHT experiment is to realise that the short trees will suffer first; every one's capable of munching them so they suffer; maybe even die out due to over use. SO, the smallest Giraffes die out too, why? They can't reach the medium/tall trees.
Next to go , by this logic, are the over used medium trees, followed by the medium Giraffes who can't reach the tall trees that remain. So finally we've got to see that natural selection has produced tall Giraffes and tall trees. So if you see a short Giraffe munching on a small tree, let me know!
(Obviously I'm referring to adult animals and the specific trees that Giraffes eat, not some baby eating a small bush in your garden).

One point to refer to above: It's NOT entirely correct to think in terms of evolution, or, natural selection as producing THE BEST. This is a fallacy!
What is produced is simply a selection, not quite at random, that will be most SUITABLE.

If the random process of mutation

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 01, 2006 10:35am

I have read most of the Bible and Koran, Buddhist and Hindu texts and remain a strengthening atheist. Try and get a person with faith to read Darwin's Dangerous Idea - Dennet or any Dawkins! They wont. At least I try to" know my enemy"; they with their faith prefer to close their eyes to the awesome reality being revealed through science.

My worst fear, a light at the end of a tunnel after I die! Maybe Ezra Pound was right - "a handful of gods will do" - just for insurance on the other side!

Colin Campbell, Sydney, Australia
December 01, 2006 11:41pm

Anybody who contracts MRSA has had a personal demonstration of evolution in action.

And anybody who has given birth or had appendicitis has had a personal demonstration of the lack of intelligent design.

James McCartney, Belfast, Northern Ireland
December 03, 2006 4:50am

I can't say I've read the koran, although I'm led to believe that it was only invented at about 650 AD, but I recently read the Gideon's bible in a hotel room. I flicked through a few chapters of repetitive nonsense (how any rationally minded person can subscribe to such drivel is beyond me), which seemed mostly concerned with the whole sale GENOCIDE of people who I assume would be classified as ARABS by JEWISH warlords. Reminds me of the GENOCIDE in WW2 by the roman catholic, ADOLF.

Now the last thing I want is for anyone to think I condone The Religious atrocity of 9/11. But the bible seemed to be bragging about the jews kicking ass. I think scientific evolution has been held back for 100's of years by these primitive beliefs; these primitive minds!

If I live to see one thing it would have to be a T-Rex, freshly re-invented by genetic engineering.

I recently read some Dawkins and He has come to realise that to debate with these nutters is tantamount to crediting them with a cause worthy of such debate...which of course it isn't, i.e. creationism.

I hope to see the day when a self replicating 'other' (not DNA) is invented.

How for example do they explain that physicists produce elements that god hasn't been able to?

On the topic of diseases like meningitis, which I for one survived as a child, due to quick medical attention; not the grace of god. Virus evolution maps other organism's evolution. So it's hardly surprising if a couple get ahead of us in the survival game.

Yet they don't even qualify to be called living. Yet they can invade any 'living' thing. I've never heard of a virus being infected though. Now that's h

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
December 05, 2006 5:03am

Crumbs, so popular!

Felt I should mention Flora. Who's she? She's a Komodo dragon [one of two] in Chester zoo, UK and she's expecting eight babies!

The interesting thing is, she didn't mate with a male: a process called - parthenogenesis.

This is the chicken before the egg! You see if an egg came first, to produce a chicken it would need to be fertilised by [at least] one parent, to switch it on. Sooo you'd need a chicken first, to press the switch.

Yet if you start with an adult, it can lay a viable egg! Or even eight! Sooo the chicken wins again.

There's an old, old saying - 'all comes, to those who wait'. Evidence...Not opinion, based on a FEELING, is what will [IS] sorting things out.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
December 25, 2006 5:14am

I thought the egg must have been laid by a chicken-like bird. A proto-chicken, if you like.

Percy Ferry, Melbourne, AUST
January 01, 2007 5:06pm

Beautiful post, sir, which addresses very neatly and comprehensively the godders' cherished myths.

Just one small point to add to the ongoing effort to get creationists to stop banging on about randomness and concentrate on Selection, where all the real action is: instead of 'mutation' I find it helpful to use 'variation' when speaking of the two-part evolutionary process. People think of 'mutation' in zombie terms.

And to an extent they're right. Ionising radiation etc. is much more likely to produce tumours than viable haploid genomes. I believe the best novel genomes will usually emerge - in sexually reproducing animals anyway - from new combinations of tried&tested parental genes during fusion, together with the shuffling phase at the end of meiosis that creates gametes.

It now appears that this latter process is a lot less random than previously believed. According to an article in ScienceDaily ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/12/061215091042.htm ) researchers at UCSD have identified a bunch of previously-unknown molecular machines whose function is to make sure that the process of pulling apart duplicated chromosomes is error-free. The system checks that each block of genes is properly connected to microtubules fanning out from the spindles on either side of the replicating cell, and that any incorrect connections - both copies of a particular gene attached to the same spindle, say - are quickly dissolved and re-formed correctly.

Obviously no data-transfer system can ever be perfect, and copying errors will still occur. When they do, the result will often be cancer or some similar cellular catastrophe. But once in a few thousand megabluemoons the e

Chris Davis, Newbury, UK
January 02, 2007 9:46pm

Where are the transitional fossils? Every few years a new discovery comes along that is touted as "the missing link", later to be classified as an existing species. For billions of years of evolution, there should be mountains of transitional species. Someone cite one example, please.

Webster, Cincinnati, OH
January 03, 2007 9:22pm

Mountains is the point, sometimes. Not all fossils survive plate tectonics [the rock cycle]. But fossils only add to the evidence - fossils ARE NOT the best evidence. In you, me and the monkey next door [he's a gorilla actually], are most if not all the successful genes that map out history.

As Webster says:'Every few years...' But this in turn is limited. So in other words fossils [like fossil fuel] are running out, devoured by Gaia.

The fossil record is quite large I 'believe', and new discoveries are ongoing. It's not easy digging a mouse out of a mountain! I'm glad to have indoor work!

Percy, you're probably correct!

I use the 'old question' to make people think; my students, especially!

Often it's a good question, not the answer, that is the key.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 04, 2007 6:54am

Sorry Webster...there's no missing link mate. That's the idiot creationist propaganda for you. Look. It's no more correct to say humans evolved from monkeys, than it is to say we came from hippo's. Although when I look in the mirror...

Evolution is like your hand - the nails representing the present multitude of organisms [plants and animals]. Trace them back and knuckle by knuckle they join, into their ancestor. Then into the next. Until you reach the common ancestor, the wrist.

You can't bridge nail to nail - ie no cross breading as the chromosomes won't match up. If you could...Don't tease me!

And we are ''cousins'' of apes [are apes] not so much monkeys. There is a difference, for those who don't feel kin to monkeys! Read Dawkins. I wish I got paid for that plug!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 04, 2007 7:05am

With only 4 billion years or so of evolution, I can see why the fossils would be hard to find. NOT!!! With all the dinosaurs being found, a single transitional fossil should be a piece of cake.
This is just another cop-out by an evolutionist. So now the excuse is "there are no transitional fossils because species did not evolve". You cannot have it both ways, genius! What kind of reasoning is"Evolution is like your hand-the nails representing the present organisms, blah, blah, blah." Which came first? The nails or the fingers? Or perhaps the wrist? Arm? Elbow? How did the rest appear if not by evolution? I at least know what I believe, Einstein!

Webster, Cincinnati, OH
January 04, 2007 9:51am

Let's please try to discuss without name calling or personal comments, please. :)

I couldn't include all the myths about evolution in one short podcast. For a good discussion of the misconception that evolution requires transitional fossils, please see the Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil#Misconceptions

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
January 04, 2007 9:58am

One only need to trace the "evolution" of the theory of evolution to see the need for it's adherents to change their ideas from the original Darwinian theory. As archeology advanced, the lack of transitional fossils forced them to do so. Even Stephen Gould called the lack of such to be "the trade secret of paleontologists".

Webster, Cincinnati, OH
January 04, 2007 9:28pm

I suggest moving this discussion to the forum, where it's a little easier to debate conversationally. :)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
January 04, 2007 9:44pm

Thanks Brian, the Wikipedia virgin that I am has become enlightened!

Webster, if you go there [as above] and then click on the 'link' - proto human, you'll find a fine list of intermediates that I can't pronounce! But that are related to you, mate.

I would assume by your vigor that you're a creationist then? And you feel it strange when theories change or scientists can't agree?

Well that's because new evidence confirms some ideas are correct and some are wrong...like creationism.

Isn't it strange how much PROOF religious people DEMAND from science...what little FAITH they have!

Your fallacy lies in the incorrect notion creationists have, vis a vis:'What use is half of [something]...a brain, maybe?'...in their cases?

One case was the 'mousetrap'. It didn't evolve [they retort] it was designed! **Well, it didn't hardly GROW either, did it?**

Sooo, is a water molecule designed along the lines that it floats when solid, thereby allowing life to flourish in severe cold [underneath].

You lot would say YES!, our lot would say Nooo. Who is correct?

The solution lies in the differences between chemical & physical. Water & organic life is based on chemistry and the reactions finally manifest themselves physically. The mouse trap is wholly physical, not capable of physical change [and so is the water molecule]. So too for that matter is the physical body. It's the chemistry that can change for 'life' but not for 'water' or 'mousetraps'.

This is because DNA gives information to provide a phenotype [that can vary] but 'water','mousetraps' and 'rocks' can't.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 05, 2007 3:27am

Neill: I visited your aforementioned link to "proto humans" and was humored at phrases such as "estimated", "traditionally considered", "debated","commonly thought to be", etc. So it comes down to this, we all have the same evidence and comes down to interpretation of that evidence. Visit www.dissentfromdarwin.organd view the list of intellectuals that, because of science, they cannot continue to hold to an undesigned natural world. As archeology and science advance, so will this movement. Malcolm Muggeridge said," "I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it has been applied, will be one of the great jokes in history books of the future."

Webster, Cincinnati, OH
January 05, 2007 8:26am

Yes there where others like'common misconceptions'...all too common! Webster, no need to dig up fossils to find intermediates...

Moles have eyes [yet they live underground] which are not needed and not used. Why? RSVP.

Whales have vestigial leg & pelvis bones. Why? RSVP. They don't walk around the sea bed, or do you possess 'evidence' of walking whales? They also have hair [to keep them warm maybe?].

These are examples of animals that possess features NOW that they really don't[shouldn't] have. Can you tell us WHY? Answer= they are intermediates.

Above you seem to be losing it:'How did it appear, if NOT by evo.'You seem confused or at least I am from reading it.

The point I was making, as simply as possible, so as to involve every one, is that no MODERN species evolved from another. You can't link your nails! So you can't link modern species.

I'm glad you believe something [good for you-or not]. The fact is I think about evidence, I don't believe it.

''We all have the same evidence...interpretation...''

Until recently religious bigots scoffed at dinosaurs...Are they in the bible? No? I wonder why?

Well I don't purport to predicting the future. Mind you, in 1866 Ernst Haeckel (German Zoologist) quite correctly anticipated that Hippos are closer to Whales than pigs[and further from horses]. Molecular research has proven this.

Explain something then: Yes fossils of all manner of dinosaurs etc have been found. But at those locations has a fossil of a cow, dog or man been found? NO? That's because they weren't there, they evolved from those tiny shrew-like mammals which hid from dinos, that hav

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 10, 2007 5:35am

Neill, I know it must gnaw at evolutionists guts to not be able to explain the absence of transitional fossils! Who says that all these, so called, vestigial organs and other features are just that.

Moles eyes function to the extent that they know when light hits them, because here in Ohio, we go out at night (that's when they come above ground)and lift them from their tunnels to get them out of our yards. They know very well when a flashlight beam hits them. Who proved that a whale has vestigial leg and pelvis bones? Evolutionists? A cloud, a watermelon, and a jellyfish are all 98% water, but are they related?

Commonality in design is seen throughout nature. Would you say that a Boeing 747 is evolved from a Bi-plane? No! It is a common design. Dinosaurs are in the bible, AND they are alive today! Alligators, crocodiles, Komodo Dragons, many various lizards and serpents, are what dinosaurs are. They lived alongside man until the flood of Noah. Dinosaurs were not created carnivorous, but when Adam sinned, they were corrupted along with everything else. Genesis 6:13, God told Noah that He would destroy the earth because it had become "violent" because of man. If you read the whole chapter Noah did not go get the animals as commonly taught. It took Noah 120 years to build the ark and God "sent" the chosen animals to Noah; this possible because there was probably only one giant land mass at that time. Please read Job 40:15-24, and Job 41:1-10; the discription is amazing. And where did all the dragon legends spring from? Could've been dinosaurs carried on the ark, now extinct!

You need to check on your facts: When the waters abated and all dead creatures were covered with silt there we

Garry Webb, Liberty twp., OH USA
January 10, 2007 4:22pm

Not the stupid 747 argument...oh no catch me I'm falling.Yes it was designed.It's like the mouse trap et al..on & on et spew!

'Oh (the faither retorts) if a piece of the trap is missing it carnt work (smug look)'.

Oh so the world isn't 4000 yrs old any more[thanks to science] and noah lived when-Pre Cambrian-epoch.HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.Sorry have to dry my eyes..

And the Universe running down...to where.2nd law of thermo there my friend.

Well the trap is physical not chemical[so to the 747]. As we can see YOU'VE kicked yourself in the moles. Because you seem to KNOW that a partly functional moles' eye CAN AND DOES WORK....shout it from the roof tops...hallelujah.Half an eye DOES WORK.Oh and so can a 747 fly with less than 4 engines.

'Who says these...so called vestigial organs..' As usual--Respected scientists,mate.Typical of the faither's mentality...If they don't agree...then they DISMISS IT. Oh that's objective.

And all this evidence you've got...for what god?Please show us...

If goddums did create the 'all' THEN WHAT CREATED IT[god]. Talk about the snake eating it's tail.

Ha Ha Ha Ha ....Above the bit about noah!Thanks for that.Only 120 yrs his arm must ov ached.And the nice bit about 'possible due to one land mass' that was discovered by science[and anyway, couldn't god do it-trans continental-ha ha ha...So he built the Earth, then came back to modify his inadequate design.I see.Oh and a couple of nasty dinosaurs[that religious zealots have denied for soooo long] now turn up for noah,and cause a ruckus!Lions, and Tigers and Bears, [oh my],Yes Lions Tigers and Bears,[oh my] are all pretty na

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 22, 2007 5:16am

Oh the part about COMMON DESIGN.Well if there is a common design in nature it evolved[or is it that god is very inadequate and lacks the imagination required for diversity].It makes sense to have everything similar if it came from small beginings and evolved.

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 22, 2007 6:58am

Neilly, Here's a brown paper bag; breath slowly and get a grip. In the entirety of last tirade, you stated absolutely nothing, but the typical nasty atheistic attitudes against anything creationist. The only thing missing was where you call me a "stupid poopy pants"!

Moles eyes are not partially developed. They are fully developed according to what they are designed for.

Tell you what, go into a lab and randomly mix unmarked chemical bottles! But, please set up a video camera so we have a record for posterity.

Why do "vestigal organs" continue to develop within the species? Because they are not vestigial! They serve a purpose.

Now, please sit down. If you faint,you will not be injured!

You ask "then who created God?" I found this little gem last night:
"In a December 2004 interview with Bill Moyers, Dawkins stated that "among the things that science does know, evolution is about as certain as anything we know." When Moyers later asked, "Is evolution a theory, not a fact?", Dawkins replied, "Evolution has been observed. It's just that it hasn't been observed while it's happening." Dawkins went on to say, "It is rather like a detective coming on a murder after the scene. And you… the detective hasn't actually seen the murder take place, of course. But what you do see is a massive clue ...Circumstantial evidence, but masses of circumstantial evidence. Huge quantities of circumstantial evidence."

Even in the very unscientific theory of evolution, an amazing amount of faith must be exhibited in able to truly believe it. Just the mention of the lack of intermediate and transition evidence has caused you

Webster, Cincinnati, OH
January 22, 2007 8:27am

Another 'quoter'.La la la la...

So 'genius' those vestigial legs[that you snubbed last time] are ''continuing to develop''.Been reading up on it have you? Well that's evolution happening right now...according to YOU ACTUALLY they serve a porpoise[purpose]. So enlighten us all, 'Why do whales and dolphins need legs?' Isn't god happy with the design? Not perfect, ay?

What is the purpose?

How can you 'observe' evolution when it takes a long time. Slow video, is it? A dumb question is just that, dumb.

When a dolphin develops a leg in the embryonic phase and then retracts it, it's because it doesn't need it any more now that it doesn't walk on land. That has been videoed! Unless it can walk on water, of course!But then you would even think that a possibility I'm sure. jesus did it [not].

There are many instances of similar species mutating [right before your eyes-but you're too ignorant to see it]. You are what, white, black afro., asian? They are all mutations of genes - evolution right now. But interbreeding keeps the process in check, for humans. Look at the jewish nose, did god come up with that one? Or my crippled leg?

''Let it turn their feet so we can tell them apart''....bigots! I have a mutant gene, several actually. One gives me a bald head, another a club foot[cured by corrective surgery, not faith]. Yet another gives me[and my child] blue eyes and psoriasis.

Am I really expected to believe god gave them to me for a reason? Then it's reasons stink!

If there were no such thing as genes and evolution then why doesn't god put a lime-green person on the earth? It normally

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 23, 2007 3:44am

Neil, Good luck in your future endeavors. I have copies of several of your posts and I doubt you will have any new material in the near future, so when I think of you I will simply read your repeated ramblings about "evidence" that i don't have and that you do. Sounds like you have it pretty well figured out so I won't wake you any further.

Uh oh, I gotta go now. My wife says that our dolphin needs to go out for a walk.

TaTa, space cadet!!!!

Garry Webb, Hamilton, Oh
January 23, 2007 2:38pm

Oh I just have to.

Webster (still there)...but please don't take this as a personal attack...I'm only interested in the truth!

You ask where are the fossils of little people? The intermediates?

Well my friend WHERE'S THE REMAINS OF THE ARK? I mean .. it's so big. No HUGE. I myself have found small fossils in the mining area nearby. A huge ship capable of carrying the ENTIRE earth's animals [except the nasty dinos] should [and I quote] ''be no problem''. You speak with such confidence that Noah was alive when the dinosaurs roamed...He,He,Heeee...

Should have liked to have seen him legging it down the road being chased by T-Rex. RUNnnnnnnn...!

And Webby... the moles have eyes (yes) but there's a layer of skin over the top. They are, in fact, PROPER eyes, developed enough to see you and I, but WHY ARE THEY COVERED? There are many other animals that live under ground (but) 'come on top', so they've kept theirs open.

And Garry, dear boy, I haven't got it figured out...Science has!

The next time you post something, make it a message from god. I'd love to know what the old boy is doing these days. You don't hear much about it these days. Hasn't had too much to do lately, I suppose; Job and finish!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 24, 2007 4:25am

Oh sorry, the bit about 'the earth being destroyed due to man's violence'...

I think the 'atomic age' and religiously motivated genocide is worse than a few large reptiles. Don't you?

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 24, 2007 4:32am

############################################

Sorry, Sorry, Webby.... A few lines ago I did, actually, ask you [or any other faither] a question: '...then who created god?'

To which you pulled 'A Mikey' - meaning you quoted someone you like, and side-stepped the question!

There's YOUR uncaused cause.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
###################~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~

Just encase you missed it!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
January 24, 2007 4:58am

If I may interject, according to Hebrew scholars a cubit was the length of a man's arm from fingertip to elbow, or approximately 18 inches. Using this measurement, the Ark would be roughly 450 ft. long, 75 ft. wide, and 45 ft. tall.

Rev. James Richard, Chicago, Il
January 24, 2007 5:00pm

Is this your arm or mine? Or my uncle's, because he's pretty big!

This, then, is a fantastic example of the non-scientific way the biblical eyes look at the world.

It may come as a surprise to know that 'a metre' is the wavelength of light from a krypton-86 atom. There's only one of its kind!

So the arc was about 140m, by 24m by 14m. Seems hardly likely that all those animals could climb aboard.

Why didn't god just scrap all the bad stuff with it's powers; why use a flood?

Why? Because it's a stupid story to control people, and what better than a powerful flood to show how strong god is. The fact that it's already [supposedly] created the whole universe doesn't seem to matter!

Anyone heard of the NEW human species from Indonesia? NO?

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
January 30, 2007 5:34am

A study shows that if two of every animal "kind", was taken aboard a structure with the area equal to the cubit measurement given in the bible, it was calculated that only 3500 sheep sized animals would be needed to re-populate the post flood world of Noah.
For an example: There would be no nessecity for two of each dog breed, simply two dogs, or more probably, wolf type dogs. The seperate breeds would come later, when released into the wild after the flood abated.

Genesis states that God sent the animals that He chose to Noah. Noah did not go get them. Noah had 120 years to build the ark; plenty of time for the creatures to reach him.
Common sense would dictate that the animals were probably all very young and of a small size. A very young T-Rex would be easily penned up and comtrolled, as would any other dinosaur that would be taken aboard. (The dragon lores and stories of ancient times are most probably expanded stories about post flood dinosaurs, which later became extinct, just as many other creatures have become.)

These calculations leave plenty of room aboard the Ark for food and other needs for the care of the animals. It is also possible that divine intervention could even have rendered the animals in a type of hibernation which would do away with the need for much food and would ease in the care of the creatures.

The story of Noah is not as far fetched as one may believe. It is entirely explainable, if you will simply look at the facts.

Rev. James Richard, Chicago, IL
January 30, 2007 2:52pm

So Reverend, explain to me this;
1:How did Noah and co. load all these animals (conservative estimate = 25,000 pairs) in one week? That's one animal every 30 seconds. Implausible to say the least.
2: Your comment about young animals being on board does not fit with Genesis speaks of the "male and his mate" surely indicating sexual maturity and adulthood.
3:Why is there no evidence of the flood in the ice cores from Antarctica/Russia? There would be sedimentary layers, evidence of a flood. There is no such evidence.
4:The Koala is only found in Australia. How did it get back there after the flood subsided.

One could go on but you get the drift. I respect your beliefs but the flood is simply preposterous.

Henry, Sydney
February 01, 2007 5:14pm

Henry, consider this:
1)I do not know where you came up with 25,000 pairs of animals. I don't believe that there were representitives of every breed of every species. God commanded two of every unclean "kind" of creature and seven of every clean animal, but, I believe, it could have been simply two of every "kind" of creature, i.e; seven cattle kind, not seven water buffalo, and seven Herefords, and seven Jerseys, seven Yaks; etc.
2)Scripture simply says to take a male and his female; simply whatever creature you have a male of , take a female of that same species. Animals don't marry like people, therefore "mate" is differentiated in the animal world.
3)I believe that the ice age (the polar ice caps anyway)probably occured immediately after the flood, as the post-flood world was quite different than the pre-flood world. It had never rained in the pre-flood world; as the bible says that the earth was watered with a mist that rose up from the earth and that there was some type of protective "expanse of water" (called "firmament" in the bible)between the earth and outer space (see Genesis 1:6&7)This accounts for why the other people perhaps did not believe Noah when he warned that it would rain for forty days and forty nights. They did not know what rain was, as we know it. There is a great deal of evidence for a global flood. I believe that the topography of the earth was much different before the flood. No great high mountains and I believe that there was a single land mass as according to Genesis 10:4&5; and Genesis 10:25.
Scientists have computed that the amount of water now on the earth, would cover the entire surface of the total landmass of all

Rev. James Richard, Chicago, IL
February 01, 2007 7:06pm

Rev. consider this...

1-'every animal kind'.Name them.You want to get close to science, with your religion...then name, every animal 'kind' that noah had.

2-'no need for 2 of each breed, just 2 of a type'.
Then to progress you'd need evolution [or maybe divine intervention], which would take a few million years.

3-How did noah 'back breed'?I mean, for instance, if noah kept 2 chimps [to represent 'apes'], then how did he 'regress' to the common ancestor and then zoom forward to present day apes & monkeys. How did he get gorillas from chimps? They are 2 different species. Does god control time?Can it zip to & fro?

4-'120 yrs to build the ark'.Wow, I'm guessing he was what, 20 when he started, +120=140 when he finished [with no pension I'll bet!] and then what...how long after the ark sailed did noah live? He's pretty old.

5-'common sense' - surely not! I mean if there's an insurmountable problem to all this then simply one call to god and divine intervention will cure all!

6-'T-Rex'-on the ark?Another of your faithers type, further up, contradicts you.He said that god swamped the land to kill the dinos because the Earth was too violent.I disagree, I think that even a young T-Rex would be a handful.Not to mention all the other dinos.[land based of course-common sense!].

### At this point I'd like to invite MK and Garry and Webster back to give us their informed views ###

lucky 7-'the firmament'- I read this bit and it says the firmament was split in 2.Most things considered I view genesis as an infantile attempt at a theory of how humans thought the world was for

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
February 02, 2007 1:45pm

1)Kinds: bovine; canine; feline; equine; primate; to name a few.

2)All you need is natural selection within the species: Long haired animals survive better in the colder climates, short haired in the warmer. That is not evolution, that is variation within a species. Look at how many breeds of dogs have been "designed" in the last 200 years!

3)All of the Great apes are of the order of "Euarchontoglires", all of which are very close in genetic familiarities. And yes, God does control and everything else!

4)Noah lived to be 950 yrs. old, 350 of which were after the flood.

5)Common sense would tell an intellectual that evolution is a fairie tale.

6)I read the above post and the others by Mr. Webb. He simply stated that the earth had become violent, and I take that to mean that carnivorous dinosaurs would be a great threat to humans. Many were undoubtedly destoyed, but concerning those on the Ark, a young T-Rex could be as small as 12-18 inches tall. The largest dino eggs discovered are no longer than 12 inches, so why do you think that a young T-Rex would be unmanageable? Same with the other dinos.

7 & 8)The firmament was an expanse of water; a shroud if you will. It protected the earth from the harmful rays of the sun (that is why men before the flood lived so much longer than those after the flood. The ages greatly decrease with each generation born after wards), and the firmament acted to produce a greenhouse affect; the temperature would be consistent globally. When this firmament collapsed, the water deluged the planet. Considering that the seas were not as deep and the mountains were not as high as now, there would be plenty of water to cover the land as stated above. To make t

Rev. James Richard, Chicago, IL
February 02, 2007 3:59pm

I, mean You, must be missing the point somewhere.

1--EVERY.A well documented historical book should have the info.If not then are you making it up?Look in the bible...A child could give me a list like that one.

2--Wrong.The types...sorry, did I read that I can get one species from another by natural selection? You mean, a Gorilla somehow morphed into a Chimp, how, by natural selection? Oh no, I don't think so.They don't interbreed, they are separated.

And WHAT, equine, oh dear, if you breed a horse with a donkey you get a sterile mule, because the chromosome numbers are different!

They are separate species.You can't change one into the other.

3--Wrong.god doesn't control me [us] and even a faither 'believes' in that--free will.

The order I thought was Primata.But anyway you didn't answer the question because you think nat.selection accounts for speciation.Wrong.

4--5--Your idea of common sense seems at odds with fact; a 950 yrs old man.And you people call evolution a fairy tale!

If you think you can account for 950 yrs by having a protective layer of water vapour, which if very thick would prevent photosynthesis, then think again. The tRNA and mRNA needed to copy DNA and make proteins only have limited life spans. A person could never live that long, even shaded completely from the sun.

For such an important person, where's noah's remains? And where's the ark?Do tell...

6--More info please! Am I to believe that noah reared a living T-Rex[in fact 2].Or any other dino.[not counting crocs.]. So for at least 120yrs noah and his family lived with the dinos.[T-Rex among them] and then for a further 350yrs.

Well, what killed the dinos then and le

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
February 02, 2007 5:23pm

Here's a very simple one: Bombardier Beetle! Explain how this insect evolved its defense system without destroying itself! Also, Take a trip to youtube.com and type in "Richard Dawkins speechless"! His silence says it all.

Garry webb, Hamilton, Oh
February 02, 2007 5:52pm

"...natural selection, does NOT produce a new species, it simply sorts out those that fit and those that, for some reason don't.It's always a negative function, for species."
If I were you, I would stick to one theory or another. I have believed all along that you are confused, but now you are anti-Darwinian!

You must not be aware that every mule is not sterile. I personally have a friend who's mule gave birth. There are records of onager/ass, onager/horse and zebra/horse (zebroids) crosses, so there is, even in the wild, cross breeding speciation. Hybridization in nature is quite common, and sometimes the hybrids are capable of reproduction.
Dog breeds are an example. There is interbreeding all the time among dogs; dogs/coyotes; dogs/wolves; etc.
No new info, just variation!

I honestly don't see that you are that sure of what Darwin considered evolution!

I have printed out your posts. Let me hit the books and I will get back with you.

Rev. James Richard, Chicago, IL
February 02, 2007 6:09pm

I am neither one thing or the other. I respect the forward thinking of a gifted person[Darwin], but as for being a 'follower'...no sorry, you have me confused with being a faither. I don't expect Him [Darwin] to be correct, every time, no, that would be faith! Ergo, I am not a Darwinist and do not practice any religion called Darwinism.

How, or what exactly are you getting at? You people are all alike. You criticize but to what end? DID YOU ACTUALLY READ THE POINTS ABOVE??

An answer is appropriate and only to be expected in a civil debate, no?

Gene mutation PRODUCES the new species, and natural selection FINE TUNES it. Sometimes killing it off in the process.

The fact I am in error of a mule's sex life, I must hasten to apologise for...But the animals you cite as 'different' species are able to breed simply because they are still so closely related[as anyone with eyes, to see, can attest], and that their chromosomes are NOT mutually exclusive. We don't need molecular taxonomy to tell us that, I think, even though we certainly need it!

Species='taxonomic group containing individuals that resemble one another and that may interbreed'.

It's a subdivision of a genus.[Encarta]. Fast becoming MY bible!

Garry dear boy, so tense, fancy a session of reflexology? $50 per hr.

Why bother talking about a beetle I know little about. Why not simply ponder the more personal question: How did humans evolve the ability to use the potent, 'mineral' acid, hydrochloric acid to aid digestion [or to cause INdigestion], which is of course the point of my thought-line. You are not immune to HCl. Neither would many animals withstand the chemicals they use if admi

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
February 04, 2007 2:49am

Sorry, Garry and The Right Rev.Richard, don't forget to read the faith episode too! All the best!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,uk
February 04, 2007 3:12am

Evolution answers the question:'Why is there an eloquent diversity of life?'

The grade of life from simple to complicated, follows from Nature gradually changing one, to another, by means of evolution via gene mutation.

EG all the dogs have evolved from early 'small' mammals; that weren't dogs.

If, on the other hand, Life had been designed, then you would EXPECT all animals to have their OWN blue print. There would need to be NO similarity.

Take a 2 seater plane, as compared to a Boeing 747...

These have not evolved. A wing is a wing. The both wings of each plane work by the same methods, to make them go up and down and sideways.

HOWEVER, their engines are different and DID NOT evolve from one another.

A petrol engine turbo-prop has pistons BUT a jet propulsion engine uses a huge compressor [a big fan] to do the same job!

These 'machines' have not evolved, they were designed...

WE 'machines' [gene vehicles] have evolved and this can be seen due to the OBVIOUS similarities and overlaps that organisms show. For example: Your eyes are no different than a Chimp's. Your blood is ABO grouped, the same as a Chimp!

Now Fossils - Again!

Coelacanths [soft bodied flatworms] were MISSING from the fossil record for 70 Million yrs. They were once found, then there was a gap but, in 1938, a living specimen was joyfully discovered.

This shows us that not only is the fossil record incomplete, but, it can be MIS-leading for people to put too much FAITH in it!!!!

Fossils have been discovered in the Pre-Cambrian epoch [Neoproterozoic]~550 Million yrs ago.

This must baffle those who tell me that Noah lived with dinos [about 4-5000 yrs ago] and fossi

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 07, 2007 4:36am

There appears to be a flaw in your argument............how do you know the dating of your information is correct

Skypilot, Newcastle , Australia
February 09, 2007 4:42am

Geology says so, dating rocks using radioactive isotopes, backed up with carbon dating that confirms the times....not the precambrian times, mind you, that was a joke[obviously!].

Molecular rates of reaction cross correlated with the fossil record, provide other evidence.

Or what's the alternative? Some old book, proved inaccurate at every level, to the point of stupidity....

Fact is fact...Times may be disputed, to sling mud, but no 'human' fossil has ever been found with dinosaurs....so noah can't have anything to do with them...QED. The bible is false...QED. The bible is in error...QED. The word of god is in error...QED. The word of god can't be the product of a god, but is the product of man's imagination and is flawed...QED.

Simple logic!

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 09, 2007 12:12pm

The real problem with all you God-rejectors is your ancestors have been eating too much PORK, and the neural potential is limited, and therefore cannot even perceive themselves accurately. FOr if you had the density of the neural pathways you would already have seen throught the continuede propagandiazatio of the Evolutional theory.
My Advice is to follow the brains of the bible.....and thereby release your suffering and torment,,,, which by the way is on the increase,,,,Good luck, Ladies, and gentlemen

Shane the Genius, Winnipeg
February 10, 2007 1:44am

IN Case you haven`t figured it out yet,,,Regardless ofany thought process you may have on this subject,,,Evolution is MATHEMATICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.

JOHN PETER, VANCOUVER
February 10, 2007 1:48am

Neil Griffiths seems to be exhibiting an awful lot of "faith" when he declares the truth of geological dating, unless of course he has actually performed the tests himself!

How much experience do do have in radiological dating, Neil? Did you actually witness the tests? Can you confirm that the steps and methods used were done in the spirit of true scientific procedures?

I would assume that you are merely taking the word of those that you hold to be truthful and honest.

Sounds alot like religion to me, Neil!!!

Dr. James T. Jensen, Boston, MA
February 10, 2007 7:39am

HA,HA,HA,HA......

Not the 'I didn't see it for myself, so it can't be true ploy'......

Dumb!

Contractions:-

Dr. [Dread, man, real Dread]

Dr. [Dratted]

Dr. [Drawler]

Dr. [Dreamtime]

I think I'll go Walk-About!

Oh let's question the WHOLE of reality, shall we?

If this is not real, then 'else' is; oh, just a second, maybe 'else' is also simulacra...oh dear!

Shane and John,,, I have faith; seem one-in-the-same?

Evolution propaganda, is peanuts to the 'bible-banging' faithers that litter the streets.

And as for the mathematical 'possibility' of evolution, it is, I'm guessing, an awful lot more likely than the probability of a god.

And as for 'chance'...

#Jelly fish feed by just floating around, with a 'chance' of finding a meal! Yet they seem to have that chance.

#You are born, 1:1000000, of sperm, all slightly different genetically. So the YOU that popped out that time, is PROBABLY [certainly] different to any other you's that could have 'been'.

So you are 'a chance' birth. The 'you' wasn't 'meant' to be!

You're LUCKY! to 'be'.

As far as faith goes...It doesn't make sense, doesn't add up and 'carn't explain a god-dam thing'!

No. Taking some-one's word for it is not what I am doing. I have studied science and can 'rationalise the evidence'.

I did not see Mr.Neil Armstrong land on the moon, but I know the maths that put him there. If you could build a ladder long enough, you could walk there.

But I've never been.

Not yet!

The mis-use and attempted owners

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 11, 2007 12:55am

The mis-use of the scientific terminus by evolutionists is the real travesty. Faith in evolution means: We're scientists! Take our knowledge, forgetting our total lack of evidence, and believe what we tell you, because we are the "brights"!

When faithers consider the Supernatural as a means to a beginning, we are using faith, which "doesn't make sense, doesn't add up, and can't explain a #@$&^*#@$# thing!"

Jellyfish filter water as they travel and feed, not by chance, but, by the very purpose of their propulsion.

When a man and woman have sex, a sperm usually joins with an egg, (that is unless an anti reproductive agen is used)! No great probability there! Whether it is I or one of my siblings, reproduction would have most likely taken place.

You did not see Neil Armstrong land on the moon? But, do "believe" that he did?

"Looking at the EVIDENCE and RATIONALISING an OUTCOME or EVENT, having no first hand-view" is exactly what faith is; and is exactly what you espouse each time you post your blatherings in defense of evolution!
It remains "unproven and unprovable", to quote one of your own.

Let us consider evolution: "look at this; can it be repeated by anyone; not just the protaganist of the work?[or the gifted!](Thanks Neil, I could not have put it better myself!)

I am surprised that you would so readily brag as to your expertise in radioactive isotopes and mass spectroscopy, when surely you must be aware that both are literal "dinosaurs" when considered in lieu of several of the more recently discovered dendrochronology factor. John's Hopkins studies have overwhelmingly shown that the C14 dates go off

Dr. James T. Jensen, Boston, MA
February 12, 2007 10:33pm

Opps i must have wondered into the faith page which is funny as its labeled evolution, you have completeley wondered off the topic of conversation. Nobody knows how we ended up in this parallel universe. There are many explanations some also leading to god, but most explanations lead to the natural chemical environment.

scott morgan, pontypridd
February 14, 2007 10:22am

I read a good one today. A creationist idiot said this:'Oh, the K-40 isotope and Ar-40, were in equal 'amounts' back at the time of the creation'.

I love this rhetoric: They claim science is faulty, then quote {their own} 'science' and claim further it is 'in the bible'.

So come on Dr.Jensen...tell us where in the bible it talks about the volume and concentrations of radioactive isotopes in the good book!

I noticed your FEEBLE efforts to [what] bait me? I didn't 'brag' about using radioactive measuring tools [of the trade] I merely mentioned I had done so, because one of your kind asked me on what authority I spoke!

You people show just how nasty you are at every juncture! Truly Sad!

Dendrochronology? I believe that's called 'counting rings'!

Well on this site I have counted at least 10 rings! +1 extra!

Do you know of any 6000 yrs old trees?

Oh and on the subject of artifacts...If noah was 950 yrs and yet the last of 10 guys how preceded him...well? Now wouldn't that add up to more like 10,000 yrs in total.

So again the bible lies on ages and dates!

Or is it that noah was unusually old [you're not kidding there!]?

But didn't you [or was it rev. somebody above...who has failed to come back.]...say that back then people lived for a long time...100's of yrs?

If there's only 2000 yrs to the flood from the start, adam=1 [how old when died?]...noah must have been the neat exception to the rule, I guess?

But on average they had to be 200 yrs old, each.
Although noah himself was 600 at the flood, so actually, no, its only 140 yrs. each. Hmm. So it's only noah really, that was SUPERhuman. I

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
February 16, 2007 6:19am

Dr. Jensen,

You don't need carbon dating to see plainly that rock strata, and what is contained therein, are older than 6000 years. I assume your intent was to defend a literalist stance?

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 16, 2007 4:01pm

At the outset of this post, the author held forth the following topical statement: "I present the following Evolution 101 Primer for the benefit of creationists who want a correct basic understanding of their foe. I think the best way to do this is to dispel the three most common evolution myths."

Myth #1: "Men evolved from apes."
The premise of this first "myth", is that creationists are wrong when they declare that Darwinism stated that men evolved from apes.

Wikipedia opens the topic of Charles Darwin thus: …who achieved lasting fame by convincing the scientific community that species develop over time from a common origin."

Also as evidence, I cite the following article in part: "After years of studying and correlating the voluminous notes he had made as naturalist on H.M.S. Beagle, [Darwin] was prompted by the submission of an almost identical theory by A. R. Wallace to present his evidence for the descent of all life from a common ancestral origin; his monumental Origin of Species was published in 1859….As originally formulated, Darwinism did not distinguish between acquired characteristics, which are not transmissible by heredity, and genetic variations, which are inheritable. Modern knowledge of heredity—especially the concept of mutation, which provides an explanation of how variations may arise—has supplemented and modified the theory, but in its basic outline Darwinism is now universally accepted by scientists." (Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia)

In the now famous "Scopes Monkey Trial", prosecutors also argued the same thing in a legal case that tested a law passed on March 13, 1925, which forbade the teaching, in any state-funded

Garry Webb, Liberty, Twp., Ohio
February 16, 2007 11:26pm

What method do you use to date your strata?

Dr. J. T. Jensen, Boston, MA
February 16, 2007 11:29pm

First, Geoffrey Webb- Evolution is not a religion. Don't be ridiculous. It was arrived at post hoc, after enormously lengthy consideration of vast quantities of evidence. We know it is true, because it makes accurate PREDICTIONS about what WILL happen, not simply what HAS happened. Your critique follows the standard dogmas of creationist misinterpretations of evolution, which themselves take a prior assumption, a pre-intended (out of fear of death) destination: supernatural god (I have no doubt that you mean the bronze age deity yahweh). You boringly misrepresent the process as "random", which it is NOT. It is not, for example, RANDOM, that mosquitoes evolve resistance to pesticides, or plasmodia evolve resistance to antimalarials. These evolutions happen in real-time, and are all too predictable by evolutionary theory. They are not articles of faith, they are absolute brute facts. The "random" element is that variation across billions of individual organisms results in the HIGH PROBABILITY, given standard distributions, that at least one such will be resistant to whatever we throw at it to kill it, which is not toxic enough, necessarily, to kill everything else (neither species, for example, would survive thermonuclear destruction, but neither would we). The fact is that these sub-optimal killers (poisons or selection events) simply kill all those who are not by the standard variation-distribution pattern resistant, and guess what? The resultant population now has a sexually transmissable, and fairly uniform alteration from its ancestors- resistance to that particular sort of selective force. NOT RANDOM so do stop peddling that nonsensical accusation. Seen in this way, selection is the LEAST RAN

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 17, 2007 4:38am

Dr. Jensen,

My question related to biblical literalism, which your counterquestion suggests you accept. That the earth is greater than 6000 years old is blindingly obvious independent of accurate radiometric dating. The latter is of course accurate, and we know this not by comparisons of a single pair of isotopes, but by cross-referencing between many. If there had been any change in the rate of decay, it would have to have been a change across EVERY such isotope AT THE SAME RATE. This is devastatingly improbable. So much so that any argument which suggests it smacks of a pseudoscientific "deus ex machina". In any case, radiometric dating is already a centruy old. That is 1/60th of the total age of the earth, according to literalists. If there were ANY fluctuation along the lines you would have to argue for, it would definitively have shown up within this period. The only way around this, of course, is to argue for VAST quantities of time over which the fluctuations could have taken place, and that gets you... Ooops. I guess you can't go there, since that conclusion is against the one you WANT to get to. And by the way, science doesn't work by making its conclusions BEFORE its observations, as does religion. We only think the world is several billion years old, because we have compelling observational evidence for such an age, not because some athiestic spoilsports set out to muddy religion's water.

So back to my real point here. We know the earth is VASTLY older than the bible suggests, by just looking at rock strata, in themselves, and quite independently of the excellent dating methods afforded by radioactive decay. We can date, for example, a roman-era shipwreck accurately by its wa

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 17, 2007 9:22am

Geoffrey Webb,

There are many other inaccuracies and logical fallacies in your arguments, on which I will not waste my time, but one really has to be corrected right here. This is the idea that there is no evidence of what are termed "transitional forms" in the fossil record. This is just straightforwardly wrong, and a really pernicious kind of young-earth (about as plausible as flat-earth) creationist propaganda.

For a short list of HUNDREDS of well-described and well known transitional forms, please visit: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Stop spreading this propagandistic nonsense NOW. It is nothing short of pernicious disinformation.

Yours Aye,

Steven Horrobin

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 17, 2007 9:43am

General Note:

Before you begin to reply, don't even try the Noah's Ark/Flood made all the stratigraphic record of fossils nonsense. It is absolutely not the case that evolution is analogous to the "wind "assembled 747", for many reasons, such as the fact that even the slow construction model used by Dawkins to critique the analogy misses out the fact that more primitive forms are TESTED by the most rigorous means imaginable (survival), but MAINLY because this analogy does what many theistic analogies does- it "smuggles in" its desired conclusion into the premises. So we have a SPECIFIC end-point in view: a 747. But evolution does not produce specific end points, rather it produces organisms, both complex and simple, each of which will be stable provided there are no selective influences. The junkyard would never be assembled by any random combination into a 747 precisely because none of the "junk" is alive,or in any other way ALREADY self-replicating and neither is the 747, which is not a self-replcating type of object. Living matter, so, self-replicating matter, has a feature that is entirely lacking in the analogy, the fact that it IS replication in the first place.

Anyway, back to Noah and the big flood. Aside from being a self-evidently hopelessly naive and childish bed-time story, the creationist argument that rock strata and the fossil record were somehow "assembled" by the FLOOD, a violent random stochastic event, described as the single most destructive visitation of god's power in universal history, is absolutely analogous to the junk yard 747. Only a very ignorant, or a very prejudiced person would entertain such a silly idea.

Yours Aye,

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 17, 2007 10:02am

Or do you think that God "assembled" the fossil record deliberately, in the flood?
Is that Cartesian skepticism I see hoving into view?

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 17, 2007 10:16am

Steven, (It is Garry, not Geoffrey by the way), It is not very difficult to demonstrate that evolution is indeed a religion, and it is definitely not, science. True science, is both observable and repeatable. Evolution is neither! Naturally, one can only observe what exists in the present. It is simple to understand that no scientist could have been present over the suggested millions of years to witness the supposed evolutionary progression of life form from simple to the complex. No scientists were there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea. No living scientist was there to observe the Big Bang that is supposed to have occurred 10 or 20 billion years ago, nor the formation of the earth 4.5 billion years ago (or even 10,000 years ago!). No scientists were there--therefore no witnesses observed these events occurring. They certainly have not, nor cannot be repeated today. Evolution is, by any definition, a belief system!

Religion [ri-lij-uh n] -noun:
1. A set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe.
2. A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons.
3. A body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices, either by council or organization.
4. The practice of beliefs; ritual observance; or acts of faith.
5. Something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience.

I am amazed at the "evolution" of the Darwinian theories originated in the Beagle days of the journeys of the young Charles. It's truly a fantastic thing to study the "transitions" that the whole evolutionary epic has gone through. Much like Mormonism and Jehovah's

Garry L. Webb, Liberty Twp., Ohio USA
February 17, 2007 7:47pm

Steven, I can tell at the very beginning of your post that you probably consider yourself somewhat of an intellectual. As such, surely you are aware that you are using statements that an individual that has never had firsthand experience in the field of radiometric dating, should ever attempt to use. In lieu of that, let us journey onward.

These are your words, not mine: "And by the way, science doesn't work by making its conclusions BEFORE its observations, as does religion. We only think the world is several billion years old, because we have compelling observational evidence for such an age, not because some atheistic spoilsports set out to muddy religion's water." (Whom was the observer?)

God does work in mysterious ways! Thank you, my atheistic spoilsport. In this one small sentence you have declared the standard by which many of the radiometric tests done in labs around this world are finalized.
Your very own beloved www.talkorigins.com has provided every answer that a young-earther, like myself, needs, to prove the facts upon which I intend to debunk the farce of accurate dating as to the age of the earth as held by evolutionists.

I read the entire faq entitled "How old is the earth and how do we know?" Within that article there are sections that address creationist dating methods and why they are not acceptable. If the same standards were applied to the dating methods used and accepted by evolutionists/old earthers, the outcomes would never be acceptable.

Some of their statements:
"Unfortunately, the age cannot be computed directly "from material that is solely from the Earth." (This doesn't seem to be a very scientific point of reason. The dentist

Dr. James T. Jensen, Boston, MA USA
February 18, 2007 12:33am

"Dr." Jensen,

"How do you think that sea shells got to the top of Mt. Everest?"

Oh brother, give me the slightest of breaks. Plate tectonics. We KNOW that this is true, because we can measure the rate of ascent of the Himalayas, as the Indian subcontinent continues to move forward. Those seashells used to be on the seafloor that they are STILL on, which has been pushed up by plate tectonics. Your statements about the "shear weight" ("sheer" is how it is spelled btw) being sufficient to produce an innaccurate radiometric reading is only slightly more pathetically laughable as your earlier statement that the flood (for which there is NO evidence geologcially whatsoever- and don't cite seashells on the top of mountains, since that is utterly childish) alone could account for the strata. You completely ignore my point, which is not surprising, that no random stochastic cataclysm such at the one you hilariously postulate (where did all the water end up, then, eh? why would "raining for 40 days and nights" produce such a violent cataclysm? How if the cataclysm was SO VIOLENT AS TO CAUSE THE HIMALAYAS TO RISE UP did a little wooden boat crammed with every animal that has ever walked on earth, pathetically impossible in any case, survive on the SURFACE?), no such event could have produced the beautifully uniform structure of the strata, with all their NON-INTERMINGLED progressions of fossils. For example, the hundreds of meters of depth of coccoliths in SLOW progression between species in the cliffs of dover was laid down in the SAME event that laid every other strata in the entire planet, with carefully sorted, non-intermingled chemical and biological profiles was

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 18, 2007 1:10am

Please keep your comments to the issues, and not personal. Thanks.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 18, 2007 1:16am

Garry,

Your misuse of the quotation from Einstein is instructive. Religionists constantly attempt to hijack Einstein, dishonestly, as a supporter for their views. He was not. Einstein repeatedly disavowed belief in a personal god, and further, repeatedly expressed dismay that his metaphorical use of the words most often relating to traditional religion, in order to express his admiration and awe for what he conceived of as an entirely NATURAL universe, was misused by people like you.

That the zoologist who posted the tranisitional fossil FAQ is accused of not being a "professional" in the field, shows you don't know what that is. Also, you don't, of course, bother to notice that the list she offers both is composed of the work of many other professionals in the field, but also GIVES THE LIE to your and other creationists FALSE assertions about transitionals. I can easily find other sources, as can you. So just stop your disinformation.

Your assertion that "A mosquito with a resistance to a given pesticide is genetically equal to one without it."
Is absurdly ignorant. Apart from anything else, do you really propose to argue that immune response is NOT genetically predicated? We CONSTANTLY observe evolution in mutation of viral strains and other similar. If you choose to ignore this, you choose to remain ignorant of it. This does not alter the fact of the matter. Your assertion that there is NO evidence for evolution is utterly bankrupt and refuted by the ENTIRE fossil record so far, which has NEVER show a SINGLE fossil which would not have been PREDICTED by Darwinian evolution, and has done nothing whatever but confirm it by a literal landslide of data. Any assertion that there i

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 18, 2007 1:36am

Dear Brian,

I will do so in future. However, it must be said that if someone makes a statement which is clearly in defiance of the facts, in a manner which is calculated to be presented as fact, and may be mistaken as such by others, then they are guilty of either ignorance, or deliberate disinformation, or both. So in this sense the factual crosses into the realm of the personal.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 18, 2007 1:40am

Dear Brian,

The disinformation concerning what is actually held to be the case in scientific understanding, and the quantity and quality of evidence, is perpetrated against children on a daily basis in many areas of the world.

This does infuriate me, as it should you.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 18, 2007 2:10am

Dear Brian,

The disinformation concerning what is actually held to be the case in scientific understanding, and the quantity and quality of evidence, is perpetrated against children on a daily basis in many areas of the world.

This does infuriate me, as it should you.

In the words of Thomas Jefferson:

"Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions."

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 18, 2007 3:48am

Steven,
Take a deep breath before your blood pressure goes over the edge! Thank you, by the way, for the spell-checking service that you have provided me. My typing ability lacks and sometimes spelling is a victim.

At the outset, for the record, I did speak of the violence of the diluvian event "pushing up" the mountains. So, the top of Mt. Everest was not necessarily the seabed proper, but simply, low enough for the churning water of the flood to allow settling of the seashells upon it.
Also, you made a comment about the Ark and I would simply respond thus: Scale models have been built by various engineering organizations and most have agreed that it would be almost unsinkable. The ark was built with a 1:6 ratio (50 cubits to 300 cubits). The Science of Naval Architecture reveals that this is an extremely stable width-to-length ratio. Most oceangoing “hopper barges” use this same ratio in their design. It is estimated that the ark could easily have survived even the largest of ocean waves. If the ark were equipped with a dragging stone anchor, it would have been properly positioned to meet any size ocean wave. The design of the ark would have made it almost impossible to capsize. One engineer estimated that it could withstand up to a 30 meter wave. The ark was simply for floating, so it didn’t need a prow or rudder and didn’t need any sails, oars or any other type of propulsion; it simply had to float. Since it was constructed in a boxlike configuration, the interior carrying capacity would be maximized.
As for the creatures aboard the Ark, God sent to Noah, those that would enter the ark. Which one's they were, I cannot know, but, my personal opinion is that because of the "violen

Dr. James T. Jensen, Boston, MA USA
February 18, 2007 11:20pm

Stevie,
You seem to want to be the Skeptoid sheriff, as you are continually telling others who can and cannot post; what to post and what not to post; etc! I am just saying that I don't believe that that is your major concern. You have enough problems with the posts that you are exhibiting. Let's stick to business, matey!

Firstly, I simply gave you a potion of a quote from Einstein. In its entirety, he said,
"But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame; religion without science is blind." (Albert Einstein, 1941)
Whether or not he believed in God, I will let you make up your mind. Here is an unedited quote from Edison himself:
"I can't answer with a simple yes or no. I'm not an atheist and I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many different languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God. We see a universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws, but only dimly understand these laws. Our limited

Garry Webb, Liberty, Twp., Ohio USA
February 19, 2007 12:43am

Dear Dr. Jensen,

I will address all that you bring up, though will leave the Gobi and Ashley diversion until later to save time, as I have a busy day ahead. However I will say generally that there have been, predictably, a number of attempts on the part of rather desperate "creation scientists" to find evidence against evolution in the fossil record and every single one has been discredited thus far.

Let me turn to the other issues, most particularly that, I have to repeat, ridiculous bed-time story, Noah's Ark and the flood. You say "the top of Mt. Everest was not necessarily the seabed proper, but simply, low enough for the churning water of the flood to allow settling of the seashells upon it." This is contrary to everything we KNOW of the Himalayas. The Alps, Himalayas, and northern Rockies are composed of ocean rock strata, laid down in orderly fashion, with clear delineations between strata of different ages, in terms of speciation. The nature of these rocks is such that it is pure nonsense to suggest that they are LAND strata, made of land-based sediment. They contain NO land animal bones. They are entirely composed of the sorts of debris we see accumulating on the seafloor in oceans today: the skeletons of corals, shellfish, fish, and vast quantities of smaller pelagic creatures, such as innumerable plankton. The depth of these strata, across many seperate, but continuous strata, is up to 10 KILOMETERS in places.

You say that the "flood" released enough energy to cause these mountain ranges (and, incidentally, this must go for all of the ocean strata that are now found above the ocean level) to rise up, IN A SINGLE YEAR! This idea is absurd beyond words. But let me

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 2:30am

I wrote the last post rather hurriedly over breakfast. There are a number of slight typos, of course, as a result, but they are obvious, and make the creationist position even worse, such as the fact that of course there would not merely be 300,000, but at least 600,000 beetles, and not just one but between two and seven, according to the story, of every species that has ever existed. Any account that states that these were just "kinds" and all the seperate "species" EVOLVED later, accepts evolution, so is a non-starter in any case. Worse, it accepts evolution at a faster rate than any scientific account would hold in the least degree credible, so not only does it accept evolution, but it would have to postulate a type of evolution that is staggeringly improbable, compounding the very same (though mistaken on the ordinary account of evolution over hundreds of millions of years) problem that creationists attempt to point to in the first place.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 5:24am

Garry,

Expect a reply later today, however, be assured that your comments are unimpressive, and will be comprehensively and easily dealt with.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 5:35am

James,

When I have time, do expect further rejection of your, frankly very weak, suggestions, but I have to comment on a couple of particularly silly gems: (which are superflous given the complete absurdity of the geologic claims for the "flood", but are fun since they are in themselves hopelessly fallacious)

Firstly, the creationist nonsense about dino eggs: really, do you think that every dino species that ever existed lined up in front of the ark and dropped a few eggs for Noah's convenience? And then, do you suppose that every such dinosaur species had an egg incubation period OF GREATER THAN A YEAR!!!??? What absolute nonsense. So our Noah ran a dino nursery aboard the ark, did he? Ever notice that things like this JUST DON"T APPEAR IN THE STORY? Notice that you, alongside the nonsense about the laying down of the rock strata and the formation of the entire geological record ARE NOT MENTIONED IN ANY WAY WHATEVER IN THE BIBLE. So you are ADDING material to the bible! Either that makes you a prophet, a heretic, or a deluded fool. I opt for the latter, as would EVERY SINGLE paleontologist of geophysical scientist who doesn't have PRIOR commitments to young earth creationist fantasies.

Your suggestion that a simple drogue-system on a barge would it have made it "properly positioned to meet any size ocean wave" shows in itself that you and whoever you got this from has never been to sea for more than a few hours. Storm systems DO NOT produce neat lines of waves all travelling in the same direction. This statement betrays a complete ignorance of wave-dynamics. Also, the idea that the craft "did not need a bow" further compounds this ridiculous error. What would t

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 6:00am

James,

Right, as to the "ashley beds". There is essentially NO reference to ANY scholarship on this supposed formation that you hold up as evidence. The only reference that my research, and I now regret even bothering, except that it is clearly a hoax-creationist hobbyhorse, is in a book published by Appleton in 1898, by Andrew Dickson White (professor of HISTORY at Cornell), entitled "A history of the warfare of science with theology in Christendom". Here is the relevant extract:

…

Other divines of strong sense in other parts of the country began to take similar ground - namely, that men could be Christians and at the same time Darwinians. There appeared, indeed, here and there, curious discrepancies: thus in 1873 the Monthly Religious Magazine of Boston congratulated its readers that the Rev. Mr. Burr had ``demolished the evolution theory, knocking the breath of life out of it and throwing it to the dogs.'' This amazing performance by the Rev. Mr. Burr was repeated in a very striking way by Bishop Keener before the OEcumenical Council of Methodism at Washington in 1891. In what the newspapers described as an ``admirable speech,'' he refuted evolution doctrines by saying that evolutionists had ``only to make a journey of twelve hours from the place where he was then standing to find together the bones of the muskrat, the opossum, the coprolite, and the ichthyosaurus.'' He asserted that Agassiz - whom the good bishop, like so many others, seemed to think an evolutionist - when he visited these beds near Charleston, declared: ``These old beds have set me crazy; they have destroyed the work of a lifetime.'' And the Methodist prelate ended by saying: ``

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 12:56pm

James,

A couple more notes about the "ashley beds" The Good "Major Willis" you refer to, along with any other source I am willing to bet that you can locate, dates from the late nineteenth century. There are NO references whatever later than that, which support a creationist picture.

However, try this on for size:

http://paleo.amnh.org/fossil/loc_list.html?A=South%20Carolina&X=state

It is a list of fossil periods from the very locality you cite. And it is ENTIRELY TERTIARY.

Here's a more detailed description:

http://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Geolex/Refsmry/sumry_180.html

BZZZZ. Creationist propaganda. Next.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 1:13pm

James,

So there WAS some modern scholarship after all, and it shows that you are misinformed.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 1:14pm

James,

Ok, the searches I have done for Hadrosaurs in the Gobi turned up nothing unusual. So in light of the silly red herring of the "ashley beds" and the fact that it is YOU who brought this up, come on, references and sigificance, please.

By the way your statement:

"Or, how about excavations in the Gobi Desert that were such an embarrassment to evolutionists? Approximately twenty-five Therapods have been discovered along with many skulls of mammals. Where is the evidence of the several million year evolutionary gap or of the iridium boundary that supposedly delineates when the dinosaurs became extinct?
And there are many, many more such sites around the globe!"

Actually refers to NOTHING that contradicts ordinary pictures of the evolutionary fossil record whatever. There were mammals in the Cretaceous, and the iridium-filled "fisk clay" K-T boundary, while frequently occurring (I have visited the location at Stevn's Klint where the Alvarez' first observed the boundary- and can tell you that the boundary separates more than just dinosaurs, the differnces in the speciation in the chalk structure is BLINDINGLY clear to even a casual observer- I am fairly willing te bet you haven't bothered to look first-hand yourself, have you?) at the same juncture in many locations throughout the world, of course isn't clearly present AT EVERY location. Your apparent assertion that it would be seems to show yet again that you don't really have any sort of grasp on geology.

So go on then, James. Astound me. But don't belabour me with weak-wristed anecdote.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 1:26pm

Creationism cannot be debated by science as we are doing here, because it denies science.

We are trying to fight fire with fire. But this is a contest of imagination vs. fire. You might as well fight a ghost with boxing gloves.

The Old Testament - or whoever wrote it - does not purport to explain the origin of species, anymore than it claims to describe any other scientific phenomena. There are some engaging little stories as are common in popular mythology, but none of them deny or argue against evolution.

This is because evolution was discovered long after the death of the Old Testament's authors. They didn't foretell any of the other discoveries of science either. Are these wrong as well?

If all things are made by God as Creationists believe, then why should they have a problem with evolution?

Todd Dunning, Aliso Viejo, California USA
February 19, 2007 2:38pm

So, now, Garry,

Firstly, your use of quotes from big names is a classic example of "appeal to authority" fallacy. In any case, they are misguided.

None of the quotes given show that the authorities to which you are appealing were christians. You are a dogmatic christian, who is committed to view that were unquestionably rejected by these figures, even in the context of the quotes you offer. If you cannot see this, that is your problem, and not anyone elses. I suggest you simply re-read them, and ask whether either Edison or Einstein would have thought that Noah's Ark was a literal truth. If you answer positively, it is a measure of the depth of your own self-delusion.

I quote Einstein, in a famous passage which he defended in depth in a 1954 letter:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.

Einstein again, on the same theme:

"I am a deeply religious nonbeliever. This is a somewhat new kind of religion. I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. ... The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

So, on to transitionals. With typical creationist slipperyness you have backed off your assertion that there are NO transitionals. Your fall-back position is that "they do not support evolution". This is just simply silly. Your argument? Well, there is none.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 3:37pm

Dear Todd,

You are partly right. However creationists who seek to make arguments concerning dinosaurs and geophysical structures etc. lay themselves open for a good old-fashioned drubbing. And why not give it to them?

If they stuck to sky-fairies, then science would be silent, since it is not concerned with mythology.

Aye

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 3:40pm

Steven your comments are quite extensive. I just fear you are letting yourself be dragged down to their level.

Creationists have no alternative to survive in a modern world than to do a deal with the devil. They must create a science to support their beliefs, because this is how business is done today. The fascinating paradox is that religions are initially created to fill the vacuum when science is not available, yet now the latter must be called upon to support the former. Sounds like the last gasp of state-subsidized industry.

I am getting the picture that what is really being argued here is the laughability of Creationists' claim that they have scientific methods that prove their point. It is aneffective technique. It sidesteps the fact that they are at odds with science - because they have the "real" science. It puts us on the defensive as having to prove "our" science against "theirs".

And so they can control the debate by making it appear that it is between ideologies, instead of between ideology and science. This is what I hate to see Skeptics get sucked into Steven. You and I might as well formulate our argument against Creationists by claiming that we have a religion that tells us we are right and they are wrong.

Todd Dunning, Aliso Viejo, California USA
February 19, 2007 4:38pm

Garry,

Oh, and one more thing, I just loved your idiotic "This woman has not even updated her facts since 1997, for crying out loud!" since the source you SOLELY rely on for all your guidance in life has "not updated its facts" since the BRONZE AGE.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 4:49pm

Steven -
>>...creationists who seek to make arguments concerning dinosaurs and geophysical structures etc. lay themselves open for a good old-fashioned drubbing...<<

Couldn't agree more! Here's an extra club.

Todd Dunning, Aliso Viejo, California USA
February 19, 2007 4:49pm

Dear Todd,

You know, you are right in many ways in what you say. The thing is that I cannot help feeling that we are always one single generation away from the darkness of the prehistoric jungle. These people, the Islamic/Hindu/Jewish/Christian/Whatever
ignoramus' out there are increasing in number. Fortunately Europe is increasingly secular, but the rest of the world... the US is filled with Dark Age mentality, and its tentacles extend into the very oval office. So... What are we to do? Continue doing research in science and philosophy and just hope that these nutbars will be influenced by it? The difficulty is that education is what is required to bridge the gap between the Dark Age and the Enlightenment. And education is our responsibility, to that extent.

However I can't help feeling weary. I have around 150,000 words of publications I need to draft in the next 5 months, and I have wasted several hours today on this... Or have I?

Yours Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 4:55pm

Todd,

Just so you know I wasn't being prejudicial, I am aware that there are still many millions of Americans who are very cultured, educated, and reasonable folk, with a very clear grasp on science and the value of rational inquiry. Yourself being an obvious example.

Yours Collegially and Good Night,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 19, 2007 5:05pm

I guess when you control the website, you can make the decisions as to who is heard and who is not. I wondered why my posts were being taken down so quickly, and now I know.

Your cowardice belies your inability to successfully defend your lack of scientific reasoning. I am really rather surprised at your inabilities, or fortitude, to reasonably argue against what you consider to be so easily argued against. But I guess in light of the absence of real science, you have no other choice.

But then again, skepticism is not science, is it?

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Ohio
February 19, 2007 6:39pm

Steven -
>>...creationists who seek to make arguments concerning dinosaurs and geophysical structures etc. lay themselves open for a good old-fashioned drubbing...<<

Couldn't agree more! Here's an extra club.

Todd Dunning, Aliso Viejo, California USA
February 19, 2007 7:00pm

Garry - I have not removed any posts from this discussion. You guys are riding the razor's edge though, by making everything personal.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 19, 2007 7:39pm

Steven - regarding the secular dichotomy between Europe and the US. Do you have any explanation for this? I've always wondered why and have no idea. You would think that IQ would be pretty close. And I am not sure education quality is that dramatically different.

Todd Dunning, Aliso Viejo, California USA
February 19, 2007 8:29pm

Todd,

Anything I could say would be purely speculative. I have heard it suggested that the establishment of the Church in England was its death knell, since it became a necessarily bland and formal organisation. Perhaps. But that doesn't explain the case of the collapse in faith across Europe. Perhaps it has something to do with the brutal, first-hand nature of the experience of the World Wars in Europe, which was far more traumatic than that of the US, where aside from a few rounds from the odd U-boat, never a bomb fell on the land. This may have led to a sense of profound disillusionment with past certainties and orders. Perhaps there is something about the peculiar insularity of certain areas of the US, wherein, I understand, very few individuals even possess passports. Perhaps there is some element remaining of the puritanism and religiosity of some of the original European settlers of the US, who had been thrown out of avowedly Christian nations for their radically overzealous views. Perhaps it is something to do with the optimism that has traditionally been a part of the American psyche, the nisus of the self-certainty of "manifest destiny" of both the people, and the nation itself in pre-eminence... This also has yet to be snubbed in the eyewatering fashion that the proud Europeans suffered in the first half of the 20th Century. The latter would certainly chime with the strength of the evangelicals in the US, who are largely looked on in Europe with the comic incredulity that anyone might have for a person who claims to believe that the earth is flat, and for much the same reasons. Perhaps, oddly, in Britain's case, it has partly to do with the remarkable paucity in the number of TV chann

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 20, 2007 10:29am

Todd,

I should like to add, however, that no illusion should be had that formal education in the UK is in any sense better than that in the US. Certainly at the moment both the UK and France are facing serious crises in public education, and I have witnessed first-hand the startling ignorance of wide swathes of the population. I do think, then, that the answer is more likely to lie with the suspicion that the world wars left in the cultural psyche of Europe for starry-eyed great social movements, since the horrible destruction, what Edith Sitwell once marvellously described as "the armoured wine that rained on Europe" was wrought by just such naive beliefs, albeit in the secular religions of Nazism and Communism. This, together with the weariness left over in any case from 350 years of the wars of religion, would probably be explanatory enough. So I'll plump for that as my main response, for now.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 20, 2007 11:12am

About five or six years ago (it was before 9/11), I visited the ancient city of St. Denis in France. It lies not far outside Paris, on the banks of the Seine, but has in modern times been more or less absorbed into the Greater Paris conglomerate and is nowadays merely a suburb. The main attraction there is the great cathedral, considered the first purely Gothic cathedral, burying place of the kings of France for the last thousand years. I took a suburban train and was probably the only white person getting out. I remember the startled look of the French lady seated next to me when I asked if we were at St. Denis and got up to get out there. I had no idea what I would find, excepting the cathedral.
The streets were thronged with Arabs, their loud, wailing music pouring out of every doorway. There were butcher shops with bloody slaughtered animals hanging in the windows. Street urchins were everywhere and I held onto my wallet. I finally found the cathedral, after quite a long walk, surrounded in a scene that looked like some bazaar in North Africa, certainly not in Europe. It was a most instructive visit that I have not forgotten. I have since been told that not many tourists venture there. I did not know that. But now I understand why.

When I got back to Paris that evening, the elderly lady who owned my little hotel asked me how I had enjoyed my visit to St. Denis. I said that I thought I got off the train at the wrong continent! It certainly didn’t look like Europe. She instantly changed the topic! Apparently this was something one does not safely talk about.

I am left wondering what the kings of France would say today if they could come out of their tombs and see the squalid scene that is going on, outside t

John T. Baptist, Chicago, Il
February 21, 2007 9:25pm

John Baptist,

I am afraid that your comments, particularly in the first paragraph, are nothing short of racist. As to the rest, it is purely factual to describe your views as cultural chauvinism.

The closing statements appear to make it clear that you do not even believe wholeheartedly in the reality of your own god, since they suggest that "strange gods" have ontological reality. Indeed, bizarrely for someone who is clearly articulate, you appear to have so given up hope in the "power" of your (obviously fictional in any case) god, that you describe these "strange gods" conquest as "inevitable". What makes this all the more grim and unfortunate, is that you appear to have NO knowledge of islam whatsoever. If you did, you would realise that islam, more than christianity, with its "trinity", is a profoundly MONOtheistic faith, which MOST IMPORTANTLY OF ALL asserts that its god is the god of ABRAHAM. The name "Allah" is just another epithet, rather like "Adonai". The Koran discusses Jesus Christ and Mary as much as it discusses figures in the OT. You appear to be completely ignorant of this.

Oh, and please, stop the hand-wringing pity for Europe. It doesn't need your pity. The secularism of Europe is one of the few cultral beacons in the world.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 22, 2007 2:58am

I should of course have said "the secularism of Europe is one of the few clear and unfettered cultural beacons in the world".

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 22, 2007 3:01am

John Baptist,

With the identity of the Islamic "Allah" beyond question being that of "Jehovah" or "Elohim" or "Adonai", Islam is comparable to Mormonism as a neo-interpretation of the Judaic belief system. These are all just sects of Judaism.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 22, 2007 3:05am

John Baptist,

Oh yes, and one more thing- the "god" of Europe's "fathers"? Which one? Odin? Belonus? Zeus? And why "god" as opposed to "goddess"?

The reason that gods stop knocking when you close the CULTURAL door on them, is that THEY DO NOT EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 22, 2007 3:08am

Generally, I am aware that my earlier comments about the effects of the World Wars on Europe might be misinterpreted. It might be thought that I was suggesting that Europe was somehow humbled in a pejorative sense, in that it might be described as "a shadow of its former self" or similar.

I did not mean this AT ALL. Rather I meant that the experiences of these conflicts was a salutary lesson of the "knock some sense into you" sort. These upheavals, the suggestion runs, largely freed Europe of their monarchies, their religion, and their chauvinism in general, most particularly in the pursuit of imperial ends.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 22, 2007 3:22am

Two developments are plaguing atheism these days. One is that it appears to be losing its scientific underpinnings.
The other is the historical experience of hundreds of millions of people worldwide that atheists are in no position to claim the moral high ground.
British philosopher Anthony Flew, once as hard-nosed a humanist as any, has turned his back on atheism, saying it is impossible for evolution to account for the fact that one single cell can carry more data than all the volumes of the Encyclopedia Britannica.
Mr. Flew still does not accept the God of the Bible.
But he has embraced the concept of intelligent design — a stunning desertion of a former intellectual ambassador of secular humanism to the belief in some form of intelligence behind the design of the universe.
A few years ago, European scientists snickered when studies in the United States — for example, at Harvard and Duke universities — showed a correlation between faith, prayer and recovery from illness.
Now 1,200 studies at research centers around the world have come to similar conclusions, according to "Psychologie Heute," a German journal, citing, for example, the marked improvement of multiple sclerosis patients in Germany's Ruhr District because of "spiritual resources."
Atheism's other Achilles' heels are the acts on inhumanity and lunacy committed in its name.
"With time, [atheism] turned out to have just as many frauds, psychopaths and careerists as religion does. ... With Stalin and Madalyn Murray O'Hair, atheism seems to have ended up mimicking the vices of the Spanish Inquisition and the worst televangelists, respectively," Mr. McGrath wrote in Christianity Today.
The

John T. Baptist, Chicago, IL USA
February 22, 2007 5:56pm

"John T. Baptist"

Is that your real name? I doubt it. Why don't you post with your real name and show the courage of your apparent conviction that clean Europe is being swamped by dirty foreigners?

You of course don't bother to answer a single thing I said in reply to your chauvinistic post. Instead, you move on to completely different points, leaving your earlier prejudices hanging in the air, as unsupported as they are insupportable.

But I will answer the "points" you make in your non-reply. First, your "two developments that are plaguing atheism" is likewise completely unsupported, and likewise unsupportable. The assertion that "atheism" is losing its scientific basis is not explained, but if you mean that science is discovering that (for example):

1. The earth is flat.

2. Hell is somewhere "below"

3. Heaven is somewhere "above".

4. Water was made before light.

5. The stars are fixed on a dome, the "firmament" above which there is water.

6. There was a global flood.

7. That this global flood deposited the entire stratigraphic record and raised the mountains out of the seas.

8. Noah's ark existed, and in it Noah carried an reproducing example of every species that ever existed.

9. The earth really is less than 10,000 years old.

10. Miracles happen.

11. Well, I could go on for days, as well you know, but you get the point.

If "science" is demonstrating the above, and hundreds of other absurdities, the I personally am a flying cow from the galaxy Andromeda.

As to the "moral high ground", moral philosophy, and metaethics in particular is not based on the "experi

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 23, 2007 2:41am

"John (The) Baptist",

I correct my apparent assertion that you suggested Flew accepted yahwism, but the rest absolutely applies. Also, I note that in your first post you stated that Secularism was increasing in Europe, and in your second you take the opposite stance.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 23, 2007 3:18am

"John (the) Baptist":

To pre-empt a likely response: Atheism is morally neutral. That bolsheviks or Stalinist Marxists professed atheism adds nothing in terms of moral assessment, any more than a belief in the sphericity as opposed to flatness of the moon would. If Marxists had chosen to go about killing "flat mooners", it could not be laid at the door of fellow believers in a spherical moon, that it was their conviction which is morally to blame.

However religion makes striking, but wholly contradictory moral claims, many of which are brutal and idiotic (c.f. Leviticus and Deuteronomy), the whole effect of which is antithetical to ethical reasoning on the part of moral agents, and undermining to true personal responsibility, among other foundational aspects of ethical evaluation.

Religion can be turned to as an excuse for any atrocity. Atheism can be turned to as an excuse for none.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 23, 2007 3:53am

John Baptist - I'd like to invite you to join the Skeptalk email list. Your participation would be greatly appreciated. :)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 23, 2007 10:59am

Brian,

Interesting invitation. I find it odd, however, in view especially of the tone and implication of the first four paragraphs of John T. Baptists first post. Try, for example, replacing "arabs" in the second paragraph with "white christians". All he is then describing is a fairly ordinary street-scene. The distaste is, I repeat, both racist and culturalist, and the approving statements about the likely reaction of St. Denis amount to an approbation of ethnic cleansing.

Nice.

Ever heard of Averroes?

Look him up.

I think I've had enough of this blog. Goodbye.

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 23, 2007 3:28pm

Of course by"culturalist" I meant culturally chauvinist.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 23, 2007 3:32pm

And yes, that was St. Louis, not Denis.

Oh, and while I'm on it, here's a handy crib on those dreadful Arabs that Louis was so bent on killing:

" The contribution of Muslim Spain to the preservation of classical learning during the Dark Ages, and to the first flowering of the Renaissance, has long been recognized. But Islamic Spain was much more than a mere larder where Hellenistic knowledge was kept for later consumption by the emerging modern world. Not only did Muslim Spain gather and preserve the intellectual content of ancient Greek and Roman civilization, it also interpreted and expanded upon that civilization, and made a vital contribution of its own in so many fields of human endeavour -- in science, astronomy, mathematics, algebra (itself an Arabic word), law, history, medicine, pharmacology, optics, agriculture, architecture, theology, music. Averroes and Avenzoor, like their counterparts Avicenna and Rhazes in the East, contributed to the study and practice of medicine in ways from which Europe benefited for centuries afterwards.

Islam nurtured and preserved the quest for learning. In the words of (the Prophet's) tradition "the ink of the scholar is more sacred than the blood of the martyr." Cordoba in the 10th century was by far the most civilized city of Europe. We know of lending libraries in Spain at the time King Alfred was making terrible blunders with the culinary arts in this country. It is said that the 400,000 volumes of its ruler's library amounted to more books than all the of the rest of Europe put together. That was made possible because the Muslim world acquired from China the skill of making paper more than four hundred years before the rest of non-Mu

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 23, 2007 3:55pm

In the past like at present plenty of scholars, philosophers, writers, thinkers and statesmen have warned us about the dangers of Islam. It is up to us to to let our elected Politicians know all of the hidden perils and the oncoming catastrophe, which will occur by allowing uncontrolled immigration of Muslims to settle in Western nations. Its pure lunacy literally to allow Muslims in such large numbers to live in the West. This will eventually may prove to be the undoing and the destruction of our civilization, if no one takes heed to reverse this policy.

What legacy are we going to leave our children and our children's children? Is it going to be continuous conflict, hatred and even civil wars? On a strictly moral plane, Islam has very little to recommend it. Islam is barbaric to its core and vile in it's ideology. On the cultural plane, it is ridiculously backward, bigoted, childish and hateful. On the political plane it is a cancer which threatens Europe and the world.

John Wesley had this to say of Islam

" Ever since the religion of Islam appeared in the world, the espousers of it...have been as wolves and tigers to all other nations, rending and tearing all that fell into their merciless paws, and grinding them with their iron teeth; that numberless cities are raised from the foundation, and only their name remaining; that many countries, which were once as the garden of God, are now a desolate wilderness; and that so many once numerous and powerful nations are vanished from the earth! Such was, and is at this day, the rage, the fury, the revenge, of these destroyers of human kind"

or Alexis de Tocqueville

"I studied the Kuran a great deal ... I came away from that study with

John T. Baptist, Chicago, Il
February 23, 2007 10:34pm

John Baptist,

Your chauvinism drips from ever word. Your call is for ANOTHER religious war. Your motivation is your commitment to your own superstitious cult. You as usual ignore EVERY POINT I made. This in itself is definitive of chauvinism. If you look up the posts you will see that I do not. Two of the three quotes you use are from militantly committed christians. If there is any bite whatsoever in these statements, and taken as a whole with your warmongering and chauvinist approach, they form nothing so much as an excellent argument against religion in general. By the way every one of the accusations you lay against islam can be matched by similar from the bible.

People such as yourself, are finding willing collaborators among the ranks of the radical in islam. You are a religious radical, and your stance has the precise effect of stimulating the strength of religious radicals in the islamic world. You pretend that your stance is pro-civilised values, but your roots are in dark age chauvinism and bronze age cult. Your words can apply only to the most extreme among those you criticise, and by your views you demonstrate yourself to be among them, yourself, with the sole exception that you happen to be a christian.

You perfectly illustrate why religion in general is a pernicious virus in this world, that will engender war after war after war.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 24, 2007 2:06am

The final two paragraphs of John Baptists post, if simply replacing the epithets with those relating to Jews, would fit seamlessly into the antisemitic propaganda generated by Goebbels. It is the most disgusting sort of racist slander.

Still interested in John Baptist joining your list, Brian?

I wonder why.

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 24, 2007 3:00am

Because differing viewpoints make for better discussion.

I think John Baptist is a hoax personality though.

Steven, come join us yourself! :)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 24, 2007 9:46am

Steven, I thought of you as I watched the international news this morning. Are you still willing to defend your beloved peace-loving muslim extremists?

Funny, I don't recall any radical christians threatening to blow up your homeland!! Good luck.

John T. Baptist, Chicago, IL USA
February 25, 2007 2:16pm

Despite the fact that John Baptist has once again not bothered to reply to any point that was made, and despite the fact that his latest comments are not worth replying to in themselves, I will reply, so that others may not be deluded by his or similar nonsense.

In respect of the danger posed by "muslim extremists" as opposed to "radical christians" to homelands of whatever variety, ask yourself the following question:

Which is the greater, the quantity of ordnance detonated in the conduct of military or politically-motivated actions in predominantly muslim nations by predominantly christian nations in the past 150 years, or the reverse?

This should give an estimation as to the relative historic danger posed. Now consider the following fact: "terrorist" incidents have dramatically RISEN since the "war on terror" (a horribly asinine term, worthy of an Orwellian dictator) was begun. Please, for example:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/article2311307.ece

Violence breeds violence, paranoia breeds paranoia, hatred breeds hatred.

Whoever was ultimately responsible for the 9/11 attacks (and there is no good reason to suppose it was not Osama bin Laden or similar) could not have wished a better response than the initiation of the said "war on terror".

Terrorism is ONLY extant because those who perpetrate it CANNOT militarily defeat any power outright. Terrorism's only tool is the manipulation of fear in the masses and in the minds of politicians, to dramatically increase their actual policy influencing power, by the APPEARANCE of a greater threat than is actually posed. The influence, as well as the strategy, boils down to a form of ma

Steven Horrobin, Edinurgh uk
February 28, 2007 6:22am

What is the deal with the political bunk on this post? The title is "An evolution primer for creationists".

I have a few very honest questions that I would appreciate serious answers to, from an evolutionist point of view:
1)Where, ultimately, did matter originate? Did matter have a beginning, or has it always been in one form or another?

2)If, as an evolutionist, you had no prior knowledge of nature's laws, and had only the evolutionary model to go by, you would surely have to predict that random matter has evolved through successive stages; into elements, stars, chemical polymers, living cells, worms, fishes, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and finally, man.
Would you not then, expect to find this model experimentally operating when you preceded to make actual measurements of specific processes. And would you ever, on the basis of evolutionary assumptions, predict any such laws as the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics?

As a creationist, this seems to be the biggest hurdle that science been unable to justify as far as science versus theory.

These are honest concerns and are not meant to be argumentative. Any response will be appreciated.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
February 28, 2007 10:31am

Garry - I suggest posting this question to the Skeptalk list, and you'll get some great discussion.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
February 28, 2007 10:35am

I have followed the exchange of notes between Rev. James Richard and Neil Griffiths and others on the biblical story of Noah’s ark. Here are my thoughts:

The story is found in the King James’ version of the Bible, Genesis, chapters 6 through 9. It’s there for all to read and, in many cases, is very specific about details. I wish to address some of the comments that others have made ahead of me in this discussion.

Construction of the Ark. As stated, the ark was probably about 450 feet long, 75 feet wide and 45 high. It was roughly half the length of RMS “Titanic”. It was covered, had three decks, one door and one window. There were rooms inside, and pitch was applied to both the inner and outer walls. To build a vessel of this size was an enormous undertaking, and no vessels approaching that size were constructed until the 19th century A.D., and then they were made of steel. The reason that large wooden vessels are impractical is that they warp and twist from the effects of the ocean, which causes them to leak like a sieve. Without pumps, the ark would surely have sunk.
How did Noah and his three sons build it? He would have only hand-held tools to use. No power tools available in those days. The bible gives no answers to that question. An earlier poster stated that God gave Noah 120 years advance warning, but there is no such reference in Genesis. Others have suggested that Noah hired local people to assist him but, again, there is no such biblical reference. In fact, there is a suggestion that Noah did not get ANY help. Genesis 6: 22 “Thus did Noah. According to all that God commanded him, so did he.” And this is what God commanded, Genesis 6:14 “Make thee an ark of gopher woo

Ron Ross, Brampton, Ontario
March 02, 2007 1:05pm

Ross. Excellent!

It would be good if some interested people [max of 4 persons] could build a vessel with primitive tools and sail Her: made from 'gopher wood', to prove whether or not it could do 'The Noah'...

Any takers. I have 4 volunteers:{Mr.Jensen, M.KilPatrick, Webster, Garry}.

Also:''2 of everything THOW shalt bringeth...' and ''everything {EVERYTHING} that creepeth...'':-

It seems to me pretty clear that Noah had to get these creatures {not god} and ALL of them....not just a SAMPLE of a TYPE as suggested by Mr.Jensen.

Interesting how the bible SAYS ONE THING and yet it gets INTERPRETED as something else!!!

Pretty ludicrous!

Everyone should try reading 'The God Delusion': Professor Richard Dawkins...just finished it, myself.

Neil Griffiths, Cardiff, UK
March 03, 2007 4:31am

Ron Ross,
In reply to your lengthy post questioning the validity of the biblical account of Noah's ark, let me begin with this observation at the outset: As a Christian, if I believe that God could create everything from nothing, the least of my concerns would be as to whether or not, after the creation account, would I then limit the ability of that God, as to an inability to perform any act afterward? I would think that the first response would be for me to readily accept that He would indeed be limitless as to power and ability, and as such, able to perform any act thereafter.

Jesus, in Matthew 22:29, when asked a question by the Pharisees as to whether or not there was a resurrection of the dead, replied to their question with this statement, "You do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God!"
In other words, if they would have only read what was written, not inserting their own ideology but believing what was written, and then not limiting God in His ability to accomplish whatever He would set His mind to do, they would understand that all things written are true, and indeed possible with God.

When, as an unbeliever, you use scripture to disprove the scriptures, my first question to you would be, "Why would you even argue the story, if what is written is not possible?" You have used statements such as "As stated, the ark was probably…", "there is a suggestion that Noah did not get any help…", "The bible is very precise on this point…"

Let's look at a few of your statements as to what you say that the bible does or does not say:

1) "An earlier poster stated that God gave Noah 120 years advance warning, but there is no su

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 06, 2007 11:28pm

Garry,

Your first paragraph is a playground maneuver. You say "my god can do ANYTHING, so whatever you say doesn't matter". So the universe came from nothing, black is white, anything is possible (for god), whatever you say I will trump you with my all-purpose argument, god. Gee, how convenient. What an amazing point of view. Not.

This point of view is completely empty. It has NO explanatory force, since it purports to explain EVERYTHING in the most facile manner possible.

The only reason non-faithers choose to criticise noah and his ridiculous ark, is that faithers choose to defend it in the first place, and appear very committed to it. You try a defense of "my god is the biggest and bestest and he can do whatever he wants" to defend the ridiculous story of the ark, but you have no explanation or even a fig-leaf of why your all powerful god (or playground argumentative dodge) needed a WOODEN ARK at all. If he is all powerful in such a facile manner, why did he not just whisk all the animals, people etc. that he wished to save off to another world he created just for the purpose, out of nothing, since he did so for the entire universe. The story you tell depends on the idea that this would be a trivial task. Or why not simply recreate the whole shebang again, after the flood. Why not just skip the flood, and, since he supports everything in existence anyway, just allow all the living things on earth simply to disappear into nothingness?

I await your answers, which of course will have to supply non-utterly facile reasons, or else just say "You can't ask that" for some hermaneutically absurd reason.

Another playground maneuver.

All the while you task us with ex

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 08, 2007 7:00pm

Garry,

Further, the story YOU tell about the origin of matter is no story at all since you say: it came from NOTHING. Albeit by the agency of an all powerful convenience.

Facile? Abundantly.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 08, 2007 7:15pm

As to the disappearing into nothingness versus slowly drowning in terror opposition, why do you suppose that an all-powerful, all GOOD god allowed ALL THE ANIMALS ON EARTH (who are not sinful, since they are not capable of sin- a fortiori) to slowly drown to death in terror, as opposed to simply vanishing into nihilo - ad nihilo, since your argument runs that ALL was from and must be supported, ex nihilo?

Your simple playground dodge begins to have some rather messy consequences, no? Not as clean as you thought? Are you going to try some hermaneutics? How about: "god couldn't help it because it was the best of all possible worlds".

Funny, though, I thought your god was ALL powerful.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 08, 2007 7:27pm

Wow! Talk about a playground dodge. I asked you to simply explain your theory as to how matter originated, much less to organize itself into what we now observe throughout the universe.

Indeed, my God is all powerful and I need no excuse as to His motives or His abilities. But since Dawkins and his ilk consider those of faith "dims" and you, I assume, are in the league of his "brights", can you not give a reasonable answer for "the hope that lies within you?"

You have exhibited faith in the same way that you condemn Christians of exhibiting. It amazes believers, in that how utterly nasty evolutionists become when we would dare demand an explanation as to the alternative to the believe in creation and a designer of the natural world.

Above, you said this "...the story YOU tell about the origin of matter is no story at all since you say: it came from NOTHING. Albeit by the agency of an all powerful convenience."

I did not say matter came from nothing. I said that it came from God. You now have another opportunity to answer the questions I asked above.
Where or from what did matter originate from? Has it always been or did it have a beginning?
Does the First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics support or contradict the evolutionary model?

"Evolution is baseless and quite incredible."—*Ambrose Flemming, President British Association for Advancement of Science, in The Unleashing of Evolutionary Thought.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 08, 2007 8:59pm

Steven, I just re-read your three previous posts and would like for you to explain the difference in the following two views:

1)(This is your phrasing)"You say "my god can do ANYTHING, so whatever you say doesn't matter". So the universe came from nothing, black is white, anything is possible (for god), whatever you say I will trump you with my all-purpose argument, god. Gee, how convenient. What an amazing point of view. Not. This point of view is completely empty. It has NO explanatory force, since it purports to explain EVERYTHING in the most facile manner possible."

What is the difference in me believing that God is an uncaused cause, and you in believing, no matter how far your reasoning takes you to the beginning of all things, somewhere in your fairy tale, "something" must be the beginning or cause, and ultimately you are stuck at the same starting point that I am. Whatever your "something" turns out to be, it still ends up where my God is!

2)(Again, your phrasing)
"The only reason non-faithers choose to criticise noah and his ridiculous ark, is that faithers choose to defend it in the first place, and appear very committed to it. You try a defense of "my god is the biggest and bestest and he can do whatever he wants" to defend the ridiculous story of the ark, but you have no explanation or even a fig-leaf of why your all powerful god (or playground argumentative dodge) needed a WOODEN ARK at all."

I am astounded that with massive amounts of information available via access to the internet, you do not know more about the story of Noah and the ark and the fall of man, and why an all powerful God would use men in His dealings with other m

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 08, 2007 9:19pm

Garry,

As usual you didn't address my points at all. Rather, from what I can make out through your grammatical obstacles, you seem to be inviting me to explain my "hope", which is a non-defined concept in your question. Hope is an intentional concept. One does not simply 'hope', one hopes FOR something.

Your suggestion that I have "exhibited faith in the same way" as believers do, is unsupported nonsense. If I reserve judgement, say, about the total and final number of subatomic particles that will be discovered eventually, I simply reserve judgement, knowing that judgement is not facile, and is hard fought for and hard won. Faith doesn't come into it at all. Maybe we will find out, and maybe we wont. But we certainly wont by just saying "it doesn't matter 'cause god knows it, and god could change it in an instant, and it's not for us to know blah blah blah".

Your dichotomy couldn't be falser, or sillier. You basically state that, unless I, now, here on this blog, can state precisely an iterated and proven theory about the origin of energy at all, prior to the primal expansion event (big bang), OR ELSE I am both wrong in some way, god exists, and I have faith myself.

That I don't know what lies 2 miles beneath the surface of Titan doesn't mean that I have faith. Because I don't know whether the universe in future will contract or expand indefinitely doesn't mean that I have faith. Science strives, through hard work, not facile fairytales (and next time you step on a plane, and next time you reply to this post over the INTERNET, just try to say again that science is a FAIRYTALE!!!!) to chisel away at our ignorance of t

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 09, 2007 4:56am

Garry,

As to your statement that whatever I or anyone else ever says about either the infinite (regression of causes) or the uncaused cause it is still, in effect identical with your conception of god is absurd.

So ANY cause or ANY infinite regression of causes WHATEVER is just the same as, exactly like in every respect to, Yahweh god of the isrealites, eh?

Oh boy, I wonder why I bother. So why isn't it exactly like brahman, garuda, zoroaster, etc. etc. etc. etc. or exactly like a collection of energy the sum total of which is the sum total of energy in any and all universes, or whatever else you can postulate of a very nearly infinite set of such postulations and possibilities.

The mistake you make, and the dodge you attempt is isomorphic with, but even WORSE than that of the ID'ers who think that, even if they could prove ID, this would get them closer to asserting yahweh.

It wouldn't.

Why would it?

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 09, 2007 5:12am

Hmmm. My grammar seems lacking as well, at points. Will proofread next time. The following:

Your dichotomy couldn't be falser, or sillier. You basically state that, unless I, now, here on this blog, can state precisely an iterated and proven theory about the origin of energy at all, prior to the primal expansion event (big bang), OR ELSE I am both wrong in some way, god exists, and I have faith myself."

The "or else" does no work and should be deleted.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 09, 2007 5:38am

Garry,

And before you bother to answer "nothing caused the beginning of god, since he was the uncaused cause", you have just accepted, in so doing, that causes NEED NOT NECESSESSARILY HAVE A CAUSE. Since you will have admitted that in such an argument, then you need not postulate "god" as the uncaused cause at all. You could postulate ANYTHING AS THE UNCAUSED CAUSE.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 09, 2007 5:51am

I really wish you would have used a little of your rant time to give an answer to my questions. "A whole lotta words, but very little substance!"

You attempt to belittle me as a "faither", boister your intellectual pinnings with way too many words, and in the end, you say the exact same thing that I stated earlier, (If I may quote you): "As to the "uncaused cause" and the first event. You once again set up a FALSE dichotomy. You think, just because science is, and I am PRESENTLY ignorant of the origin of all matter, that I accept that there can be, or must be an absolute beginning. This is nonsense. We simply do not know whether there was, or was not one. But even if there was, the primal cause could just as easily have been the tiniest imaginable fluctuation, the merest crack that appeared in and of itself, in the static whatever it was. Or if you wish to worry about the idea that the "whatever it was" needs explanation, then we can simply say, perfectly soundly, that it does NOT, and that the process of the universe is INFINITE, such that it simply has always been around.

You, and science, are ignorant of the origin of all matter, but I am a fool for believing in God? That you accept that there must be or can be an absolute beginning? This is nonsense!

You sir, should consider your words more carefully before posting them. But I do thank you for the ammunition!

"Darwinism has never had much appeal for science outside of the English-speaking world, and has never appealed much to the American public (although popular with the U.S. scientific establishment in the past). However, its ascendancy in science, in both Britain and America, has been waning for sever

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 09, 2007 8:22am

Garry,

The paragraph directly succeeding the quote you gave of me is obscure. The first sentence demonstrates that you haven't considered a word I said, but I am not surprised at this, of course. The second sentence and succeeding phrase appears completely meaningless.

Funny that you should follow this with an admonition to consider my words more carefully prior to posting.

I don't know who Richard Milton is, but the quotation given is straightforwardly wrong. The number of scientists who reject evolution is vanishingly small. Genetics and mainstream molecular biology are flooding with evidence which precisely supports evolution. Frankly, whoever says that they are not is simply wrong, and can only be a committed religionist such as yourself. As to the other disciplines, you really think that they support a young earth hypothesis? If so, you are a profoundly deluded person.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 09, 2007 10:44am

One more thing, if you think that I simply expressed the position that you were hoping for, then either you accept that your own solution to the problem is just one of an infinite number of possible solutions, in which case it is VANISHINGLY UNLIKELY, or else you didn't understand what I was saying, at all. I suspect that the latter is most likely.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 09, 2007 10:48am

Your posts have become increasinly empty and meaningless. You continue to evade the main issue, which is, which possibility is the most feasible in light of the Laws of natural science? (I know that evolutionists cringe at a creationist using the word science, but after all, it means knowledge, not speculation.)You and I have to start at a given point in past history. I begin with God. You must carefully dodge being too steadfast in your answers, knowing that you will eventually entrap yourself into the inevitable corner of admitting to a beginning to all things. I venture to guess that you have no desire to commit to what that beginning is.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH
March 09, 2007 1:20pm

Garry,

Empty and meaningless, and not adressing the questions? What nonsense. I did adress precisely the questions you posed. What I said, effectively, is "I don't know", with some qualifications such as:

-There is no logical necessity for a beginning of causal streams and the existence of matter.

-There are therefore 2 possibilities: that "everything" had a beginning, or that it didn't.

-In NEITHER case is postulating yawheh god of the israelites ANY more likely than ANY other possibility that could be iterated.

That you can't see this, and that you choose to set up false dichotomies which say: "If you don't supply an answer to this question NOW, then I am right" is indicative of the theologic mindset in inaction.

Admitting ignorance of something, while outlining the philosophical structure of a question such that it is demonstrated that the, for example "god hypothesis" is no more explanatory than anything else, and indeed in the case of a being infinitely more complex and "extant" than the very thing whose complexity and existence you are trying to explain, a far WORSE problem than the one you set up in the first place, is neither "empty" nor "not adressing the question". Because I have not been trapped by the trap you thought you were laying, you throw your toys out of the pram, and state that what I have said doesn't count, accusing me of not addressing the question, when you haven't addressed a single response of mine pretty much ever in this thread, to this or anything else.

Remember the platypus above?

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 10, 2007 4:30am

When you make a bold statement such as "Yahweh God of the Israelites explains the laws of physics BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE, and is a good conlcusion to come to, just in case (just because) no one has yet come up with a thoroughly demonstrated alternative" the the burden of proof and demonstration is squarely on YOUR shoulders, as it is YOU who is making the claim.

So go on then, why is it Yahweh, rather than Brahman, for example? And why would postulating an eternal god solve the problem of "eternity"? And why would postulating a god complex, and stable enough to DESIGN the laws of physics, as well as motivate and plan the PARTICULAR movements and events in the whole of universal history, as well as being in a simultaneous consciously responsive dialogue with every conscious being in the entire history of the universe, as well as... (you get the picture) solve the problem posed by the laws of physics' stability and complexity which are themselves actually quite simple, and appear thoroughly explanatory of the events in the universe themselves?

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 10, 2007 4:48am

A few posts above you characterised me as mischaracterising what you said about god's act of creation, such that the universe did not arise, by god's command, "ex nihilo", but rather emanated from god himself. Well, if this is the case, then of course you haven't solved the problem you thought you had AT ALL. You think you have postulated a "beginning" to the universe, but that "begining" turns out to be a direct connection with, in fact arising directly from, the SUBSTANCE of an ETERNAL being, who of course has no "beginning". So your ad hoc argument doesn't even do what it says on the box.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 10, 2007 4:57am

You seem to have some disdain for "Yahweh God of the Israelites", as you have used that phrase in several of your posts. I am indeed a Christian and believe in Jehovah God and I have found the answers to life's problems in Jesus Christ and in following Him, it leads me to Jehovah. But I have not used this forum to promote my personal choice of "God". I have tried my best to stay on the creation/evolution topic.
You keep refering to God and the nessecity of His beginning. But the fact that He is God, my "uncaused cause", differenciates Him from His creation. The designer must be greater than His design. But as I stated previously, you will eventually arrive at "some uncaused cause", though you are unwilling to admit it.

Back on the main topic, here is what I find to be the most sensible basis for my beliefs:

The greatest problem I can find with evolution, (and I believe this will be magnified in the future as science and technology advance) is that the design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! The evidence that science now offers is daunting, but still short of "proof". For this reason, I must then conclude that it takes a great deal more faith to believe in an accidental universe than to believe in an intelligent creator, or God who crafted such a marvelous universe and beautiful place of habitation in planet Earth, and then created life (including human beings) to occupy it.
A universe that contains a special place of habitation for complex, conscious life is so truly remarkable that it is, realistically speaki

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 10, 2007 6:07am

I repeat:

When you make a bold statement such as "Yahweh God of the Israelites explains the laws of physics BETTER THAN ANYTHING ELSE, and is a good conlcusion to come to, just in case (just because) no one has yet come up with a thoroughly demonstrated alternative" the the burden of proof and demonstration is squarely on YOUR shoulders, as it is YOU who is making the claim.

So go on then, why is it Yahweh, rather than Brahman, for example? And why would postulating an eternal god solve the problem of "eternity"? And why would postulating a god complex, and stable enough to DESIGN the laws of physics, as well as motivate and plan the PARTICULAR movements and events in the whole of universal history, as well as being in a simultaneous consciously responsive dialogue with every conscious being in the entire history of the universe, as well as... (you get the picture) solve the problem posed by the laws of physics' stability and complexity which are themselves actually quite simple, and appear thoroughly explanatory of the events in the universe themselves?

And I add that the anthropic principle provides an answer to why WE are in THIS universe. Your talk of amazing coincidences doesn't reckon or factor the billions OF billions of worlds out there, in THIS universe, like Jupiter the sulfuric acid-storm tossed gas giant, and Neptune with its acetylene-ethane methane storms, where life DID NOT arise.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 10, 2007 6:27am

You assert that you have not been defending Yahweh god of the Israelites, but that is the god you want, and it is the god you have in fact been defending, since you have been defending stories such as the great flood, which is specifically a yahwist myth.

As soon as you abstract away from yahweh, to just "any" god (not a He, then at all- and why is god male, and why should a god have the characteristics of SEXUAL REPRODUCTION, if "he" is the UNCAUSED CAUSE of everything?), you lose the right to talk about "god" in any but the most abstract terms possible.

The "primal event" or the "eternal cause" or whatever could literally therefore be ANYTHING or simply synonymous with the "universe".

Why even bother? The only reason you bother at all is that you want a particular god, with very specific particular characteristics. So don't be so disingenuous as to state that you don't, since that is obviously your motivation.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 10, 2007 6:32am

Garry,

Further, I think that you have pegged me for a hard athiest. I am not. It may surprise you to learn that I am willing to accept that there may be some, as yet, mysterious being who conforms in some way to the outlines of the notion of a "god". But I thoroughly reject mythical systems that make demonstrably false claims, such as that the universe was created in the past 10,000 years, or that there is a firmament to which stars are fixed, or that dinosaurs rode on an ark or that there was an "ark" at all, etc. etc.

I notice that your latest line of argumentation RELIES on the idea that standard physics and chemistry is CORRECT and that evolution DID occur.

Ooops.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 10, 2007 6:55am

Please don't try to set the standards to which you think I should consider what is true or false in my religeous beliefs. When you use phrases such as "you lose the right to talk about "god" in any but the most abstract terms possible." Only an atheist/evolutionist could speak of "abstract terms" and keep a straight face. You stated previously that neither you nor science knows the origin of matter. Remember?

Let's consider the process of evolution. Life is in essence a symbiotic combination of proteins (and other structures, but here I'll discuss only the proteins). The history of life teaches us that not all combinations of proteins are viable. At an event recorded in the fossil record and known as the Cambrian explosion of animal life, some 50 phyla (basic body plans) suddenly and simultaneously appeared in the fossil record. This is the first appearance of complex animal life. Only 30 to 34 of the phyla survived. The rest perished. Since then the fossil record and modern existing biota reveal that no new phyla have evolved. At a later stage in the flow of life, a catastrophic event (possibly the collision of the earth with a massive comet or meteor) eliminated 90% of all life forms. The ecology was wide open for new phyla to develop. Again, no new phyla appear. The implication is that only a limited number of life forms (phyla) are viable.

Scientific American asked "has the mechanism of evolution altered in ways that prevent fundamental changes in body plans of animals" (November 1992). It is not that the mechanism of evolution has changed; it is our understanding of how evolution functions that must change to fit the data presented by the fossil record an

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 10, 2007 11:26am

Wrong Garry.

The reason that no 'extra' animals have evolved is quite simply that (1) the correct conditions no longer exist (2) anything that minute will be destroyed by bacteria.

Strange ... why doesn't IT come up with new animals?

Is IT's 'hands' tied behind IT's 'back...S-M !

Griff

Neil Griffiths, Cardiff, UK
March 11, 2007 7:09pm

Neil, As always your snappy little retorts amount to a young child sticking it's tongue out and yelling "Poopy pants!"

The reason no "extra" animals have evolved is that "no" animals evolved in the first place.

Your little snippet supports my reasoning, by admitting that "the correct conditions no longer exist" you bolster the fact that life is dependent on conditions that support it's very existence and how much more so for it's
beginnings.

God rested from His creating on the seventh day. There will be no more creating in the present human history, until that time that the whole of creation is made anew and sin is no more. There will be a day when you will be able ot ask "IT" these questions yourself, but doubtless on that day, your smugness may be somewhat subdued!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 11, 2007 8:42pm

Garry,

Your position is misguided and incoherent, and also rather funny.

Firstly, your acceptance of the fact that there even was something which may be intelligibly called the "CAMBRIAN explosion" shows that you cannot be a young earther at all, or if you are, you are talking in directly self-contradictory terms. Your statement that "God rested on the seventh day" suggests, as previous posts have, that you are a believer in the literal truth of Genesis, however incoherent and silly that position is. But of course you CANNOT be a believer in the literal truth of Genesis, and at the same time argue from positions which reference events such as the "Cambrian explosion". The event in question occurred some 500 million years ago. Further, when you assert that the proliferation of phyla happened "simultaneously" that is a position which is more a matter of some opinion, than orthodoxy. The estimates for the diversification found within strata such as the burgess shale, in terms of length of process, varies from a few to anywhere up to 30 million years. I hardly think that can be called "simultaneos". In addition to which, there is increasing evidence that the so called "explosion" is rather a red herring, and that the diversification began perhaps hundreds of millions of years earlier, in the later precambrian. Of course the precambrian fossil record is difficult indeed, since it consisted overwhelmingly of single-celled organisms. But in any event, it is absolutely clear (and you shouldn't need to worry about arguing with this, since you have already accepted the reality of a period that is 83,000 times ealier than the total age of the universe accoding

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 12, 2007 10:26am

Further, since you argue that there was diversification at all, you have given up on the genesis account of all created on one day, in any case.

Or do you propose to argue that the Cambrian Explosion occurred in the Garden of Eden, and that there were Hallucigenia walking their cigar-bodies around on their pairs of stiff tubular legs, with their matched pairs of mouths on the ends of tentacles waving in the pools of Eden's garden?

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 12, 2007 10:32am

Of course I meant "Margulis", as in "Lynn-"

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 12, 2007 10:35am

Of course I meant every RELEVANT area of science has backed up evolution to the hilt, since some are just not relevant to it. Comparative genomics is a particularly outstanding example. The striking thing is that since DNA was not discovered until 71 years after his death that Darwin himself could not have known that genetics and genomics would so beautifully and symmetrically underpin his theory.

But they did.

Oh, and I suppose that's just a coincidence, is it?

Go fly a kite.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 12, 2007 11:03am

Oh yes, and I should correct my picture of Hallucigenia, since I had forgotten that the standard picture of its orientation has been inverted in more recent literature.

So, walking on tentacle legs, with spines above. But the question still applies.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 12, 2007 12:01pm

Steven, I only used the phrase "Cambrian " to make sure that you would understand which strata of fossil I was using as my basis to disavow the religion of evolution that you so heartily hold to. I believe this stratum is simply the effect of the flood and the following recession of it, approximately 6000 years ago. And, please rest assured, I actually believe in the literal truth of Genesis!

Your readiness to throw about evolutionary numbers as to the age of things can easily be discredited, simply by ready what evolutionary scientists have written. They cannot agree among themselves as to what dates are reliable and what are not. It is common knowledge that many times when radiographic dating methods are used, there is a pre-supposed date as a starting point and the outcome varies depending on what lab does the testing. If the desired outcome is not achieved, they simply retest the sample using another method. This is easily verified by using sources found readily on the internet.

This statement is hilarious: "That you should suggest that "pure randomness" is what drives Darwinian evolution, and speak repeatedly of "chance" while bandying large numbers in an attempt to defeat Darwin by probability shows that you neither understand evolution…"
Well, you are not totally incorrect, as I do not fully understand Darwinian evolution. But as one who does not believe it is feasible, I find no necessity to understand it fully. The problem is that, even from evolutionist to evolutionist, neither do you do seem to understand it. It is hard to find a definitive statement as to what is the accepted standard among true believers of this pseudo-religion. As I have stated in previous po

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 13, 2007 12:15am

I am utterly bored with your wilful ignorance. Re-read my posts above, and go and learn evolutionary theory. Get off your ignorant hobby-horse, and begin to exit the dark ages.There is no point whatever in continuing a dialogue with a person who references the Cambrian, and yet thinks the garden of eden was a real place and event, a mere 6000 years ago. There is no point in continuing a dialogue with a person who will not engage in the questions put to him, and who simply ignores whatever I have actually and repeatedly said, and who merely falls silent when I demonstrate clearly that his views are false or ignorant. There is no point in conversing with a person who clearly revels, as you have done in the last post, in his own ignorance. I am not your intellectual wet-nurse, and I refuse to waste any more time on you or your childish, and ignorance-seeking views.

Goodbye.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 13, 2007 2:29am

As a parting and final word, I would add that you should also decrease your ignorance of: geology, geophysics, cosmology, physics, astronomy, biology, zoology, paleontology, history, anthropology, genetics, genomics, chemistry, oh yes, and religion, particularly the history of judaism, christianity, and near-eastern religions in general.

Bye bye, happy reading. Though I doubt you will bother. After all, why bother, when you have no desire actually to question your own facile commitments? Really, do not expect a further reply, as none will be forthcoming.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
March 13, 2007 2:51am

Steven, It is probably best that you discontinue your defense of such an un-scientific proposition that, ironically, supposedly bases itself upon scientific methodology. You have provided a very flimsy argument against my idea that evolution is "the self professed intellectual's religion."
I am tempted to commend you on the amount of faith that you have exhibited by arguing for evolution, but it is such a waste of faith that I cannot, in good conscience, do so!

Good luck in future endeavors and may God bless you and yours.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 13, 2007 7:59am

Garry Webb,
It would appear that your response to all the illogical aspects of the Noah's Ark myth is a blanket statement ... "He (God)would be limitless to power and ability, and able to do anything."

Anything, that is,except to build an ark. He had to get a 600-year-old man to do that for him!!

Is that what passes for rational thinking in Oh-Hi-ya?

Steve Horrobin from Edinburgh, despite his efforts, learned that one cannot have a rational discussion with an irrational thinker, and I'm not about to make the same mistake as Steve.

So, I'll leave you with a quote from your favourite book. One that you should bear in mind when considering the sfable of Noah's Ark.

"When I was a child I spoke as a child I understood as a child I thought as a child; but when I became a man I put away childish things." I Cor. xiii. 11.

Ron Ross, Brampton, Ontario
March 13, 2007 12:19pm

Ronnie, As typical in evolutionary circles, you seem to have a problem with keeping facts in context. It is ironic that you would quote a scripture that, in context, deals with supernatural gifts from God. You should have went one verse farther, "...For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." An atheistic evolutionist quoting scripture. There may be hope for you yet!

My family and I visited Toronto several years and we had planned to stay in the city for a weekend. After driving straight through, from Cincinnati to Toronto, we went downtown to find a motel. What would you say that the ratio of porn shops to motel is in your "rational thinking city" is? Needless to say, we kept on driving! New York was a welcome sight.

I have tried to imagine living in a world in which anything you can imagine can be proven by anything you can imagine.

Such is the world in which evolutionists live.

The latest probative triumph is a dinosaur fossil with very long horns. They also have fossils, you see, of dinosaurs with short horns. They imagine that short horns evolved from long horns: I suppose the vain imagining is that short horns are more adapted to making tools or something, or are simply more bioculturally advanced. So the existence of a long-horned dinosaur is proof that short-horned dinosaurs evolved, and therefore proves evolution. Ta da!

I was trying to come up with some analogies to this wondrous assumption. Solid matter becomes gas under certain conditions, but the converse is not true. Therefore, gas evolves from solid matter. Therefore, Neptune evolved from Mars. Short-horned cows evolved from longhorns

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 13, 2007 9:07pm

Hi Garry -

I appreciate your frequent participation, and your ongoing efforts to avoid stooping to personal comments would be appreciated. :)

You should bring up some of your points on the Skeptalk mailing list. We could use your point of view.

I am curious to know whether you listened to the episode, and whether you understand what natural selection is (whether you believe that it happens or not).

- Brian

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 13, 2007 9:14pm

To borrow from scripture:"Come, let us reason together."

Nobody times nothing equals everything is bizarre. You can’t for a moment believe that one of the great space machines that goes up into outer space in its incredible display of scientific ingenuity flies around and does whatever it does and ends up in orbit sending back all these messages, could occur by an explosion in a metal factory . . . you can’t have that from random--that takes an incredible amount of intelligence to produce.

How in the world could you explain the universe with any other thing than an intelligent Creator. But as soon as you have an intelligent creator, you have a problem and you know what the problem is? Somebody bigger than you is in charge. It is not an intellectual thing. There’s not a rejection of God on campuses today and universities today because it’s intellectually reasonable, it is because nobody wants anybody being their judge. That’s the issue.

On August 7th, 1961, 26 year old Major German Titov (sp.) the second Soviet cosmonaut to orbit the earth and return safely . . . that’s a long time ago . . . ’61. Climaxing a monumental feat for mankind—he orbited the earth. Sometime later, speaking at the world’s fair, he recounted his experience—a very unique experience, (not too many have it). In a rather interesting pronouncement, on a triumphalist note this is what he said, "In my excursion into space, I did not see God." Now, he was an atheist, right? A Russian communist atheist, and he wanted to make it clear that he had been around the earth and he didn’t see God. Upon hearing of this exuberant argument from silence, someone quipped, "Had he stepped out of his space suit, he

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 13, 2007 9:20pm

Brian,
Thanks for the invitation. I do not often have access to the internet at work, so I do my posts on Word and then drop them onto Skeptoid. It is hard for me to find time to sit on a computer for extended periods at home, as I am on call much of the time.

Just out of curiosity, what do you consider "stooping to personal comments?", as I have been called some rather derogatory names by some of the other posters. I am a big boy and can take it, but for clarification, could you give an example? Thanks.

Yes, I do believe in natural selection. If I may cite an example or two, and how I view them:
1) Peppered moths. I believe this is the perfect example of natural selection. When British ecologist H. B. D. Kettlewell predicted that predation, based upon the camouflage of the two forms of the moth, were the reasons for their success' or failures, due to pollution effects on the environment. Not evolution.
"Kettlewell found that in unpolluted areas, more of his light-colored moths had survived. In soot-blacked areas, more of the dark-colored moths had survived. Thus Kettlewell showed that in each environment the moths that were better camouflaged had the higher survival rate. It was logical to conclude that when soot darkened the tree trunks in the area, natural selection caused the dark-colored moths to become more common. Today Kettlewell's work is considered to be a classic demonstration of natural selection in action." (from "BIOLOGY" by Miller & Levine, page 298) Ironically, because of cleaner air standards in Britain, many experts predict the darker Peppered Moth will soon become extinct.

2) Dogs. Short hair on dogs i

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 15, 2007 12:03am

I've never heard a more mixed up argument 'for' anything, let alone a god; but Garry you exemplify the idiosyncrasies of the religious mind:-

You, above: 'How in the world could you explain the universe with any other thing than an intelligent Creator. But as soon as you have an intelligent creator, [[you have a problem and you know what the problem is?]] (Somebody bigger than you is in charge.) It is not an intellectual thing. There’s not a rejection of God on campuses today and universities today because it’s intellectually reasonable, it is because nobody wants anybody being their judge. That’s the issue.'

My response to your words above [[in parenthesis]]...is..good question.

But WRONG answer. In (brackets) you give the wrong response...

''The PROBLEM'' you have is that an intelligent creator must have been created by something else...following your logic...For example the rocket is created 'intelligently' by a PERSON and the person {according to you} is created by a god. Sooo, ergo god has been created by a bigger god, and so on, and so on...

No the truth is, god was created, in our image, by us, for us, to please our primitive brains...

We are all judged by each other, on a daily basis...WE have no problem with that.

It is religious people that try to ELAVATE themselves above MORTAL judgement...'only god can judge you'...am I right?

This makes you and your kind DANGEROUS, as dangerous as those muslim lunatics who bombed your country with planes, during your continuing [never ending] RELIGIOUS WAR with them!

You lot [christians, muslims, jews - whatever] remind me of chimpanzees leading raiding parties in the African j

Neil Griffiths, Cardiff, UK
March 16, 2007 5:23am

Your next 'page', Garry, seems to confuse even more.

You speak of genetic variation [mutations], yet deny evolution?

I watched a programme on tv last night about 2 lovely young girls from the USA who 'share the same body'. Abigail and Britney I think their names were...What an inspiration to behold their pleasant mother!

But my point is that these 2 girls are to you what? ...An act of god? Or worse, an act of satan?

This information is in all our genes I suppose...is it?

They {hopefully} will have children and enjoy their life together.

And to my way of thinking this is a BIG mutation ... none-fatal.

There are many others...

In terms of ''a loss of genetic information''...The vast majority of an organism's genome is redundant and not used for protein synthesis, anyway, so what difference would it make to lose some...It would depend on the organism and the environment. There aren't many 'for-sures'.

This is the same general god argument, applied to a different sphere...

1) Evolution/Darwinism explains life...god designed it like that!

2) Physics explains creation (nearly)...god designed that too!...

Did god design god? No. We did!

GRIFF...

Neil Griffiths, Cardiff, UK
March 16, 2007 5:53am

I've been away for a while and missed some good stuff...

Here, for all to see is an excerpt from Messrs: Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA and Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK.

** Garry Webb: 'Well, you are not totally incorrect, as I do not fully understand Darwinian evolution. But as one who does not believe it is feasible, I find no necessity to understand it fully.' **

CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What I loved here is the double negative [all bible-bashers use them] and the triple admission of (1) Steven being correct, (2) Garry himself being wrong, and (3) Garry just doesn't get-it, evolution I mean!

Yet because he doesn't get-it, does he look it up [NO], does he ask experts for advice {NO}...HE JUST doesn't find it feasible **bearing in mind his LACK of knowledge** and so refuses to 'believe' it.

Here it is again...::'I find no necessity to understand it fully.''

*************************************

I would now like to sum up...

As Del-Boy would say to his brother Rodney: 'Youuuu, PLONKER Rodney!!!!!!!'.

Thanks Del, couldn't have said it better myself...

This utterly epitomises the TOTAL IGNORAMASES that encompass religious beliefs.

Steven, we'll miss you!

But I can't abandon the ship until all the 'rats' have drowned.

I don't mean to call an individual a rat, merely a poor idea...namely god.

I mean let's face it, as far as a good explanation goes, the god idea IS the worse theory of mankind's invention abilities. Ever.

GRIFF...

Neil Griffiths, Cardiff, UK
March 16, 2007 6:23am

Neil,
Before I post my full response, please answer this one question: Where, in your opinion, did all matter originate, and did it have a beginning, or has it always been?

And please, just an answer! I beg of you.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 16, 2007 7:09am

Brian, I had asked you for an example of what you considered a personal attack. How does this one, "TOTAL IGNORAMASES", rate? Just asking!

Neil,
Above, you typed, "I, and other normal people, don't go shooting people." Being from Britain, you and other normal people choose to beat one another to death over a soccer game. If you are normal, God Bless America!

I see you are a little behind in your posts as you have not answered my simple query as to the origin of non life before your beloved Big Bang.
Come on, woo us!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 17, 2007 10:21pm

Interesting that the 747 in the junkyard turns out to be designed by these welders...

Colin, Nagoya
March 18, 2007 5:23pm

I don't care about matter but when my post just up and disappears, now that's annoying!

In that post I said that TOTAL IGNORAMASES was not to be taken personally. But a person who believes in 950 yrs old men building small boats that are needed by god to flood the Earth, is lame. Couldn't god re-create?

Please answer that Garry. What was so special about the drunkard - noah?

So post-2. Short and quick.

Currently I think the universe is a closed system so that a loss of energy in one place is manifested by an increase of mass somewhere else. It neither had a beginning nor will it have an end.

Like a big coiled spring; a compression 'here' means an expansion 'there'.

The human mind is not used to thinking in terms of truly closed systems. You may think that every thing loses heat or something, but ask yourself...To where...or what. The system gains and loses to itself. If this is not borne out by current measurements in our little local area, well space is pretty big and unknown...we'll have to wait and see.

The fact that we don't know, doesn't mean we take the lazy option and invent a god!

As for soccer, I hate it and the tribal [religious like] warriors it produces who never lose their faith in their gods, even when they lose! Yes, it's a lot like religion.

Boring soccer on Saturday and tedious religion on Sunday...

The big bang theory - rubbish - invented by a monk and endorsed by the pope! Ha, ha. The pope! As if he's the guy to ask. The absurdity/stupidity of it!

Griff...''You can't keep a good post down!''

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
March 18, 2007 5:26pm

Neil,
Once you post your thoughts, they are out of your control. The exact quote was, "This utterly epitomises the TOTAL IGNORAMASES that encompass religious beliefs." Nice try at back stepping, but it's on the record.

I never cease to be amazed at the extent to which atheists/evolutionists are willing to overlook true science to defend their beloved religion. It is humorous to me because, we believers are continually criticized for using scientific arguments against Darwinist evolution. We are constantly rebuked because, as "faithers", apparently we are not permitted to draw from the fields of scientific reasoning simply because our "God cannot be proven".
But that is exactly my argument against evolution and for a divine Designer. Evolutionary theory is the very antithesis of known scientific natural laws, yet you are willing to forgo what is proven, and "believe" in evolution. That is the basis of my declaration that evolution is a "religion" proper! It meets almost every dictionary definition of a religion. (I will pause while you look it up.)

The Second Law of Thermodynamics, which is universally accepted as one of the basic laws of physics, holds that under normal conditions all systems left on their own tend to become disordered, dispersed, and corrupted in direct relation to the amount of time that passes. Everything, whether living or not, wears out, deteriorates, decays, disintegrates, and is destroyed. This is the absolute end that all beings will face one way or another, and according to the law, the process cannot be avoided.

We see it everyday, in the world all around us. If you take a car to a desert and leave it there, you would hardly ex

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 18, 2007 11:23pm

2nd LAW: ' heat' never moves up a gradient UNAIDED from a low to a high temp.'' Eastop & McConkey 4thEd.

UNAIDED - The life processes are most certainly AIDED by the heat energy from the Sun, so the 2nd LAW is not violated by the CONSTRUCTION of chemicals we call 'life'.

Our planet is most certainly NOT a closed system...

So here is where my learned friend above is once again found to be in err.

The Universe is thought to be a closed system...not the planet upon which 'life' thrives.

Evolution makes use of the Sun's energy to drive growth. Without plants none of us would be here.

We at the moment are on a DOWN grade...but in the future you may well be reading posts from my better {negative} half: Lien. He will be on a positive grade and won't believe in 'dog' either!

Above is a lame attempt by a faither to put 'faith' into science. I'm just here to highlight the rubbish.

Like for instance equating a measurable cosmos with the fictitious super being, soon to be known as 'dog', in the negative re-run.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 21, 2007 4:53am

A quote form above:''So, you are correct, Neil! We are indeed in a closed system, but as such, we are bound by the fundamental laws that govern that system.''

Here, at least, I'm quoting accurately, not like my friend Garry who has misunderstood what is being said. What a surprise.

Yes, true for the universe BUT not for the planet Earth which is an OPEN system using the Sun's energy to construct life: ''According to the theory of evolution, this supposed process-which yields {a more planned}, more ordered, more complex and more organized structure at each stage-was formed all by itself under natural conditions''

Darwin couldn't put it better...apart from the bit in {parenthesis}...

NO, No NO evolutionist or sane person thinks that there is anything planned about life.

Opps. Sorry, I did say sane person(s)...It is the faithers among us that think that...according to them we are part of Dog's plan. Our bodies have been planned, yet not our minds.

I can confirm this by the fact that 'free' choice must be random, so not under the control of Dog since then it would not be free choice at all! QED

Lien. Ffidrac Ku.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 21, 2007 5:08am

As for back-stepping...Yes I must admit I spelt it wrong...it's IGNORAMUSES.

ENCARTA: Ignorance...

1- lack of knowledge...EVIDENCE:-

** Garry Webb: 'Well, you are not totally incorrect, as I do not fully understand Darwinian evolution. But as one who does not believe it is feasible, I find no necessity to understand it fully.' **

CHECKMATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

2- Unawareness of something, often important.....EVIDENCE

** Garry Webb: 'Well, you are not totally incorrect, as I do not fully understand Darwinian evolution.

Ignorant = quarrelsome and aggressive.

EVIDENCE:

Garry: ''Being from Britain, you and other normal people choose to beat one another to death over a soccer game.''

Does this constitute racial hatred?

I leave it in my Lord thy Brian's hands...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 21, 2007 6:33am

Myth #2: Evolution is like a tornado in a junkyard forming a perfect 747.

I've heard this argument before I believe it was directed towards the random creation of the universe, rather than evolution.

mr paige, london
March 21, 2007 11:13am

Garry,

Your characterisation of the evolutionary picture of the world as "quickly crumbling" is foolish, ignorant, and unsupported.

Your characteristic in this prolonged debate has been one of simply ignoring instances wherein you have been simply demonstrated to be wrong, or wherein you have found difficulty with opposing argumentation. You pretend to think that the simple fact that you can reply at all, whether you are right or wrong, whether you have ignored siginicant challenges or not, and whether your own position has been proved to be frankly absurd, is some justification of that position. It is not. Your continued posting in this list proves one thing only: you can continue to type. Beyond that, it is strong evidence that you are not particularly capable of reading.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
March 21, 2007 6:23pm

Ray Ray,
How about what some experts say about Darwinian evolution:
"If complex organisms ever did evolve from simpler ones, the process took place contrary to the laws of nature, and must have involved what may rightly be termed the miraculous." R.E.D. Clark, Victoria Institute (1943)

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever. In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of fact.” Dr. T. N. Tahmisian Evolution and the Emperor's New Clothes by N.J. Mitchell (United Kingdom: Roydon Publications, 1983), title page.

"The number of intermediate varieties which have formerly existed on earth must be truly enormous. Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory." - Charles Darwin 1902 edition.

“…I am quite conscious that my speculations run beyond the bounds of true science….It is a mere rag of an hypothesis with as many flaw[s] & holes as sound parts.”-Charles Darwin to Asa Gray, cited by Adrian Desmond and James Moore, Darwin, (New York: W.W. Norton and Company, 1991) pp. 456, 475.

Biologist Stephen Jay Gould wrote in 1977: "Biology took away our status as paragons created in the image of God." Darwinism teaches that we are accidental byproducts of purposeless natural processes that had no need for God.
The issue here is not necessarily "evolution" – a broad term that can simply mean change within existing species, which f

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
March 21, 2007 9:37pm

Garry, if nothing else I'm beginning to think of you as sincere and possibly a nice guy.

Your reference to polls of US citizens, shows only one thing...they are not very well read/educated in science and evolution theory.

I don't mean this as an insult...It is only recently that I myself have read R.Dawkins ''The Selfish Gene''; 30 yrs after 1st being written!

This is scandalous to me, I have felt liberated reading it as it agrees with notions I had formulated myself; and I'm sure other scientists to. It really does make sense.

I'm not trying to persuade you but think of free choice:

Your brain is a complicated set of neural connections, but, that's not it. Hormones, enzymes and other chemicals run through your hardware like software.

What a person thinks/believes is merely a manifestation of these interactions, a function of the original construction of the body , given by the fundamental information trapped in the genome.

In my mind there is no [NO] place for creation by god, based on these points:

1- Complicated things usually have simplicity as an under-pin.

2- Anything [god] complicated enough to design the Universe would need to be explained in similar terms of simplicity.

3- There is no direct evidence of god or even of design.

This is vital so I will explain...

DNA itself contains a lot of unused genes (data), some of it simply copies of other genes [alleles] that if used would perform exactly the same function.

Why would god design garbage? To be carried around? A good designer would minimise waste to improve efficient working!

In a similar way the brain itself is large and this prompts people to suggest that we are only usi

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 22, 2007 5:45am

Garry, you above:''The simple-mindedness of the "brain evolution gene" story is breathtaking.''

Yes I would agree, because evolution is amazing to behold, but the point is you have to make it simple to make it popular...And...

Quote: ''as Nature reports, "what the gene does is a mystery."
So after 150 years, Darwinists are still looking for evidence – any evidence, no matter how skimpy – to justify their speculations.''...you again...

You have it! What you can see is that science is still in it's infancy regarding evolution and the genomes of species, so we are still gaining evidence. Each gene works like a ROAD. It can take you different places, dependant upon which other road (gene) it is 'linked' to. Not physically linked-to but chemically and phenotypically.

Mind you, where you fall flat on your rump is here:'' to justify their speculations.''

Science, proper, is about truth not justifying theories. The evidence gained points towards evolution, and we {evolutionists} do not manufacture evidence...That would, by definition, be creation!

On the other hand there is no evidence of god, what-so-ever.

Garry:'' The truth is Darwinism is not a scientific theory, but a creation myth masquerading as science, motivated by materialistic thinking...''

I have become enlightened; once I thought that religion should be killed off [I still do], but for a different reason now!

Really IT IS a scientific theory, based on observations of the world.

But it's foundation is based on a wholly incorrect assumption i.e. a god/designer with purpose for us...

Every theory relies on evid

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 22, 2007 6:14am

A nail in the coffin...

Most people think of the toss of a coin as P(0.5)...50/50.

Correct. Tick.

Now some people think that 2, 6's is unlikely, P(0.27777).

Cor...Wrong. Cross.

What about winning the UK lottery; 6 balls out of 49. P(0.0000000715) or 1:14,000,000.

Still unlikely...?

Wrong. People win the lottery nearly every week and sometimes there are multiple winners. So go and buy a ticket!

No, I've never bought one. Ever. It's just volunteer tax!

I hope this works...

1.0 (certain)........................................0.0 (never)

600ml in 500ml cup overflows....2(6's)...lottery............life.......god!

God is the most UNlikely event...0.0

Say you had 10,000,000 galaxies and in each, 10,000,000 solar systems but only 1 planet Earth.

P(life)= 1:100,000,000,000,000.

Long odds but not compared to the seconds of life = 141900000000000000. In fact about a thousand times greater...In other words life could have evolved a thousand times in any second; in the early days!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 23, 2007 1:24am

Garry you above:''The greatest problem I can find with evolution, (and I believe this will be magnified in the future as science and technology advance) is that the design requirements for our universe are like a chain of 1000 links. If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! ''...

True...since evolution has placed one thing on top of another...we, without plants, are doomed, for example. So if a link breaks everything above it dies, as was true of the dinosaurs...But below the break, say plants and some animals, survived!

Yet what of your god? Why does IT design a planet with people that rely on plants?

Can't IT make us, self sufficient?

Surely if a link broke, it would not mean the end of life!

Garry again, being his usual self...''Neil, As always your snappy little retorts amount to a young child sticking it's tongue out and yelling "Poopy pants!"''..

I had missed this one until I re-read the posts.

Griff...(Mr.Poopy Pants)

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 23, 2007 3:18am

The point here is that Garry does not seem to have the brains to follow his own trail of thought...(''If any link breaks, we do not have a less optimal universe for life -- we have a universe incapable of sustaining life! '')

Re-read it Garry...you wrote it...

You're actually talking about CLIMBING mount improbable, one step (link) at a time...

So surely IT ['Dog' in the reverse universe] could easily SUSTAIN life while missing out of few, unnecessary links!?

Jump that hurdle Shergar!

Griff...Mr.Poopy Pants.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 23, 2007 3:25am

Neil Griffiths,
Above you made this statement:
"Science, proper, is about truth not justifying theories. The evidence gained points towards evolution, and we {evolutionists} do not manufacture evidence...That would, by definition, be creation!

How about these facts?
1)Piltdown man: Found in a gravel pit in Sussex England in 1912, this fossil was considered by some sources to be the second most important fossil proving the evolution of man—until it was found to be a complete forgery 41 years later. The skull was found to be of modern age. The fragments had been chemically stained to give the appearance of age, and the teeth had been filed down!

2)Nebraska man: A single tooth, discovered in Nebraska in 1922 grew an entire evolutionary link between man and monkey, until another identical tooth was found which was protruding from the jawbone of a wild pig.

3)Java man: Initially discovered by Dutchman Eugene Dubois in 1891, all that was found of this claimed originator of humans was a skullcap, three teeth and a femur. The femur was found 50 feet away from the original skullcap a full year later. For almost 30 years Dubois downplayed the Wadjak skulls (two undoubtedly human skulls found very close to his "missing link").

4)Orce man: Found in the southern Spanish town of Orce in 1982, and hailed as the oldest fossilized human remains ever found in Europe. One year later officials admitted the skull fragment was not human but probably came from a 4 month old donkey. Scientists had said the skull belonged to a 17 year old man who lived 900,000 to 1.6 million years ago, and even had very detail drawings done to represent what he would have looked like. (source: "Skull fragment may not

Theodore Ramsey, Boca Raton, FL USA
March 24, 2007 6:49pm

Poopy Pants,
Recently, on CNN's Lou Dobbs program, the three guests were discussing the difference between evolution, intelligent design, and creation. The guests were Dr. John Morris, Ph.D.; well- known ID spokesmen, Dr. Jon Wells; and famous evolutionist, Dr. Michael Ruse.
In the middle of the discussion, Dr. Ruse claimed that evolution is a proven fact, just as "proven" as 2+2=4. When challenged, he insisted the two statements are equivalently true. Is this so? If not, what is the difference?
Here's a simple experiment to verify one of the statements. Extend two fingers on your left hand, and then extend two on your right hand. Lay them all on the table in front of you, and count them. You should get four. If you are careful, every time you count them, you will get four. It's an observational fact.
Now devise an experiment to verify evolution. Keep trying. There must be one. I suspect even Dr. Ruse would be unable to propose an experiment to verify evolution like we verified our mathematical equation. Even if both statements are facts, obviously they are not the same kind of facts.
That's because evolution is not something we can observe. If it's happening today, it's going too slow to observe. If it happened in the past, we can't return to the past to see. It may be a fact of history, but how would we know? Certainly not in the same way we know 2+2=4.
Evolution, at the most, is an idea about history, not observational science. There may be inferences we can make about the past based on modern observations, and these may or may not be true, but don't bother claiming that ideas about history are the same as repeatable observations in the present. And don

Dr. James T. Jensen, Boston, MA USA
March 24, 2007 10:01pm

Dr. Colin Patterson, (a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History) spoke very openly about the absence of transitional forms.
When asked in a letter why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book, he replied in a most candid letter as follows:

"I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader? I wrote the text of my book four years ago. If I were to write it now, I think the book would be rather different. Gradualism is a concept I believe in, not just because of Darwin’s authority, but because my understanding of genetics seems to demand it. Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. As a palaeontologist myself, I am much occupied with the philosophical problems of identifying ancestral forms in the fossil record. You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.” I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument. The reason is that statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise

Theodore Ramsey, Boca Raton, FL USA
March 24, 2007 10:19pm

I guess the "Evolution 101" primer was not 101 enough for you guys. You need to at least understand the basics of evolution before you argue against it. Start with a basic wikipedia article. Start with the paragraph that begins:

"It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossils

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 24, 2007 10:25pm

This is the problem that evolutionists now have: "Revisionist Darwinism." You now find that you must update your theory to make it more reasonably fir known facts. This is also from Wikipedia:
"A transitional fossil or transitional form is the fossilized remains of a life form that illustrates an evolutionary transition. It can be identified by having certain primitive (plesiomorphic) traits in comparison with its more derived relatives, such as defined in the study of cladistics. "Missing link" is a popular term used for transitional forms.

According to modern evolutionary theory, all populations of organisms are in transition. Therefore, a "transitional form" is a human construct that vividly represents a particular evolutionary stage, as recognized in hindsight.

1850
1900
1950
2002
These diagrams plot the set of Hominin species known to science as of a given year. Each species is plotted as a box showing the range of cranial capacities for specimens of that species, and the range of dates at which specimens appear in the fossil record. The sequence of diagrams shows how an apparent "missing link" or gap between species in the fossil record may become filled as more fossil discoveries are made.
When Charles Darwin's The Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known, and the claim that there was a lack of transitional fossils was perfectly reasonable; indeed, Darwin stressed in his work that this lack was the most formidable obstacle to his theory. However, the discovery of Archaeopteryx only two years later was seen as a triumph for Darwin's theory of common descent. Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and whi

Theodore Ramsey, Boca Raton, FL USA
March 25, 2007 6:53am

"...Must update the theory to make it fit known facts"...

YES!!!! EXACTLY. This is the central strength of the scientific method. When we learn new information, we UPDATE our theories.

And it's the central weakness of creationism - new information and knowledge are ignored.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 25, 2007 8:01am

Ah, it falls to the mighty.....

Mr Ramsey...I can not account for man's desire for wealth and so many people attempt to 'jazz up' science...A bit like the Turin shroud...was it? But I don't expect you to defend it...Similarly I would not attempt to defend claims of cold fusion...Yet!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 2:55pm

Mr Jensen above:''There are claimed to be a few fossils of a lizard with feathers, but the body of the lizard is completely lizard, and the feathers are fully formed feathers. [[This organism is complete in itself.]]

Your idea of the world obviously negates the existence of intermediates...Even if I were to genuinely produce a horse with a rhino's horn, you would simply say:''This organism is complete in itself''.

If a lizard with wings is not going to persuade you then I fail to see what can be done for you.

You seem to think you're going to find a Minotaur, or something else out of Greek Myth!

In answer to no.2 - No idea sorry.

But I can tell you that Chimps have the same ABO blood grouping as us Humans, and the Pea plant family contains haemoglobins in their roots, produced by their own 'haemoglobin' genes...

Now why would your god give our blood to Chimps and peas?

This is easily explained by the evolutionary swapping of genes, on a purely chemical basis...not supernatural. Whatever that is?

Griff...plop,plop...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 3:25pm

Mr Patterson:''I find myself a bit short of the intellectual justification necessary for the job."''

Nice, Mr. Ramsey, but I'm afraid that all that proves is his equal lack of brains, as the faithers out there. Science will plod on...

And in terms of updating a theory...why yes of course, and for someone to think of that as 'cheating' beggars belief!

I recently read a web page that criticised the periodic table of elements for 'discovering' 26 new elements since the 50's, or whatever...

Criticising 'discovery', for Pete's sake...how low will these faithers go in pursuit of their cause; creationism?

The Blind Watchmaker by Prof.R.Dawkins, page133:''The complementary experiment...[by] Manfred Eigen...[placed] replicase and RNA building blocks [but not RNA itself in a test tube]...Nevertheless, a particular large RNA molecule evolved spontaneously...[with]...no possibility of chance infection by RNA molecules.''

The Lord has spoken!

Not even god did it in a tube!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 3:45pm

Mr Ramsey:''No transitional fossils? There should be billions and billions!''...There are...Look around you!

Examples:

1- eye/hair/skin colour. All produced by mutations. Some skin colour is to be expected but why not orange or purple? You tell us why god CAN'T make these colours, or chose not to?

2- Dwarfs/dead babies/cripples/Down's etc. These are explainable by gene chemistry...but why does god give us these gifts? How generous of IT.

3- Whales and dolphins with vestigal legs and pelvis bones...again evolution explains! But why would god give them to aquatic life forms...you don't have vestigal flippers do you?...Or is there something you're holding back?

Griff...keep it coming!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 4:01pm

2=0...for Mr Jensen...

Let x=1 and y=1 then X^2=Y^2

So x^2-y^2 = 0 and (x+y)(x-y)=0

So x+y=y-x ... change the side, change the sign to help you...

But x=1 & y=1

so x+y=1+1=2

but x-y=1-1=0

so 2=0

Have a nice day!

In physics, when 2 waves meet they form 1 wave...2=1.

When 2 holes meet they form a hole...2=1.

What was that obvious thing again? I've forgotten...oh yes 1+1=2=0.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 4:11pm

Again for Mr Jensen:''Here's a simple experiment to verify one of the statements. Extend two fingers on your left hand, and then extend two on your right hand. Lay them all on the table in front of you, and count them. You should get four. If you are careful, every time you count them, you will get four. It's an observational fact.''

Well I was born with five fingers one my left hand but only 3 on my right. So in the wild, if food became small scraps hidden away in crevaces that a large hand couldn't fit into, guess who'd survive.

Why would god give me 3 fingers? Run that one by me again...

I was once in hand-cuffs and promptly escaped! My hand just popped out...much to my fellow officers amazement...yes, I was in the police force at the time! No one else got out of my cuffs!

PC Griff...ex.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 4:22pm

I'm back.

Just looked at the bible online 'search', and typed dinosaur...It go no results, in any bible...

Which bible do you Noah lovers read?

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 5:04pm

Can't stay away...

The {all knowledgeable} bible on insects...

Leviticus 11:20-22__''All flying insects that walk ON ALL FOURS...There are...some winged creatures that walk ON ALL FOURS...[e.g.]... locust...grasshopper''.

If Garry {I don't fully understand evolution} Web. cares to actually read the book he loves to quote, he may learn something. Not to mention Mr.Jensen.

No insect has 4 legs. god must surely be dumb, to have missed that one in IT's perfect book.

Next: IT can't do Math either...

1 Kings 7:23...A sea of cast metal...10 cubits rim to rim...and 30 cubits around.

Any school girl can tell you it should have been 31.415926536 or 31 {in context}.

Maybe this is what caused the great flood...god got IT's Math wrong! Now I get it.

This represented an error of 4.5%. Of say the 3000 miles of Atlantic Ocean...gives a 135 mile gap, enough to let the Tsunami through, and give Noah a reason to be!

Griff...Pi, Pi for now...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 5:49pm

I hope you bother to read these....

They are from your precious bible...

Tower of Babel; Genesis 11:4/11:9...god gave us language instantly...yet how do you explain the American English you speak? The FACT that most world languages have common routes. Isn't that memetic evolution?

Even gods themselves seem to evolve. And go extinct!

Griff...&%**&^""...that means bye for now, in POM.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 6:07pm

Words taken from a web page to justify mistranslations:''Lev.11:20-23 (ASV)
20* ¦ All {winged creeping things that go upon all fours} are an abomination unto you. 21* Yet these may ye eat of all {winged creeping things that go upon all fours,} [which have legs above their feet, wherewith to leap upon the earth]...''

In the {} brackets it quite clearly says...winged/creeping/all fours...

There are no 4 legged birds, creeping doesn't refer to lizards or reptiles or frogs which don't have wings!

And further it gives examples in the bible to explain EXACTLY what animals it means...locusts and grasshoppers!

Both of which have wings, are creepy BUT are NOT 4 legged! Also these animals are NOT mistranslated and are well known, in any langauge!

Squirm all you like faithers, talk of mistranslation, but the EXAMPLES are there, no doubt about it.

AND the bit in [] brackets is a corker...[which have legs above their feet...]

Well lets see...How many animals can I think of with legs BELOW their feet...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 25, 2007 11:56pm

One for Garry:

Don't Think

''Trust in the LORD with all your heart, on your own intelligence rely not. (Proverbs 3:5 NAB''

As Pa would say 'Perfick'.

Griff...Evidence...''I do not fully understand evolution...''; above in the anals!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 12:39am

Game, set and match...

Sorry for my exuberance here but...EAT SHIT FAITHERS...

(If you need to reference this paper, use a format like this: "Cello, J; Paul, A; Wimmer, E, Chemical Synthesis of Poliovirus cDNA: Generation of Infectious Virus in the Absence of Natural Template, Science 2002 297: 1016-1018")

This paper explains how a virus has been produced in a lab, with no trickery...

Bye, bye god!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 1:08am

The following illustrates the above GLEE...

Abstract:

"Full-length poliovirus complementary DNA (cDNA) was synthesized by assembling oligonucleotides of plus and minus strand polarity. The synthetic poliovirus cDNA was transcribed by RNA polymerase into viral RNA, which translated and replicated in a cell-free extract, resulting in the de novo synthesis of infectious poliovirus. Experiments in tissue culture using neutralizing antibodies and CD155 receptor-specific antibodies and neurovirulence tests in CD155 transgenic mice confirmed that the synthetic virus had biochemical and pathogenic characteristics of poliovirus. Our results show that it is possible to synthesize an infectious agent by in vitro chemical-biochemical means solely by following instructions from a written sequence."

Thank you for your time!

Griff...I never thought I'd see it in my life time!

All things come to he who waits!

Mr. Poopy Pants, pooped His pants...

He wriggled and jiggled with as if his Levi's were full of ants...

But now IT's all over...

IT didn't CREATE the White Cliffs of Dover...

Shit! I new that anyway!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 1:14am

This is from the web: evil quotes from the bible...but under a subheading...taking about the literal meaning of YOM, a day.

I can't believe I've missed this WHOOPER...

3) If a day means more than 24-hour period, then how are we to interpret the following verses, as well as scores of others. “Six days shalt thou labor, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the Sabbath. . . . in it thou shalt not work... For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11)."

And there it is... the VIOLATION of the 2nd LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS!

YIPEE...

"...For in six days the Lord made heaven and earth… and rested the seventh day” (Exodus 20:9-11)."

If god worked It expended energy to a lower sink...THEN...IT rested...

1- This means IT is not all powerful...if IT were, IT wouldn't need to rest at all!!!

Yippeeeee!!!!!!!!!!

2- Here's the violation {fu*k you faithers!}...to the 2nd LAW of Thermodynamics...by god...

IT bloody RESTED on the 7th day...

To rest means to regain energy...From where?

IT created everything, already, so if IT regained energy from something, the everything, of creation wouldn't be everything at all, it would just be a something....

Ha, Ha...you dumb mutts!

Of course I don't mean any of this to be taken personally, by sane responsible adults!

Griff the all knowing has spoken...Oz, here I come...that job's been waiting for me!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 1:34am

Brian, I would like to first apologise for my over enthusiastic outburst of foul language, but since I'm not religious and can make my own way in this world, I do not apologise to faithers for destroying THE GOD MYTH...

May I thank you personally for this web site...

it exposed the IT for what IT really is, NOTHING!

Only a lie, a curse of mankind that I cannot live with any longer and nor should anyone else!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 1:41am

To ram the point home to heaven...

1- If IT created 'everything' and then rested, then IT must regain IT's energy from 'something', which must be more powerful than IT. So IT is not all powerful!

2- If IT created 'everything' and then reabsorbed some energy from the 'everything', then IT didn't create 'everything'. Because 'something' will be missing.

3- If IT did, in fact create 'everything', then when IT rested IT would have to regain IT's energy from the 'everything' of IT's surroundings. This is where IT violates the 2nd LAW of THERMODYNAMICS.

IT would have to absorb 'cold' heat from the surroundings and change it to 'hot' heat. Which is the IT clearly violating the 2nd LAW.

4- Evolution does not violate the 2nd LAW, as it uses 'hot' heat from the Sun to drive the 'colder' life, chemical reactions here on Earth.

QED

Neil Griffiths BEng Hons...I knew one day I'd put my degree to good use...

IT's pooping IT's pants now!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 3:06am

As for 'intermediates' in the fossil record...

Well when a fossil of an 'old' human is found, you don't find fossils of a 'recent' human, in the same layer of sediment. That's because recent humans weren't around, hadn't been thought of, and certainly weren't created back then!

So that blows the idea of having them all around at the same time, right out of the water, and shows how misinformed most faithers are. There are plenty of dead and living intermediates.

For instance, there's no mention in the bible of sub-recent-human types. And that is because they had died out a long time before the bibles 10,000 yr deadline, even with these idiot faithers trying to claim that "a god's day" is longer than "our day"...They'll be trying to fit the bibler's day to the 4.5 billion time line next...you see if I'm right. It's a scientific prediction based on their pathetic past behaviour.

They are truly dumb!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 26, 2007 5:40am

Neil - No problem with foul language. Skeptoid is an unrestricted language zone. But you post here more than anyone else, and so you bear the largest responsibility for keeping the discussion to the ISSUES and not PERSONAL. :)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
March 26, 2007 7:47am

Ok, Captain, My Captain...

The main problem with the above is the term 'resting'...apparently God doesn't 'rest'.

Then again the 2nd LAW of thermo. is not satisfied. But, God can do anything...right? Wrong.

God can't make a person believe, and to force or persuade, would be to undermine the very core of belief. Neither can IT communicate directly IT's laws to all peoples...And if IT can't force them on one and all, it is left to those self righteous individuals to do so!

People's main issue is the Infinite...

1- The universe

2- Time

Both have no observable start or end...

Likewise:

3- The EM spectrum, with light as a tiny part...like our tiny role in the cosmos!

4- Trig functions {et al} that have no start and no end...

In fact none of these and many others, have no start and no end. It is a common feature of Nature and life and the Universe...All except God, who is apparently the first cause. What fallacy.

There only exists constraint when WE place it on a system, to try to describe it.

So to with evolution, were continuing varying cycles produce + and - change.

Griff

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 27, 2007 12:40am

I see, I think, that to keep it none-personal I should use terms like: those ideas are really dumb; as compared to 'they' are really dumb. Clarity...ok.

Dumb idea of the day...

The whole premise of evolution is that it happens, on its own, randomly {yet with the obviousness of at least one certain outcome - us}. No supernatural 'missing link' is needed.

A first cause in evolution is 'nothing more dramatic' than a super nova! Where do you draw the line?.....Ah yes the constraint again!

The God constraint is the biggest howler of them all. It's comfort, for the needy; this is self evident.

The very fact that God is referred to as a first cause, negates IT's existence...since as demonstrated above, it is observable fact that they neither exist nor are quantifiable. So a person can not, by definition, be aware of them.

Further, a thing not quantifiable and that there is no awareness of, is not real. It only exists in the imagination.

All chemistry is quantifiable, even if not directly measurable!

You may say that I can't weight the Earth directly...True. With what apparatus? Exactly. But. But. It is nevertheless quantifiable. The Earth is bigger than an elephant, that I can measure (6 tons). But it can't be 60000000000000000000000000000000000000000 tons.

This amount of mass will give a gravity that would crush you and I like a flee!

So we can measure things... but not God in the imagination...How heavy is a thought?

Just a thought?

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 27, 2007 1:01am

Flaws in the bible and their implications appear frequently, and show it to be scientifically inept...see skeptics annotated bible.

"Aquinas borrowed from Aristotle the judgment that "the female is a mutilated male." 7 However, the Dominican monk was hesitant to accept Aristotle's description as completely true for he found no defect in a woman with regard to her reproductive function. 8 For Aquinas, woman was essentially a womb-man."

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, I think in embryology that the 'male' only comes about when the 'Y' chromosome switches on...or in other words...we are all a bunch of girls until chemistry tells some of us to be boys!

So the bible's wo-man = womb-man, signifying that women are 'merely' men with wombs, is totally wrong, inept and can be proved to be, by science.

Griff...For my daughter(s).

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 27, 2007 1:28am

Also to preempt the response...What IS in the bible is that God created Eve from Adam, thereby making a clone. Genetically identical, except, how can this be? She is not He, and I wonder if they looked alike?

But the obvious fallacy here is: Why God couldn't simply 'invent' an Eve...after all IT had just created a Universe!

Also every body else would then be clones to, because sexual reproduction between 2 genetically identical creatures would be no different to asexual reproduction!

Hello, hello...Am I getting through?

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 27, 2007 1:37am

If I were to put a carved stone or wooden idol in front of a room full of atheists and told them, "Look, this idol created this room and everything in it" they would say that was utterly stupid and refuse to believe it. Yet despite that, they declare the nonsense that "The unconscious process known as "chance" gradually brought this world and all the billions of wonderful living things in it into being" to be the greatest scientific explanation.
Evolutionists regard chance as their god, and claim that it is able (on it's own?) to create living things and all the sensitive balances in the universe. When told that it was God, the possessor of infinite wisdom, who created all living things, these same evolutionists refuse to accept the fact, and maintain that unconscious, unintelligent, powerless billions of coincidences with no will of their own are actually a more acceptable choice as a creative force.
The fact that educated, self-professing intelligent and "knowledgeable" people can as a group believe in the most irrational and illogical claim in history, as if under a spell, is really a great miracle. In the same way that God miraculously creates something like the cell, with its extraordinary organization and properties, this people are just as miraculously so blind and devoid of understanding as to be unable to see what is under their very noses. It is one of God's miracles that evolutionists are unable to see facts that even tiny children can, and fail to grasp them no matter how many times they are shown otherwise.
You will frequently come across that miracle as you debate with Darwinists. And you will also see that as well as being a theory that has totally colla

Shamir Yousef, London, UK
March 28, 2007 2:44pm

Life by Evolution is no more chance than to say: "It is raining. There is a chance of getting wet."

If you go out in rain you CERTAINLY get wet. If molecules are placed IN A SUITABLE environment, they will certainly produce something, even if it's not life. But the very fact is; there was NOTHING STOPPING life, so here it is...

I fail to see why this is so hard for a faither to grasp...

If nothing stops something happening...it happens.

So instead of a cause for life...you should be asking what can stop it?

Obviously, plenty of things:

Too...hot, cold or not enough chemicals.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 29, 2007 6:41am

One for Mr Jensen...

"When Noah, his family, and the animals had entered the ark, it began to rain.

Book of Genesis, chapter 7:

And the rain was on the earth forty days and forty nights.

The waters increased and lifted up the ark, and it rose high above the earth. The waters prevailed and greatly increased on the earth, and the ark moved about on the surface of the waters. And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all the high hills under the whole heaven were covered. "

Yes Mr Jensen, read it well... it says..."And the waters prevailed exceedingly on the earth, and all [[the high hills under the whole heaven ]]///

Whereas, you claimed the mountains were formed AFTER the flood, by the force of the flood, here we see the mountains are there before the flood...YOU should read your bible.

Griff...EVIDENCE...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 29, 2007 4:57pm

Shamir Yousef,

The fact that you refer to the "god" of evolutionists being "chance" shows that you are completely ignorant of evolution. Evolution does not concern "chance". It is not "chance" that a ruminant with more efficient kidneys will survive a drought longer than one with less efficient kidneys.

You reference in the sloppiest of ways the idea that evolutionary theory has "totally collapsed in the face of scientific facts" and is "utterly incompatible with reason and logic". You cannot defend this ridiculous pair of statements, of course, because they are silly, false, and unsupportable. Try, if you like.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
March 31, 2007 11:11am

Taking evolution to it's ultimate beginnings, you run headlong into chance! If there is no designer/creator, where then did matter originate? Thus, the bain of evolution. What is your beginnings? No, doubt Neil will post 1000 words in response, but there will be no meat in his argument. Your whole hope in atheistic evolutionary thinking lies upon a bedrock of chance, yet, you would rather it be called by another name. Take your pick!
But, as a believer in purposeful design and creation, I will always drag you, kicking and screaming, back to this point:
Where does your theory support a beginning that stands up to your own measure of "reason and logic"?
The example cited above does not represent evolution, rather, it is simply an example of natural selection; just as a dog with long hair thrives in colder climates better than one with short hair. Still, one is just as much a dog as the other.
If this is what you consider evolution, so be it.

Shamir Yousef, London, UK
March 31, 2007 12:59pm

Shamir,

Postulating "chance" as a beginning is unscientific, aphilosophical, and has nothing to do with evolutionary theory.

The universe may have had an ultimate origin, but it just as well may not. We cannot scientifically state what that is, since we do not yet have the means, and perhaps we may never do. But that is irrelevant to whether or not "god" did it. Your thinking that, provided that we don't have any other particular answer just now MEANS that "god" did it, is just silly. It demonstrates only that you have accepted a "god of the gaps" image of your divine being. In this way "god" is just a placeholder for "ignorance".

Evolution is a process which is characterised, in its crucial and definitive discriminatory aspect, by natural selection. You focus only on the tiny proportion of the richly complex and intellectually satisfying process that is supplied by stochastic genetic change. Genetic change is usually non-random, however. Your picture of evolution is thus outdated, and missing its most crucial features. It is a charicature of the true position, which is typical of the method of religionists who are scared that evolutionary theory demonstrates that core statements in their texts are simply false, as it indeed does.

If you think that "reason and logic" must mean, in some way, that we NOW know everything, then you haven't the beginning of an argumentative leg to stand on. But you think you do, clearly. Once again, sadly typical.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
March 31, 2007 1:25pm

Raymond,
This statement from your last post is the bottom line of our collective contentions: "The universe may have had an ultimate origin, but it just as well may not. We cannot scientifically state what that is, since we do not yet have the means, and perhaps we may never do. But that is irrelevant to whether or not "god" did it. Your thinking that, provided that we don't have any other particular answer just now MEANS that "god" did it, is just silly. It demonstrates only that you have accepted a "god of the gaps" image of your divine being. In this way "god" is just a placeholder for "ignorance".

If you cannot state "scientifically", what the basis of your faith in evolution is, as to the beginning of all things, what makes your theory any more acceptable than mine, as a creationist?
Again, chance is the very foundation of any theory of beginnings apart from designed creation. If there is no creator, what created matter and organized it, if it is not formed by chance?

Your problem: everything from nothing; order from disorder; all things living, from the inanimate; etc. You are willing to throw natural law out the window and accept evolutionary theory, in spite of, for example, The Laws of Thermodynamics.

My problem: Not being able to satisfactorily prove the existence of an omniscient; omnipresent; omnipotent God, who exists outside of the Space/Time Continuum?

I can live with that!

Shamir Yousef, London, UK
March 31, 2007 3:02pm

First let's prove that god can't be both omnipotent & omniscient...

If god knows the sun is going to die in 4 billion yrs, because IT designed it that way, then IT is powerless to prevent it happening, since this would mean...'Oh I'm not sure if I will let the Sun die or if I won't...' IT says, looking rather confused!

What about omnipresent...Well if IT created something and in doing so used energy, then it will be reduced in quantity by IT's efforts. If this is the case it can't be every where as IT is lacking in some form; and so to IT will not be omnipotent any longer. And, if IT regains energy, from a higher source, then that source is more powerful...or else god violates the 2nd LAW of thermodynamics.

Life on Earth does not violate the 2nd LAW as it uses the sun's energy to BUILD UP COMPLEX MOLECULES IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY and not by chance or at random. DNA is not assembled at random (A goes with T, and so on). tRNA & mRNA proof-read DNA in precisely known ways.

Shamir...did you know Chimps have the same ABO blood grouping as Humans? Pea plants have a gene, of their own, in their roots...for Haemoglobin!

Why would this be designed into them?

Griff...There is no evidence for god; therefore there is no god! QED

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 31, 2007 5:44pm

Shamir,

Evolution is not a faith. It was a theory based upon observation of natural phenomena, which has been subsequently backed up so comprehensively by science which could not have been known by its progenitors (Darwin etc.), especially genetics and genomics, that it is no longer "theory" so much as absolutely factual. We observe evolution in real time constantly. Anyone who tries to distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution in order to try to explain it away simply doesn't understand what evolution is, much less what predicates speciation.

You obviously simply did not understand my earlier post as regards "chance". I doubt whether you have a firm concept of what "chance" is. What do you think it means to say something formed by "chance"? No evolutionary theory relies upon some fundamental idea about universal formation, at all, any more than the theory of the circulation of the blood, or the revolution of the planets, relies on a theory about the origins of the universe. I can know that earth circles the sun, and that my heart pumps blood, and that evolution by natural selection explains our biological origins, without any further statement whatever about UNIVERSAL origins. That you can't see this is your problem, not mine or anyone else's.

My "problem" is not "everything from nothing, order from disorder"- what nonsense. Typical of religion- it tries to infect a person with a disorder they don't have, in order to offer them a cure they don't need.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
April 01, 2007 1:33am

Neil,
The above statement, "Life on Earth does not violate the 2nd LAW as it uses the sun's energy to BUILD UP COMPLEX MOLECULES IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY and not by chance or at random. DNA is not assembled at random (A goes with T, and so on). tRNA & mRNA proof-read DNA in precisely known ways.", firstly, is incorrect, in that life on earth lives within that set of Laws and cannot work against it. Everything either grows old and dies or it is broken down and degraded by the very environment in which it lives.
This is the perfect example of intelligent design. I totally agree, DNA is not assembled at random; it does what it is programmed to do. And when it does not, the responding mutation is not beneficial, but almost always detremental to the organism.
As to the omnipotence/omniscience of God: I will not suppose myself to know the timetable and purposes of God. Like I said before, He exists outside of our abilities and reasonings. He is greater than His creation, and therefore not governed by it.
As to the similarity of blood, does a high degree of similarity mean that two DNA sequences have the same meaning or function? Please compare these two sentences:
1)There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
2)There are not many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
These sentences have 97% homology and yet have almost opposite meanings!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
April 01, 2007 1:23pm

Hey Garry,

How about this one, the thermodynamics of heaven and hell:

The temperature of Heaven can be rather accurately computed. Our authority is Isaiah 30:26, "Moreover, the light of the Moon shall be as the light of the Sun and the light of the Sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days." Thus Heaven receives from the Moon as much radiation as we do from the Sun, and in addition 7*7 (49) times as much as the Earth does from the Sun, or 50 times in all. The light we receive from the Moon is one 1/10,000 of the light we receive from the Sun, so we can ignore that ... The radiation falling on Heaven will heat it to the point where the heat lost by radiation is just equal to the heat received by radiation, i.e., Heaven loses 50 times as much heat as the Earth by radiation. Using the Stefan-Boltzmann law for radiation, (H/E)^4 = 50, where E is the absolute temperature of the earth (-300K), gives H as 798K (525C). The exact temperature of Hell cannot be computed ... [However] Revelations 21:8 says "But the fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." A lake of molten brimstone means that its temperature must be at or below the boiling point, 444.6C. We have, then, that Heaven, at 525C is hotter than Hell at 445C.
-- From "Applied Optics" vol. 11, A14, 1972

By the by DNA does NOT do "what it is programmed to do", in any sense other than that it is "programmed" by natural selection. ;-)

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
April 01, 2007 2:07pm

Once upon a time, divine welders from nowhere cobbled you together, never imagining that your ancestors would form a consensus confirming the speciation of moonbattery, relieving all verbalizing animated meat from the troubling necessity of debate. DRS

Dirt Roads Scholar, Macon, Ga.
April 01, 2007 4:17pm

Hey, Raymond, nice dodge!
That's the way evolutionists and atheists avoid confronting the facts that their beloved religion of evolution cannot exist in the truth of natural law, which you worship so dutifully.
As a theist, I hold that the Divine Creator is not bound by the laws that govern His creation. He is not a part of the creation.
If I may ask, what is your personal belief as to the existence of all things; where did they come from?

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
April 01, 2007 4:42pm

All -

If we could keep on topic, that would be preferred. The topic of this episode is evolution, not cosmology. :)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
April 01, 2007 4:56pm

Well. You guys are the intellectual ones. If cosmology is not a part of the theory of evolution, you've lost me. Apart from a designing creator, how do you explain how all things have come to exist? Much less in a complex organized system. I was simply at a loss as to how you can reasonably think that everything has come to be out of nothing, because ultimately, that is where you end up, though all of you have avoided the inevitable so far.
Raymond, did your Big Brother have to come bail you out?
Brian, you been selective in your reproaches of posts. But, when you have a evolutionary world view, that's what I would expect.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
April 01, 2007 6:36pm

Garry,

Your petulance does you no justice. Nor are your answers to your own questions in any way satisfying. All they do is drop everything into a "god box" labelled with your own particular cherished version of the particular deity-myth in whose tradition you happened to have been familialy and culturally born.

Your, and other "young earth" creationists' constant carping about evolution being a "religion" is both silly and counterproductive. It betrays only that you have no idea what the definition of religion is, and at the same time, betrays the fact that you secretly regard science to be superior in its reliability than is religion. Science, and scientific facts, such as evolution, have no need to appeal to "ultimate truth" (to which you cannot appea eitherl, other than through your hopelessly flawed ancient mythbook), nor do they purport to have answers to questions which are not part of the explicative task in hand. In order to explain HOW my heart pumps blood I do not need to know what predicated universal expansion. I just need to describe the principles of biomechanical pumps. Same thing with evolution. Admit it: the ONLY reason you can't, won't and don't accept evolution is that it contradicts your mythbook, and that makes you afraid, because it challenges your cultural beliefs, by which you hope to escape death. You can't stand the idea that we are essentially animals, since you don't believe that dogs and OTHER primates go to heaven.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
April 02, 2007 1:40am

Raymond,
I can see that I will not get an answer from you that takes any foundational commitment, because in doing so, you box yourself into an "intellectual" corner. You would rather believe your humanist fairy tales than to affirm what your own senses make painfully apparent.

I will, however, admit this: "The ONLY reason I can't, won't and don't accept evolution is that it contradicts every tested law of natural science known to man, and you will not accept intelligent design because that makes you afraid; because it challenges your atheistic desires to look to man for moral authority, and by which you hope to escape judgment! You can't stand the idea that we are essentially sinful, and we are not the center of the universe.

I hope this answer is somewhat more satisfying and to your liking.
Have a wonderful evening.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
April 02, 2007 12:07pm

The above statement, "Life on Earth does not violate the 2nd LAW as it uses the sun's energy to BUILD UP COMPLEX MOLECULES IN A SYSTEMATIC WAY and not by chance or at random. DNA is not assembled at random (A goes with T, and so on). tRNA & mRNA proof-read DNA in precisely known ways.", ***firstly, is incorrect, in that life on earth lives within that set of Laws and cannot work against it. Everything either grows old and dies or it is broken down and degraded by the very environment in which it lives.
This is the perfect example of intelligent design.***

In reply...When a fertilised cell grows and creates 2 from 1 that is not a decreasing process; it is growth. If one cell is ordered in it's construction, then 2 cells doubles the order in the Universe, as far as they are concerned. Similarly the 'order' of the organs in a body comes from the 'disorder' of the randomly distributed chemicals iside the cell cytoplasm.

So we have order from disorder...complex organs being built up from simple chemicals...or don't you agree?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 02, 2007 3:37pm

Did you say that you were somehow a teacher? I guess we have stricter standards in the U.S.
"When a fertilised cell grows and creates 2 from 1 that is not a decreasing process; it is growth. If one cell is ordered in it's construction, then 2 cells doubles the order in the Universe, as far as they are concerned. Similarly the 'order' of the organs in a body comes from the 'disorder' of the "randomly distributed chemicals"? iside the cell cytoplasm."?????????

Order from disorder in a cell?
You got me there , Neil!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
April 02, 2007 3:53pm

Well if the chemicals inside a cell are not in disorder, then pray tell how are they distributed...

Are they all lining up to be put together [as designed], dutifully waiting their turn...Sir, YES Sir! The DNA drill sergeant doesn't let his nucleotides get out of rank and file, oh no, he's got them all lined up ready to be joined in line to make some RNA. All he needs to do is read his blueprint and off we go...

Is that it?... The cytoplasm of a cell is mostly fluid and as such it is in a state of high entropy [high randomness], yet out of this comes order....a body!

Creationism sucks big time...

Griff...Gotch ya!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 02, 2007 4:07pm

Professor Richard Dawkins in The Blind Watchmaker {page 239 to 240}. On punctuationists:"...like most neo-Darwinists we accept...speciation starts with geographical isolation, what should we expect in the fossil record?"

Further:"Suppose...shrews had left fossils; [and that the fossil record was] "perfect"...What should we expect these fossils to show us? A smooth transition from ancestral species to daughter species? Certainly not, at least if we were digging in the main landmass where the original ancestral shrews lived...their cousins [fossils]...are all on the other side of the mountain...Then, 'suddenly', the 'new' species returns...and, perhaps, replaces the main species....Now., abruptly and without visible transitions, fossils of the new species appear...The 'gaps', far from being annoying imperfections ...turn out to be exactly what we should ...expect, if we take seriously ...neo-Darwinian theory of speciation... we are probably not looking at an evolutionary event... we are looking at a migrational event... of a new species from another geographical area."

This idea, put so succinctly by Dawkins, as usual, shoots the creationists boat out of the water!

Griff...Yo, Ho, Ho maties...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 03, 2007 12:29am

Genesis 3:"And God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light. 4 And God saw that the light was good; and God separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night."

Response

1- The fact of light being 'good' is only relevant to beings with eyes. Why would god think of light as 'good'. No this clearly shows that right from the start, the bible is written by men for men.[not women]. It is not the word of a god.

2- Light and dark cannot be 'separated'. In fact there is no such thing as 'dark', in the same way that there is no colour 'black'. Both dark&black are merely what we perceive when there is no light, to stimulate nerves. So god cannot by definition, do this thing, so it didn't happen and the Genesis is fraudulent and so to is god a hoax.

3- In fact, in the solar system, there is NO SUCH THING AS NIGHT, and any god worth worshipping should know that. Whereas stone aged man would not! The fact is that it is ALWAYS DAY, and you call it night only when you stand in the shadow of the Earth! Would you call it night, if a fat person sat on your face and blocked the light? [No that would be the end!]. Also, that's just the type of hocus pocus that stone aged man would believe...especially when there was a solar eclipse!

Griff...We still live in the dark ages...well some of us do. THINK!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 03, 2007 6:21am

From an article on the web:"Vestigial evidence

The vestigial features of whales tell us two things. They tell us that whales, like so many other organisms, have features that make no sense from a design perspective - they have no current function, they require energy to produce and maintain, and they may be deleterious to the organism. They also tell us that whales carry a piece of their evolutionary past with them, highlighting a history of a terrestrial ancestry.

Modern whales often retain rod-like vestiges of pelvic bones, femora, and tibiae, all embedded within the musculature of their body walls. These bones are more pronounced in earlier species and less pronounced in later species. As the example of Basilosaurus shows, whales of intermediate age have intermediate-sized vestigial pelves and rear limb bones.

Whales also retain a number of vestigial structures in their organs of sensation. Modern whales have only vestigial olfactory nerves. Furthermore, in modern whales the auditory meatus (the exterior opening of the ear canal) is closed. In many, it is merely the size of a thin piece of string, about 1 mm in diameter, and often pinched off about midway. All whales have a number of small muscles devoted to nonexistent external ears, which are apparently a vestige of a time when they were able to move their ears - a behavior typically used by land animals for directional hearing."

The lord must of had an off day to design pointless organs...Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 03, 2007 11:54am

Garry,

Your reply to me is silly in the extreme. Let me quote it again:

"The ONLY reason I can't, won't and don't accept evolution is that it contradicts every tested law of natural science known to man, and you will not accept intelligent design because that makes you afraid; because it challenges your atheistic desires to look to man for moral authority, and by which you hope to escape judgment! You can't stand the idea that we are essentially sinful, and we are not the center of the universe. "

It contradicts every tested law in natural science? It doesn't contradict any whatever. You are an idiot. Your statements as regards the second law of thermodynamics show you don't understand that no naturally constituted body can POSSIBLY violate this law. Ridiculous. What of all the others? Go on then, name one. ALL? What complete idiocy. There is no point continuing a conversation with someone who is so manifestly ignorant as you clearly show yourself to be by this statement.

Further, you clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of moral thinking. What, for example, is a value? Can you define it? I can. But I'll bet you can't. Can you account for its origin. I'll bet not. Hint: your usual dodge of just saying "God" for everything won't do. But then, having missed the entirety of the history of moral thinking and philosophy, I don't suppose that this will matter to you, very much.

Your dogmatic views betray nothing more than a monomania associated with a deep seated fear.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
April 04, 2007 4:43pm

Please keep it to the issues - personal comments are not a useful way to frame an argument. :)

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
April 04, 2007 4:48pm

Brian,

Ad hominem is quite reasonable, provided that it is demonstrably true.

Raymond Well, Heidelburg
April 04, 2007 4:53pm

Read this tonight...genetic tests of Canis familiaris {common dogs} which have the greatest range of body sizes of all mammals have found that small dogs do indeed possess a mutated gene that larger dogs don't have...EVEN though they have a common ancestor...so here we have NEW information within the genome of the dogs...3000 dogs tested of 143 breeds.

Griff...yapping at the heals of faithers everywhere...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 05, 2007 3:28pm

Let's get this straight:
Small dogs have a mutated gene, thus, they are smaller and would be much more vulnerable in the wild!
And this is "new" information?

Irwin Miller, Indianapolis, IN USA
April 12, 2007 12:38am

The fact that small dogs have NEW genetic information is proof:

1- It wasn't simply selective breeding that produced the small dogs...since the information FOR smallness wasn't there to begin with; so you couldn't select it! 'IT' didn't design dogs to be small, so IT didn't design anything else. Proof, from our 4-legged friends, that there is no god!

Dogs truely are "A human's best friend!"

2- the NEW genetic information was the result of a mutation [non-random] that gave shorter offspring...we all know short people...I'm one. It introduced NEW genetic information to the gene pool of dogs. But this is a type of dwarfness...AND YET it is not detrimental to the natural survival of the animal. Small animals survive as easily [if not better!] than big animals in the wild. Or haven't we heard of mice? Small dogs need less food, can hide more easily, etc. etc. and survive very well thank you!

3- This is proof of evolution and against the concept of designed life. Proof [if any were needed] against the concept of god!

Above I use the term 'non-random' and by that I mean that there would be a set of limited mutations possible for a viable offspring to survive...so not all mutations have equal chance of occurring AND proliferating in the gene pool...that IS non-random. Yet also it is not designed, has no pre-purpose and no set goal to be achieved! These are compatible...

Griff...Dumb-dee, dumb-dumb, dumb, dumb....happy birthday to me!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
April 12, 2007 4:59am

Why is there always an underlying eagerness to eliminate God from our existence? It seems to me that evolutionists are ultimately more concerned with denying the idea that they will be held accountable for the things they do in life than on searching for truth.

Brian Turnock, Burlington, Ontario
May 03, 2007 4:40am

In answer to such a question: We are eliminating our existence from any god given attribute.

The Truth is that faithists are denying the reality: there is but one life to cherish with every breath.

Those whom believe that they can go through life murdering, raping, enslaving and torturing {in the name of a god}, like the church, are most certainly cheapening this precious honour, life, in which we {the lucky ones} find ourselves.

They willfully abandon morals to their fellows and claim righteous exemption in the present, replacing it with a facile judgemental retribution...which of course they feel they will pass by, with flying colours.

Interesting that spell check wanted to replace faithists with atheists! Ironic.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 04, 2007 2:08am

Ugh, "denying reality" is a basic human mental tool, selected for through excessive self-termination at the thought of contemplating too fully the "realistic" world. Happiness is a mental abnormality, optimism is an art, denial is a survival mechanism, excessive pessimism is essentially a fairly accurate view on life. Religion gives hope where there is none, brings people together in unity and trust; Science shrugs its shoulders.

I despise creationists and their ilk but at least I can comprehend what need they are satisfying with their beliefs. I'm increasingly wary of increasingly zealous anti-god anti-religion types who are eager to discredit religion in general ... by making the bland assertion that religion is an evil to be conquered, something to do with a zeitgeisty muslim/christian crusader-guilt recently I think, and ignoring the vast oceans of kindness and love perpetrated by devout members of almost every reasonable religious organisation. Also painfully ignoring those great non-religious icons of human atrocities such as Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao Zedong, ...

Trying to remove "god" from the world is as futile as trying to remove "ego" from the human brain. Even if it could be done what would we be?

noj, uk
May 24, 2007 6:25pm

has anyone else noticed that this issue has all of a sudden become yet another battleground for the hardcore religious versus the hardcore athiests?The idea of evolution doesnt preclude the idea of a god,all thats being said in this article is that this is how evoution works.You can't use it to justify one position over another.I find it's best to just try be relaxed about things

Scott Andrews, Sydney,Australia
May 27, 2007 12:49am

The interesting thing is that when speaking of atrocities, a guilty atheist hasn't got a leg to stand on...and that's good. If they do something bad...it's just bad.

But a faither has got the fall back position...I was only doing god's work...like the Nazis...they were only following orders!

But yes, the god-spot of the brain is an evolutionary mechanism to assist survival...but there are some who don't need it and there are some who abuse it!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 27, 2007 9:42am

Myth #1: Men evolved from apes.

I don't know a single creationist or intelligent design oranization that claims evolutionist believe this...

Evolutionist do claim that apes and man share a common 'ape-like' ancestor...

Answers in genesis.com gives this accurate description of human evolution...

Myth #2: Evolution is like a tornado in a junkyard forming a perfect 747.

Actually, it's not 'evolution' that is like a tornado

It's abiogenesis (chemical evolution) that is likened to a tornado creating a 747...

Evolution is just a theory.

I've heard several laymen use this as an arguement, but never a real creationist or ID person...

What they're trying to say is that evolution is just a 'conjecture' and hypothesis...

To call it a theory gives it far to much credability...

Robben Salter, Florida
June 01, 2007 2:00pm

Neil, Above you noted that spell check tried to replace "faithist with atheist". Yea, it does that when you make stuff up and cannot spell.

Henry Plantain, Birmingham, Alabama USA
June 03, 2007 6:31pm

Aaarg! Hitler was NOT an athiest. I desperately wish people would stop making that erroneous claim. It's just too convenient.

""Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

Adolph Hitler - Mein Kampf

He was probably not a Christian (as one can find much in his writings and speeches critical of organized Christianity,) but he was certainly not an atheist.

Brian Smith, Studio City, CA
June 08, 2007 5:31pm

Phew! That clears my conscience!

Brian I hope my little dig at the Nazis didn't make you think 'I' thought Adolf was an atheist? I have read his 1922 speech and he clearly was influenced by the past Jewish atrocities against other religious groups, as should we all be, but there the joining at the hip ends...well apart from developing technology that allows us to go to space!

But someone reading these posts may think...evolution!

Well one of my ''conjectures'' is that obviously humans + anything else living, are still evolving and the only thing preventing 'us' forming new species is our propensity for world wide travel (and sex!).

And if faithers could only rationalise that mountains take a looong time to make and evolution of chemical co-factors are ''highly'' likely during that time, then maybe (just maybe) their posts would be:

a) more meaning full

b) more grown up (and meaning full)

c) intelligent....and more meaning full.

Griff...Natural selection is personal;evolution is permanent.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 08, 2007 10:51pm

Just for clarification, Neil, mountains can be made or destroyed, virtually overnight. Nice try though!

Irwin Miller, Indianapolis, IN USA
June 20, 2007 9:03am

It takes god 6 days to build 'everything' and it takes me 12 days to get a response....

But I'm still waiting for a meaningful response....

No, all fun aside, I can't let that one go Irwin...

Asides from a nuclear bomb/or meteor impact/or huge volcanic eruption... all standard stuff, how else do you propose to "move mountains"..."virtually overnight"... I get the feeling I'm asking for it...?

With faith?

She must be a big girl!

Normally, as we all know!, mountains are shoved up gradually over a long period of time...for example; I look out my window and see a mount....well a hill, right now. It has been there 40 of my yrs. I have pictures dating back 200 yrs to when coal mining was in it's hey-day (?) and it looks....yep, just had to go and see if anything has changed (scientific experiment in my own office/home completed) but, no, everything is the same!

If it changes "overnight" though I'll be straight back here, e-mailing the world!

And after re-reading my last post above: just encase there's any doubt... I hate what Hitler did...and the reasons he did it...his faith!

Has anybody read a marvellous book called "The Boy In The Stripped Pyjamas"?

Maybe Steven Spielberg could make a movie of it...with clarity.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 20, 2007 11:22pm

What a shame that Brian has seen fit to truncate the posts on this list RETROSPECTIVELY down to 1500 words, which of course destroys the sense of much of the earlier posts. Given the negligible memory cost of typeface, a frankly bizarre editorial decision.

I expect this post will be removed.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
July 03, 2007 2:37am

Steven! Glad to here you're back...but have you heard of JREF - a good site ... AND, of course, Richard Dawkins Foundation site.

Griff...

Neil Griffiths, cardiff,wales,uk
July 04, 2007 4:54pm

Griff-

Haven't looked at that. Will do, thanks.

Glad to see you're still flying the flag!

Aye,

Steven H.

Steven Horrobin, Edinburgh UK
July 13, 2007 10:37am

Brian, In your introduction to this topic, in the first "myth", you made this statement, "Nobody has ever suggested that one species changes into another species." Later in the same section, you make this statement, "The path of a species' evolution is shaped like the branch of a tree, not a donut, not a figure 8, not a ladder."
Please correct me if I err, but if you follow a branch back to it's origin, you find a trunk. Follow the trunk to it's origin and you find roots. In kind, the root system had a common beginning no matter the origin, be it seed; bulb; korm; etc.
I am confused as to your use of this argument! You are arguing for evolution, right?
In light of a recent article entitled "Skull Suggests Two Early Humans Lived at Same Time"
(Thursday, August 09, 2007), the author stated that "our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors."
Seems as though your tree is getting a good pruning. And, by scientists none the less!

Irwin Miller, Indianapolis, IN USA
August 09, 2007 1:46pm

Well, yet another faither who notices that science is about asking questions and re-evaluating evidence....

Unlike faith: THIS IS THE WAY IT IS, ALWAYS HAS BEEN AND ALWAYS WILL BE - so just believe!

I think I realise the faither mistake - these "numb-skulls" actually believe that so&so many years ago a monkey changed into a human.

And then they went on their merry way, until we get to today... unchanged.

They fail to realise that nothing, now living, was living millions of years ago... evolution means change!

Get it?

Oh I loose patience...

Griff.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 10, 2007 8:34pm

Neill, Above you stated:
"I think I realise the faither mistake - these "numb-skulls" actually believe that so & so many years ago a monkey changed into a human. And then they went on their merry way, until we get to today... unchanged.They fail to realise that nothing, now living, was living millions of years ago... evolution means change!"

You need to come to grips with that which is obviously absurd in your non-thinking humanistic diatribes. "Faithers" are not the ones that believe that anything changed into any other thing. That is your story. You need to pick a theory, or actually, a fairy tale, and stick to it.
I have observed your posts over the past year and you are most un-scientific in your self styled musings of what you believe, or profess to believe, in the area of evolutionary mythology. But, sadly, this is where revisionist Darwinism leads. You are forced to change with what the evidence actually proves, and in response, you again are left kicking and screaming against an inevitable outcome. But I must admire you (Tee-Hee)for your tenacity! You are going to stick with you sinking ship until the bitter end.You might want to rethink a few of your previous posts' lines. Such as: "They fail to realise that nothing, now living, was living millions of years ago...!"

I agree! Nothing living now was living millions of years ago!

And I don't consider you a numbskull, just hard headed!

Now, get back to those books, aye?

Irwin Miller, Indianapolis, IN USA
August 14, 2007 2:18pm

Please discuss the issues, rather than resorting to personal attacks. Thanks.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
August 14, 2007 2:23pm

In considering your argument to Myth #3 above, I came across a little article that included the following excerpt: "Dr. Michael Ruse, renown philosopher of science and staunch evolutionist agrees with creationist Dr. Phillip Johnson about the metaphysical roots of evolution. He says: "an evolutionist, is metaphysically based at some level just as much as . . . some creationist."
In other words, at the base level, the evolutionist exhibits faith (in the absence of physical proof) in evolution just as the creationist exhibits faith in God. Dr. Ruse shocked his colleagues when he conceded this at a 1993 symposium of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Many Darwinists felt that he gave away the store with his comments--but they had to have known it is TRUE."
Ruse, a professor of zoology and philosophy of science at the University of Guelph in Ontario, Canada, was a key speaker at a seminar convened to debunk "The New Creationism." Ruse had specifically been asked to "refute Phillip Johnson's book, Darwin on Trial." (Intervarsity Press, 1991.) Instead, he shocked his colleagues by endorsing one of its key points: that Darwinian doctrines are ultimately based as much on "philosophical assumptions" as on scientific evidence.
He followed up those statements with the following: "Evolution is not a fact; why it is not even a theory! It is more meta-physical. A secular religion!"

This is what I have argued all along.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
August 20, 2007 1:59pm

"Irwin" is it? I think I've spelt that correctly...

A quote from him..."But, sadly, this is where revisionist Darwinism leads. You are forced to ###change with what the evidence actually proves###, and in response, you again are left kicking and screaming against an inevitable outcome."

Do the rest of the world see the glowing faither fallacy at this point...NO? I'll point it out...

Yes, it's true, scientists change their ideas/explanations when EVIDENCE 'forces' them to. How else is one to act: maybe we should ignore cognitive evidence and 'shun' proof, leaving guess-work to do the job.

UNLIKE faithers; why change what's wrong when it is so easy to justify IT? They don't, they just keep on believing; and that's not a strength, it's a horror.

To explain...

"They fail to realise that nothing, now living, was living millions of years ago...!"

For those who need it...

Faithers (jews,muslims,christians...et al) think that a THING 'created' us etc. They can't explain what IT is, merely relying on cheap rhetoric to help.

Evolution, is a theory (open to change until it becomes so well evidenced that it can be called a law, not to mention, proved).

It tells us that species once lived and may have died out, but not before giving rise to new species by mutation of genes. There are other angles. The species that gave rise to man has almost certainly died out; yet part remains inside us!

Just like your grand-daddy!

Oh Gary glad to see you still copy!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 01, 2007 4:19pm

Neil, Yes, indeed, I do copy. When I use one evolutionist's quote against another evolutionist's ideas, I want to make sure that I get it correct. And once again, you cannot simply respond to the point of the post. You, as usual, go into a Dawkinsesque tirade against "faither boogeymen"! I thought that modern evolutionists did not believe that men evolved from apes, as in argument #1 above. Above you said, "It tells us that species once lived and may have died out, but not before giving rise to new species by mutation of genes. There are other angles. The species that gave rise to man has almost certainly died out; yet part remains inside us!" (By the way, I copied and pasted this quote!") You cannot have it both ways, Laddie! By the way, what were we before we were us? I do hope that you commit to an answer, but I seriously doubt that you can or will! Remember, "science is about asking questions and re-evaluating evidence."
I just finished reading Michael Behe's "The Edge of Evolution". In it, Behe totally dismantles (scientifically) the mathematical probabilities that mutation could account for the historical evidence for life on earth. In light of the scientific support using proven studies of E. Coli, Malaria, and, more recently, HIV, and the before unknown complexities discovered by the human genome experiments, it is amazing to me that you would still declare the scientific feasibilities of Darwinism with such fervor.
But, I have faith! You will eventually have to come to grips with the challenge facing the modern evolutionists.

Above, Brian posted: In order to qualify as a theory, evolution had to meet the following criteria:
A theory must origi

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 02, 2007 2:33pm

Ah... faithers never get the hang of precis...

Mi(cough)chael Behe(moth)'s.... what the soot does he know about evolution???

Oh I suppose he could comment on the evolution of the bible! And now to it's present state... as a fossil of no importance!

Garry:"By the way, what were we before we were us? "

Small, shrew-like mammals... many moons ago... bacteria before that!

Griff...

Garry... you know it says you can dig up brass/bronze from the ground IN THE bible? Don't you?

I forget which one as I don't read it much!

But, well, you can't!

Oh unless of course the bible was written after, oh about 10,000 yrs ago! THE BRONZE AGE. Oh I forgot, that was when you think the Earth was "created"... isn't it?

Griff... Sad these faithers don't get it ... must be evolution of the human brain...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 09, 2007 1:13am

Neil, You really need to get a new shtick! Again, as always, when you can't argue the facts you mindlessly rail against the dreaded "boogey-god". Michael Behe may not "know evolution"? but I am sure that he knows much more than you about science. Please try to rant on subject. And exactly where are the intermediates and transitionals between your little shrewy cousins and us? Oh, yes: NOWHERE!

Above, Brian posted: In order to qualify as a theory, evolution had to meet the following criteria:
A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation.
A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested or refuted, it can't qualify as a theory.
A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed.
A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable.
Experimental evidence? Falsifiable by testing? Testable predictions? Changes based on new evidence?
You must be painfully aware that Darwinism does not fit your own criteria.
As Behe points out, virtually every mutation known is de-evolutionary in nature and is not progressive nor beneficial. No new information is added.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Ohio USA
September 11, 2007 4:05pm

A quote:-
"And exactly where are the intermediates and transnationals between your little shrewy cousins and us? Oh, yes: NOWHERE!"

Strange how you know the answer to your question yet fail to appreciate its significance~

You must really believe such nonsense as exemplified in an advert for alcohol on UK tv. It showed a series of backward progressions of men morphing into apes into fish etc. A POPULAR MYTHunderstanding!

When I first heard the term "intermediate" I remember thinking "what's that?"

If you imagine each modern animal to be the nails on your hand; they ALL originated from the wrist; the common ancestor!

And a "transitional"; meaning, I suppose, to change? You really think biologists think that a chimp "transformed" into a human?

That would be like my thumb-nail transforming into my... my toe nail!

He,he,he...

Evolution is an explanation of the available data that doesn't rely on mysticism. There is ample evidence to support its logic... unlike a god.

You cling to Mystic Mike (god) as the causer...fallacy: tell me; what causes rain? A cloud. Itself caused by evaporation of the sea, sourced from the river, a product of RAIN!

So rain causes rain...?

If I drew a circle you'd say it had a starting point... Where's the start of the rain?? cycle??

Good luck chasing your tail.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 11, 2007 7:02pm

Neil, If you were to draw a circle, I can assure you that it would have a starting point, and no matter how careful you were to try to hide it, with a magnifying glass I could show it to you.
Your logic: "When I first heard the term "intermediate" I remember thinking "what's that?"
If you imagine each modern animal to be the nails on your hand; they ALL originated from the wrist; the common ancestor!
And a "transitional"; meaning, I suppose, to change? You really think biologists think that a chimp "transformed" into a human? That would be like my thumb-nail transforming into my... my toe nail!" It is a well known thorn to evolutionists, that the lack of intermediates is the greatest bane to Darwinism. Many evolutionists have admitted it.
What were your fingernails between wrist existence and nail existence? And no, I do not think ALL biologists think that a chimp "transformed" into a human.
But ALL evolutionary biologists do. Well, at least until the past several years they did, but they have, (like you), had to backpeddle on their "theories" in light of fairly recent scientific and archeological discoveries. Since the data doesn't match the Darwinian religion, revisionism has become the necessity.
And would you please cite an example of your "ample evidence"?

Just for clarity, the water cycle causes rain! It is a natural phenomena built into the created order of our planet.

I am holding my tail at this very moment! And guess what? It has always been a tail!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 14, 2007 5:34pm

Garry - An honest question, please don't take offense. Do creationists truly believe there are no transitional fossils, do they intentionally ignore all the published lists of transitional fossils, or do they believe the transitional fossils are hoaxes?

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 14, 2007 5:40pm

Eric, The problem with so-called "transitional" fossils is this: All scientists have the same evidence and the distinquishing determinate as to the interpretation of what is evidenced, is whatever their worldview may be. Any evolutionist can say that a fossil is an intermediate, while a creationist would argue that the fossil is simply a species that existed as is. Creationists are not the only ones that have trouble with the transitional theories.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA]
And also, "… I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic license, would that not mislead the reader?" (Patterson, Colin [late Senior Palaeontologist, British Museum of Natural History, London], letter 10 April 1979, in Sunderland L.D., "Darwin's Enigma: Fossils and Other Problems," [1984]

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 15, 2007 3:20pm

Surely you are aware that Gould was an originator of punctuated equilibrium, and the quote you've provided is part of his explanation of it. In these cases there are no transitional forms, and thus no mystery in their absence.

The fossil record must always remain necessarily incomplete due to the time scales and geology involved, which is unfortunate but true. Whatever missing fossil Colin Patterson is alluding to in his letter is only one of millions that we'll never have. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

A misunderstanding of evolutionary theory is poor support for creation via magic.

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 15, 2007 3:46pm

Colin Patterson was not addressing the lack of any one transitional fossil example in his book. Rather, he was addressing the issue of the lack of ANY transitional fossils examples in his book. He could not, in good conscience, as his statement explains. "If I knew of ANY, I would have used them." David Kitts, Professor of Geology at the University of Oklahoma said, "Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of `seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of `gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them."
The most pressing question evolutionists are unable to answer is this: If indeed life on earth has been evolving for "millions and millions of years", the geologic record should be teeming with transitional and intermediate evidence that would leave no doubt as to its validity. But, on the contrary, in the scientific community, and even amongst evolutionists, a consensus is far from accepted and few will make a commitment toward that end. As to this very fact, Stephen Gould said, "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution." That is the exact reason that he switched over to the "punctuated equilibrium" theory.
Without actually going back in time and watching the birth, hatching, etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, you cannot &quo

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
September 16, 2007 3:21pm

You often criticize the process of improving a theory over time. What was your reaction to Brian's "Revisionist Darwinism" episode?

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 16, 2007 3:25pm

Here's the greatest example of Revisionist Darwinism that Brian seemed to overlook. In the world of the evolutionist, the rule seems to be: "That's my story and I'm sticking to it!" Embryos of different vertebrates do not look alike in their early stages. This idea was foisted upon evolutionary thought by Ernest Haeckel, German biologist who was so convinced that he had solved the riddle of life's progression that he doctored and faked drawings of embryonic stages to prove the point. He was openly exposed as a fraud in 1874 by Prof. Wilhelm His. Nevertheless, Haeckel's fraudulent drawings remain in high school and college biology textbooks to this day as evidence for evolution. Why?
I heard someone say once, "Never let the truth stand between you and your ideas!"
Oh, I'm sorry! You said, "Improve your theory over time".

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 18, 2007 4:09pm

Garry, this is what I actually said:"If I drew a circle you'd say it had a starting point... Where's the start of the rain?? cycle?"

So I knew you'd say a circle has a point of origin...what YOU then FAILED to answer is where does the water cycle begin?

AND JUST TO CLARIFY: your answer was:"Just for clarity, the water cycle causes rain! It is a natural phenomena built into the created order of our planet."

BUT 'you' have failed to answer this simple question. I mean doesn't condensation cause rain which causes rivers to give us seas and then they evaporate to give clouds that gives us... oh yeah; rain again... WHERE does that circle begin Garry?

I hope your magnifying glass is not steamed up!

Now to transitionals....

We don't need them.

If 'us' humans had been designed and placed on this Earth first (or very early) then SURELY you can see that we (creationists) should be "claiming" to have found a very old 'first' human fossil at a site where other old relics are found e.g. T-Rex.

How do YOU explain that Garry... Where are these "ancient" {fully modern looking} human fossils in the ancient ground?

Regards. Griff.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 23, 2007 3:59pm

Nei, The water cycle starts with water! Very simple, matey-poo. I addressed the human fossil topic in the "How to argue with a Creationist post.
Now boys, It seems as though someone is either very un-informed, or very, very naughty. After being scolded that I did not really understand what evolution actually is, I went surfing for truth. After several websites dedicated to the ins and outs of the religion of evolution, my fingers strolled across the keyboard and I journeyed to Brian's much ballyhooed Wikipedia. Once there, I typed in the search for "evolution". Almost exactly half way down the article, guess what my inquisitive creationist eyes espied? In the section entitled "Common Descent", the very first sentence states that "All organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool." Then, low and behold; a chart wherein one can view a Gibbon; a Human; a Chimpanzee; a Gorilla; and an Orangutan! Under this chart are the words: "The hominoids are descendants of a common ancestor." Now, this is exactly the concept I had of evolution, but Brian introduced us to "Myth #1-Men evolved from apes", and insisted that this was not the case. Any takers on this "seeming contradiction"? (I was especially humored by the words, "Past species have also left records of their evolutionary history. Fossils, along with the comparative anatomy of present-day organisms, constitute the morphological, or anatomical, record.) A few "proven" examples would be great!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 24, 2007 10:23am

No Garry you really do misunderstand.... YOU are an ape! (a tail-less monkey with a flat face!)... not that I've met you!

And by the way you didn't address the Human/fossil fallacy... There should be 'modern' Human fossils being found in fossil beds 'lying' next to a T-Rex (say)... where are these BRAVE Humans who did battle with T-Rex? (because as we all know T-Rex was .... chicken!).

OH and the water cycle begins with.... 'the'.

No really... it doesn't begin with water (liquid). So come on Garry, struggling are you?

Explain why Humans and Chimps have ABO blood grouping, but other do not...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 06, 2007 10:56am

I see in the news that you de-evolutionists lost the battle for one of your beloved "vestigial organs". Scientists now say that the appendix nurtures the good bacteria in the intestinal tract. Well, what do you know! It's not useless!!!! Neil, since this is my last post, I just wanted you to know that I think you are one of the most laughable, boorish, unreasoning, and uncivil individuals I have ever ecountered. I can now testify to witnessing a bona fide miracle. In the Old Testament, Balaam's ass spoke to him as they rode along, and by golly, one has spoken to me! Thanks for the edification.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 06, 2007 7:23pm

Look up artificial life:-

"Craig Venter, a DNA researcher, has built an entirely synthetic chromosome - a sequence of genes - and plans to implant it in an existing cell."

Of course this is very important to prove that a god is not the only THING capable of making life.

"An entirely synthetic chromosome"

There'll be howls from the likes of Garry and Mike (where ever he is - JREF maybe!) due to the use of an already pre-existing cell to piggy-back on, but then that's how the shuttle started life!

And Garry: an appendix is merely the 'tail end' of the intestine (it has to end somewhere, right?) and if bacteria have EVOLVED to take advantage of it; all the better!

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 07, 2007 4:33pm

The intestine is the portion of the digestive tract between the stomach and the anus. It is divided into two major sections: small intestine and large intestine. What makes you think the appendix could be "the tail end of the intestine"?
And "An entirely synthetic chromosome" is not correct. Venter's "man made organism" is not a "new" lifeform. It still relies upon the intracellular machinery already present to carry out replication and metabolism. It is not self preserving. Let us not dabble in desiminating falsities.
And besides, what's the big deal? You think that nature accomplished this same feat by accident, don't you! And only God knows what kind of monstrosities this kind of genetic engineering may accomplish.

Meredith LaPierre, Wisconsin, USA
October 07, 2007 7:16pm

It seems I am a little late on this one. Just goes to show,you gotta check on the old stuff from time to time. Seems the funny people with the big shoes and colourful face paint have been up to the same old stunts here, waxing lyrical for the invisible. Really, just grow up kids. All so pointless. Stick to the squirty flowers and cars with wonky wheels. Those things are real at least.
Oh, Garry, did you just call Griff an ass?
"I just wanted you to know that I think you are one of the most laughable, boorish, unreasoning, and uncivil individuals I have ever encountered." Nice touch Gazza!I will have to try harder!
I think Griff knows a burrow from a burro, however, and in his own unique way, he is one entertaining chappie. I prefer his reality to anything read in some dodgy old Scripture. Any how, I think the sky pirates have been dealt with for this one.
Come over to the Skeptiod Forum, all ye faithful, and we'll slug it out some more. Or are you too merde des le poulet?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
October 08, 2007 3:00am

To atheists, evolution is the yardstick that they use to separate the enlightened from the ignorant. But true scientific law neatly refutes the lie that evolutionists are rationalists guided by the ideals of free inquiry and the scientific method. Science exposes the essential truth about Darwinian evolution that atheists refuse to confront: Darwinian evolution is bogus science!
Everyone with a keen appreciation for a genuine scientific examination readily reveal the so-called “gaps” in the theory of evolution are all there is. Darwinism is nothing but a massive gap.
After 150 years of extensive foray into the fossil record, evolution’s supporters have failed sublimely to substantiate its claims. First, the fossils were necessary, now they are irrelevant. And a long line of supposed evidence, from the infamous "Piltdown man", to the “evolving” peppered moths of England; example after example; have been exposed as one hoax after another. Still, evolutionists treat those who question evolution as religious nuts and prohibit students from hearing about real science when it commonly contradicts Darwinism. And these are the people who say they want to keep faith out of the classroom.
Atheist's absolute devotion to Darwinism usually has nothing to do with evolution’s scientific validity and everything to do with their refusal to admit the possibility of God as a guiding force. They will repel every challenge to their official religion.
Phillip Johnson was on the mark when he said, "If the Darwinists had a good case to make, they would welcome the critics to an academic forum for open debate, and they would want to confront the best critical arguments rather than to caricature them as straw

Meredith LaPierre, Wisconsin, USA
October 08, 2007 1:49pm

Meredith - Do you have any thoughts of your own on this matter, or were you going to simply copy & paste the ENTIRE text of the review of Ann Coulter's "GODLESS"?

Your own thoughts are welcome here; plagiarism is not.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
October 08, 2007 1:55pm

Truth is truth, right? I took a little visit to Wikipedia and looked up the word "theory". Parts of it are surprisingly like your definitions above. I printed your definitions and compared them to the theirs. Several are word for word, with, no mention of author on yours. What's up with that?

Meredith LaPierre, Wisconsin, USA
October 08, 2007 9:03pm

You are absolutely invited to point out my word-for-word plagiarisms.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
October 08, 2007 9:09pm

I am in eighth grade. Yesterday in class my friend told my teacher that real evolution is not what is in our text book. Our books say that we evolved from lower forms like monkeys, but my friend says that we did not. I asked him where he heard this from and he told me your website. I am confused now I don't know what is correct. We were told that everything started from a single cell in the beginning. I saw a picture of a tree and it showed that everything evolved from the same thing. I am trying to read Charles Darwins book but have not finished it yet. I just don't understand what you mean in your introduction. Thanks.

Russell Findley, Topeka Kansas
October 09, 2007 5:35pm

Russell, I think what your friend ment to say is that the description of evolution in your textbook is over-simplified- that is, glossing over details in order to help students comprehend the bigger picture. This is normal in early education with subjects as complex as evolution.

For example, saying we evolved "from monkeys" is not really correct. We evolved from an early primate that modern apes also evolved from. This species was ape-like, but wasn't the same species as modern apes.

It's all a bit complicated and it's easy to get confused, but I can see that you're on the right track - reading The Origin of Species on your own in grade eight is impressive. Remember, though, that evolutionary theory has changed a lot since Darwins day, so you might want to check out a more modern book. Richard Dawkins' "An Ancestors Tale" is a good introduction, and it's a lot easier to read than Darwin's ninteenth century prose!

Luke, Wincester, VA
October 10, 2007 6:08am

Excellent advice. But don't forget to read the bible too....{Griff, this is sacralidge, I here you shout}...

But no, I want young people to know the rubbish that is in the bible too!

Then they can compare the excellent theory of evolution with the tripe of scripture....

Griff...

Thanks Marius...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 11, 2007 6:32am

Russell,
Please make several observations as you read Darwin's book. First, Darwin NEVER stated what the origin of any specie was. Biologist Douglas Futuyma said, "One of the ironies of the history of biology is that Darwin did not explain the origin of new species in "The Origin of Species", because he did not know how to define species. "The Origin" was concerned mostly with how a single species might change in time, not how one species might proliferate into many." So then, how did the first specie(s) originate? What is the origin of any specie?
Secondly, Darwin was a geologist, not a biologist. Niles Eldredge, Chairman and Curator of Invertebrates at the American Museum of History, said that Darwin could not ..."explain away the differnces between...his theory and the facts of the fossil record."
It simply does not agree with Darwinian theory!
Thirdly, even when the facts went against his theory, he always chose his ideas. He wrote to Asa Gray, "...my work will be grieveously hypothetical and large parts by no means worthy of being called induction, my commonest error being probably induction from too few facts."
Fourthly, consider the tremendous number of creative "or good" mutations that produce new kinds of viable offspring which are better suited for survival, at the same time being favored by natural selection, in order for the theory of evolution to be true. Darwin admitted to giving natural selection "exaggerated power". It is simply reactive, not proactive!

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 11, 2007 12:53pm

The true genius of Einstein was to see through the "irony" of absolute time.... the then "facts"!

The same is true of the genius of Darwin... a Man who was capable of seeing the obviousness of a fore-gone conclusion... and in His day, that was even more exceptional.

Griff... Things change. Ideas GroW.

Unless of coarse you read the bible.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 15, 2007 5:08pm

The first definition of evolution in the dictionary is: "any process of formation or growth; development: the evolution of a language; the evolution of the airplane". This definition pretty much covers life on this planet. Every thing is subject to “change”. In the broadest sense, who could disagree? We grow and live a bit longer than we once did; we are a little bit taller; we advance technologically; we are, as a race, more educated; but these types of changes are seldom what evolutionists have in mind when speaking of “the theory of evolution”. As much as they would like to convey the idea that they are only speaking of change, it is outright deceptive. When they declare that “No one has ever suggested that one species changed into another, they are either being dishonest or genuinely ignorant of the history of "evolutionary theory". What about the evolutionary tree; or Haeckel’s fake drawings? Why do they claim that Archaeopteryx is the transition between dinosaur and bird?
I thought this idea "was the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution"?

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 16, 2007 11:59pm

Onus, your obvious quote-mining aside, you obviously do not understand evolutionary theory. Take a page from young Russel's book and take the time to learn what evolution *is* (and especially what it *isn't*), before you attempt to criticize it.

Luke, Wincester, VA
October 18, 2007 5:45am

I did indeed look closely at "what evolution is", not from a creationist standpoint, but ALL from evolutionists own articles. It is exactly what creationists claim as it has been taught. I know that you are now declaring it to be a glorified "change" in a species, but no matter how you try to dress it up, it is the progression from lower lifeforms to higher life forms through Darwinian evolution.
Do you believe that Archaeopteryx is the transition between dinosaur and bird? A simple yes or no will suffice. Thanks.

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 18, 2007 4:21pm

I wish a simple yes or no would suffice, but that's unrealistically glib.

Archaeopteryx is not necessarily a single species. Some believe all 11 specimens are, others point to differences between them.

Archaeopteryx is the earliest known bird, but many of its birdlike features are advanced enough that it probably had earlier birdlike ancestors.

Archaeopteryx does show significant evidence of having evolved from theropods.

It is not at all clear how far Archaeopteryx's lineage went. It is certainly NOT clear that Archaeopteryx is the ancestor of any modern birds, rather than some other species that may have been a contemporary of it.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 18, 2007 4:33pm

I percieve that you were a bit hesitant to commit an answer to the simple question: Do you believe that Archeoptryx was a transition between bird and dinosaur? Again, a simple yes or no will suffice!

And I have some very bad news for you.
World renowned Paleornithologist
and Evolutionary Biologist, Alan Feduccia (one of your own), leading expert on birds said the following:
"Paleontologists have tried to turn Archeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not! It is a bird. A perching bird! And no amount of
"paleobabble"
is going to change that." (Please see research.unc.edu/endeavors/
spr97/birdtl.html)
We are witnessing, as modern science advances, especially in the field of genetics, the gap between species will widen even further than we now know. Recently, scientists released a study showing that the appendix is not at all useless, rather, it is a "farm" for growing beneficial bacteria used in the intestines. So much for being a vestigial organ. Just one more stone in the cog of evolution!

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 18, 2007 10:52pm

Onus - I'm happy to discuss with you, but I'm afraid I have absolutely no idea what you're trying to communicate after reading and re-reading your post. Are you asking a question? or if you're making a claim, could you make it a little more cogently?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 18, 2007 10:55pm

I-will-type-very-slowly: "Do you believe that humans ever were, at any time, something besides humans?"

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 19, 2007 4:53pm

If your intention is to be petty and condescending with your "typing slowly" comment, you'll probably be more welcome on another forum.

Yes, H. sapiens descended from earlier species of Homo.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 19, 2007 5:01pm

I am just a bit confused because Brian started out this topic with "Nobody has ever suggested that one species changes into another species." As a matter of fact he claims "This is the oldest and wrongest misconception about evolution."
He then insists that "Some criticisms of evolution show illustrations that fraudulently purport to show what evolutionists claim: that a salmon changed into a turtle...then into a monkey, and then into a human being. Of course such a theory would seem ludicrous. But it's pure fantasy and has nothing in common with real evolution."
So who is correct and who is wrong here?
I would never desire to "make evolution sound ridiculous, and sometimes it's done accidentally through ignorance of what evolution is and how it works. Since misinformation and ignorance are poor platforms on which to build any conversation...", I just want to make sure I stand corrected!

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 19, 2007 9:29pm

He's talking about existing unrelated species, as shown on the old posters. An owl turning into a turtle, for example; or a monkey turning into a human. Species don't jump from one branch of the tree to another.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 19, 2007 10:39pm

I asked earlier if you thought humans were ever something besides humans and you answered, yes, they were, which disagrees with Brian's intro. Going backwards, do the lineages of monkeys and/or apes, and the lineage of humans ever converge into one and the same specie? Brian stated that "never the twain shall meet." But how does the evolutionary tree branch without meeting at the trunk? And a "forest of trees", always begins with a previous tree, whether by seed; or by subdivision; or by grafting; etc. Biogenesis is the rule, and not abiogenesis. This is where it really gets confusing. Everything had to be the same thing at some point in the process of evolving, or were there many organisms (at the same instant) in the beginning, "sprouting from the proverbial primordial soup"?
And I am still curious, but, you never did commit to an answer as to whether or not you believed Archeopteryx to be in transition between dinosaur and bird?

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 19, 2007 11:21pm

A quote from "Talkorigins":-

STOP PRESS

"Feathered Dinosaurs Found"

Two species of dinosaur have recently been found in northeast China which possess feathers (Qiang et al. 1998). Protoarchaeopteryx robusta and Caudipteryx zoui show regiges, rectrices and plumulaceous feather inpressions. Further, they are not birds, lacking a reverted (backwards facing) big toe (see number 2 below) and a quadrratojugal squamosal contact, having a quadrojugal joined to the quatrate by a ligament and a reduced or absent process of the ishium. These and other characters group Protoarchaeopteryx and Caudipteryx with maniraptoran coelurosaurs rather than birds.

Unfortunately, the onus (as it were) is on you Onus...

I like the way you Faithers are bombastic enough to blog web pages; arrogantly stating you know NOTHING of evolution {and that I can tell you is quite self evident} yet challenging scientists to serve up 'evidence' when you claim to take so much on faith, in your lives: it is quite the ironic situation you find yourself in, no?

By the way, you contradicted yourself twice above: which one do I 'believe'?

And Archy is not a bird, by modern standards.

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 20, 2007 3:54pm

Well, I guess Dr. Feduccia will be set right straight by your apparent expertise in Ornithology. I only quote the experts! Tell me, how does a tree sprout branches, each of which bear a different type of fruit? And, could you please cite one example. Of course it could occur by grafting, but, grafting does not occur in nature. It takes intelligence, and I realize that is a NO NO!(The evolutionary tree does not count since it has never been witnessed, of course)
You say Archy is not a bird? Very well, what is it? Is it a dinosaur or a transitional specie? If you are declaring evidence as your ultimate authority, share yours with us! Oh, wait a minute! You copied TalkOrigins as evidence, so it must be true.

Onus Ford, Detroit, Michigan
October 20, 2007 6:16pm

Onus. Here's a tip. God and the concept of god, doesn't actually exist. The whole god thing was made up to explain everything that is before we worked it out for our selves. Sorry to rain on your parade, but that's how it is now. We grew up. Some folks still cling to those superseded concepts, and well.... whatta ya do? Hold a gun to their heads? As much as I would like to some times, that probably isn't going to help in the long term.
How I grow weary of the good fight against the fundies.
No postmodernism here, however. They ARE wrong. We will not relent.
We will not accept their case as being of equal value. 2+2=4. Who can argue that? Such is the case for natural selection and consequential evolution. Kick Christ, the Quran and the Kabbalah to the curb. Along with the rest of it.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullarbor Plain, Australia
October 21, 2007 4:35am

As a skeptic, this site is embarrassing. How old is this Marius? Why do you allow his tripe on your posts? None of you seem to be able to give a definitive answer to these creationists. These questions are quite fundamental, but you seem afraid to face them.

Frank Turner, Washton, Conn
October 21, 2007 4:25pm

Frank, please keep your comments to the subject, and not personal. Thanks. (I am a moderator here if nobody has guessed that yet.) =)

Onus is asking a question based on a false premise - that the theory of evolution predicts exactly one transition from reptile to bird and that Archaeopteryx is that transition. If Yes and No are the only allowed answers, then anyone who understands the theory well must answer No.

I would argue that it's more useful to discuss a question NOT based on a false premise. Why don't you give it a go yourself rather than criticize others.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 21, 2007 4:35pm

I'm 41 Frank. What can be more definitive than the evidence of evolution that is everywhere. I shouldnt need to explain that to you Frank, as you are a skeptic, and already know this. Might I suggest that if you have the answer (just what the question is I'm not so sure) that will convince the armies of the night that they backed the wrong horse, then please feel free to inform us all.
Tripe is the lining af a ruminents stomach by the way, pale and bland tasting. An unkind metaphor indeed.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain,Australia
October 21, 2007 5:51pm

What a coincidence, Marius, I too am 41. But Onus, dear boy, the list of things attributed to Archy that do NOT match those things that define what a 'bird' IS goes on and on...

STOP PRESS...!

A bat has a wing!

Oh my IT! Then it must be a bird... Thanks for sharing that logic with me Onus... I'll use it all the time in my responses to you...

And ponder the 2 nd Law again: if everything 'rots' away then that means mountains erode and are never 'formed' ... does it? So we should be living on a flat planet, true?

Oh I forgot; you do believe the Earth is flat... it says so in the genocidal, racist, putrid book... the bible/curran/ whatever...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 24, 2007 2:46am

"Frank, please keep your comments to the subject, and not personal."
After reading some of the previous posts, it seems that you should practice what you preach.
Just answer the questions, right?
I have yet to see it.

Bill Tough, Winsor, Canada
November 13, 2007 6:24pm

As a skeptic, this site is embarrassing. How old is this Marius? Why do you allow his tripe on your posts? #### None of you seem to be able to give a definitive answer to these creationists. ### These questions are quite fundamental, but you seem afraid to face them.

Frank Turner, Washton, Conn
October 21, 2007 4:25pm

Answer: There is no god hence no creation QED.

Would you like a sandwich?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
February 12, 2008 10:51am

I like this post, it's very informative and provable :) Thank You!

Stephanie Hunt, Michigan
April 15, 2008 6:48pm

lol, evolutionists can't answer the questions because the top of the line scientists they listen to can't answer the questions. maybe thats why they are starting to get fired for believing in intelligent design (expelled the movie). The top of the line scientists tell you how life works, aka evolution, and yes they are correct on that, but they can't tell you how life started. They wonder how the last 7,000 years of this earth have been so different fromt he past 4,000,000 when 7,000 years or around there is all the farther the earth has been dated from what the bible tells us. Evolution explains how life works, creation explains how life started, that simple.

mike, pittsburgh
May 02, 2008 10:45am

Again, evolution is not a logical explaination of the creation of ANY of the life forms, or even non-life forms on this planet. We were created by God, in 7 days, and he knew what he was doing. It's called, "Intelligent Design".

For more information I would Google "Intellegent Design", "christianity", or even "Evolution is fake".

But for a more reliable source I would check out Genesis 1:1 (in the Bible)

Stephanie, Kansas
May 02, 2008 10:46am

Stephanie, if you are looking for reliable information, you might want to check out PubMed. It is a pretty cool site that will search the last 20-30 years of papers published in respectable scientific journals. Do a search on evolution and you will get several hundred thousand papers. Instead of looking at the evidence that you agree with, try looking at the evidence that you disagree with and then try to rationally explain why it is wrong. I do this all the time with ID and creationism. You learn very little by talking to people who agree with you completely.

Mike, I have to agree with you partially. Currently, even the top scientists cannot conclusively answer how the first life on Earth began. There is extremely interesting research being done on this topic, in the field of abiogenesis.

On the other hand, I do not agree that creation explains how life began. Saying that everything poofed into existence without any evidence whatsoever is not an explanation. It is just a guess, and a poor one at that. The fact that the guess was made in a very old book doesn't make it any more valid, regardless of what you think. I have yet to see hard evidence that creation is correct, or hard evidence that evolution is wrong. If you have such evidence, I would love to hear it.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 02, 2008 10:56pm

you sound educated steve, so i would guess you have read through gensis to know that it does not say that it just poofed into existence. The eternal god created it. He didnt create it at a specific point in time because when you're eternal time is nonexistent. He created all original life forms, land, water, and air. Not to say that they haven't changed overtime. Which is why evolution is true and so is the bible. And if you really need evidence to believe in the bible's truth, then that wouldn't be faith so i pray for you about that. But all i know is god wouldn't let evidence like that slip because that would take away the point of faith, and if u have the free will to choose something wrong or right, you choose the right thing and everyone would be a christian because of the evidence, making all of them robots to do what god had to say. That is why god asked us to have faith in him, because the fact that we dont know he is there and we give our lives too him shows how loving he is, because we can accept him and his spirit comes into us and gives us salvation. basically it comes down to creation started it all and evolution explains how life works. you can't deny evolution becuase evolution is simply natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift that causes animals to change for the betterment of their survival, just adapting to better live like humans built houses and heaters lol. the bible expalins how life started and its purpose, no evidence against it or for it.

mike, pittsburgh
May 05, 2008 9:52am

Mike, I didn't know that you believed in evolution. That is fantastic and I am glad to hear it. From the way you talk, I cannot tell what you believe the age of the Earth is. If you believe in an old Earth (about 4.6 billion years) and that a god was the driving force behind the creation and evolution of life, I have no arguement with you. I don't believe in arguing against the existence of a god because I would never want to rob someone of their faith (as long as no one was being harmed by it.) If you believe in a young Earth (6,000-10,000 years old) then I still have to disagree with you. There is just too much evidence that the Earth is a very old place for me to believe something like that.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 06, 2008 2:01pm

i do know that it is impossible to know there was an ice age 4 billion years ago becuase of people staring at rocks and ice. i do believe in a young earth and i believe the weight of a global flood higher than the highest mountain could have made the earth really old too. how do you actually look at layers of a rock and predict the weather of 4billion years, ago, college cant teach you how to do that. do you know how long four billion years is? it is impossible to count to 1 billion in a lifetime of 90 years starting from when you could first speak and learn numbers. what are these "facts" suggesting the earht is so old.

mike, pittsburgh
May 06, 2008 8:07pm

It is called radiometric dating. It has been proven to be extremely accurate time and time again. Before you insult these methods, I suggest that you read a short and very understandable paper on the subject. The paper is written by a Christian creationist who also believes that the earth is very old.

http://www.asa3.org/aSA/resources/Wiens.html

These are the facts suggesting that the Earth is very old. Where are the facts that there was a worldwide flood that was "higher than the highest mountain." There isn't enough water on the entire planet for a flood of that size. Also, when floods like that happen, they leave a lot of evidence that they were there. For evidence of this, check out pictures of North Head at the entrance to Sydney Harbor. Over half of that was formed during one massive flood, yet structures like this are not seen everywhere in the world.

Plus what about the evidence that there never was a world wide flood. If a flood wiped out almost all life on the planet in recent history, there should be a very apparent genetic bottleneck seen in people and animals. No such thing is seen. Also, you have to believe that every animal alive today was on the arc (making it an incomprehensibly large ship) or that all diversity of life has sprung up in the past 6K years. Neither of those theories is very probable.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 06, 2008 8:46pm

what about the ancient man they made from a pig tooth? and a group of people buried a horse for ten years and told scientists to dig in this area for fossils and scientists said it was mililions of years old and they had just buried the horse ten years ago. and i do believe in a young and and i am a christian who thinks science all points to god.

mike, pittsburgh
May 07, 2008 9:23am

I have never heard of those examples and have no idea what you are talking about. If you could please provide sources for those examples, it would be greatly appreciated.

Regardless of those examples, there are still piles of evidence that the earth is very old. Did you even read the paper that I linked to? It is fine to believe that all science points to god, but it is not OK to completely disregard huge chunks of science because they disagree with a story written in a 2000 year old book. In order to believe that the earth is 6000 years old, there is a lot of science that you have to claim is false. Do you have any evidence that this is so?

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 07, 2008 9:41am

yes i read that paper and the fact that it was by a christian doesn't mean im going to believe it. I do believe that God could have created the earth so that when scientists dated this they would say this would naturally take 4.5 billion years. when god spoke it into existence in six days, and seventh day rested. Would that not show god's power?

as for the pig-tooth man

www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/nebraskaman.html

another link about evolutionists lying about hoaxes

lounge.moviecodec.com/topics/39586p13.html

and another link that might clear up the current evolutional concensus, and convince you that creation is right therefore the god of the bible exists and made us for a purpose.

http://www.motherearthnews.com/Nature-Community/1984-11-01/Evolution-Creation-Common-Sense.aspx

mike, pittsburgh
May 07, 2008 9:49am

First, the Nebraska Man story. The version you linked to is horribly oversimplified and seems to suggest that all scientists agreed this tooth belonged to a human ancestor. This isn't true at all, but the fact that the story is blown out of proportion is not that surprising when considering the source is a creationist website. For a more factual look at the Nebraska Man story, check out this link.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_nebraska.html

The second link is to a forum and I didn't find anything there about evolution hoaxes, just a cartoon mocking creationists.

The third link is to an article that spews forth many of the common misconceptions and misunderstandings of evolutionary theory that lead a portion of the population to believe that it is no more than a guess. The writer of the article was more than willing to make outstanding claims without backing up any of his information with citation or real examples.

What you talked about at the beginning of the post is basically the theory of Omphalism, that god created the Earth with the appearance of age. Why would god make the Earth look old, give us the gifts of reason and logic, and then tell us to believe that the Earth is young. It makes very little sense and is deceptive and intentionally misleading. Why would an all powerful creator want to deceive his own people?

Perhaps you should look into the idea of theistic evolution, it might make an old earth easier to swallow.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 07, 2008 12:51pm

and evolutionists dont do the same thing to make their story look more true? And it is no more than a guess. How do you know that radiometric dating off? faith that its right, right? yes, and you are really telling me that an evolutionist wouldnt make an outstanding claim (like a claim contradicting spontaneous generation) that a bacteria came from a cooled area of a lava ball? that came from ??. And God making the earth like that would not be decieving his own people. It is showing that he can speak into existence what would take 4 billion years. All i know is for a fact that creation is right because there is no evolutional explanation for the beginning of life, and evolution can be understood happening after creation, because well storms happen and winter happens and animals have to adapt. Creation is the only logical explanation to life even being able to exist. And with that being said that would make the bible very true being the creator's book. Meaning that heaven and hell are real, and that you still have a chance to put your faith in it. As for how long creation took if you look at the text in genesis 1 it says works like morning and afternoon so it is literally six days. Species could have changed and the ones around today probably are different than the ones back then. Just like we have huge cities instead of Villages with hay-shacks.

mike, pittsburgh
May 07, 2008 8:57pm

Evolution is not a guess. It is a scientific theory that has been validated many times by many fields of study. Radiometric dating has been proven to be accurate many times as well. If you read the paper I linked you to, you would already know this. They have checked carbon dating against trees of known age (used tree rings). They have checked decay rates of Uranium for over a hundred years and have even used astronomy to check decay rates. It is not faith that deems it is accurate but proof.

Claiming that evolution doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain the origin of life is much like saying gravity doesn't make sense because it doesn't explain organic chemistry. A theory is only meant to explain the phenomenon it is interested in, not everything. The theory of abiogenesis is interested in the beginnings of life, evolution explains how things that already exist, change.

Abiogenesis does have several interesting studies and theories explaining how the first organic molecules and the first self replicating molecules could have come into existence. They don't claim to know exactly what happened, but they have shown that it is possible for organic molecules to spontaneously form. There are other explanations out there aside from creation, and they are very logical. It is a mistake to think that creation is the only logical explanation for the beginning of life. Why couldn't god have used abiogenesis and evolution to create everything he wanted to make?

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 08, 2008 8:31am

Because abiogenesis would take 4 billion years and creation took 6 days. And i've already said that god could have created the earth to appear old just to show that he can speak 4 billion years of processing into existence. And i've also seen the question of how can we see starlight if they are hundreds of thousands of light years away. God i think created these things "aged" so they would function for us, but the abiogenesis theory is so unlogical, and yes it really is, because spontaneous generation is impossible, and where was that first life forms food source? and how did water form on a ball of lava? and how did that ball of lava or even the space for that ball of lava come from? There has to be a creator because signs of intelligent design are everywhere. The atom and the universe look the same, and everything goes in a cycle, and existence itself is proof of a creator. Like i've said, i believe god created things "aged" so they could function the way they do, and that is how i explain scientists dating things back so far. But he did it in six days, and i never disagreed with evolution, i was referring to abiogenesis but using the wrong word. Because evolution is simply how life keeps on going. As for how long it's been till now probably 7,000 years or so, just things look old to show that god can do that because he is awesome like that. And in abiogenesis all life came from a bacteria and things were created separte species, so that's another off thing about it.

mike, pittsburgh
May 08, 2008 8:49am

You are obviously a firm believer in Omphalism. It is impossible to argue against that viewpoint because for every valid arguement I make, you can simply say, "God did it."

I do still have a question for you though. Did dinosaurs every exist, or did god just create their bones to make the world look older? I am using dinosaurs as an example but this goes for all animals that exist in the fossil record but have not existed in the past 7000 years.

PS: According to my understanding of abiogenesis, all life did not start with a bacteria. It probably started with an imperfectly self replicating small protein. The first enclosed cells were way down the line.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 08, 2008 9:30am

well i know that it started with chemical reactions, but i knew you knew that and i figured you knew i just summed it up.

http://christiananswers.net/dinosaurs/j-where2.html

This link should help about how dinosaurs fit with the bible. And then you can keep messing around with that site and it will explain it to you.

mike, pittsburgh
May 08, 2008 10:38am

So you believe that dinosaurs coexisted with man. But dinosaur bones are all dated to be millions of years old. No dinosaur bone has ever been found that is a mere 6-7000 years old. If they were only that old, carbon dating would be sufficient to date them, and carbon dating has been empirically proven to be accurate. Also, fossils of animals like rabbits, horses, and mastodons would be found in the same rock layers that dinosaur bones are found. Such fossils have never been found anywhere near dinosaur bones, and rock strata are extremely specific as to the animals found in them. These facts are proven and go directly against dinosaurs existing 7000 years ago.

I am not saying this to be offensive, it is an actual recommendation. Perhaps you should look for answers to your questions on sites that are not inherently Christian or creationist. You will never learn anything in life if you only talk to people who completely agree with you, and read things you completely agree with. I have read the Bible and many papers on Christian beliefs and teachings, how many scientific books or papers have you read on evolution?

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 08, 2008 11:20am

I recently finished my 1st year of Biochemistry at the University of Waterloo and I am very interested in the theory of evolution. I am also a practicing Catholic. I believe that evolution is real and do not go against any scientific findings. I do believe that God did create the universe though. I do not read the bible literally, so I take meaning out of the creation story, NOT LITERAL MEANING though. I understand that it is impossible to prove that God created the universe or that he even exists, but I believe in him for reasons that do not pertain to this argument. I believe God created the first specks of matter which have developed into the universe. I am wondering how atheist believe the universe began.

PS. I have just recently discovered skeptoid and have already listened to all the skeptoid podcasts (it makes work go bye a lot faster).

Michael Dandyk, Cambridge, Ontario, Canada
May 08, 2008 1:56pm

Michael - Atheists are simply people who lack a belief in deities, they are no more likely to be astrophysicists than you or I. I suggest that if you want to know about the standard model of the early universe, you consult an astrophysicist or astrophysical reference material, not merely an atheist.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
May 08, 2008 2:33pm

I do know that science is fact, except for what is just completely out of the wall and theory. And i do know the bible is fact because, as unaccepted as this statement is i can just feel it. So ill look into different types of creationism and sort out which parts are allegorical and literal and see how science and the bible tie together, because both are fact.

mike, pittsburgh
May 09, 2008 8:16am

I like what I am hearing, but I must make one small correction. The word theory is not used lightly in a scientific context. What you are probably thinking of was a hypothesis. In science, theory means the following:

In science a theory is a testable model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise verified through empirical observation.

If that is what you meant already, I apologize. I don't mean to argue semantics but that is a very important distinction to make. Best of luck in your search.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 09, 2008 10:22am

Well steve, first off i would like to thank you for the way this turned out, becuase it was at first argument to you trying to help me look at all the details before making a decision. And i am going to have to say after looking at all the different types of creationism, and how science is retested in differnet ways to say the same thing, that the way to fit both together and not change any of my beliefs, just add something in was gap creationism. Simply because the mechanics of time were inexistent before the fall of man, and we read today how long that period was before man screwed up. Now there is still hope for you steve, i dont want that to sound corny lol. There is no reason for science to disprove the bible and it doesnt in any way. I am still trying to get you to have faith in the bible, lol. The way the world reads today doesnt just say that science is right, it says were running out of time, and we dont know how much time we have anyways, which all points to taking wagner's wager or whatever, which the only religion applicable to this wager is the bible, becuase the rest are just wrong because they contradict themselves, and i hope that that beckons you to see the need for faith.

mike, pittsburgh
May 11, 2008 9:32pm

Mike, I did not lose faith in Christianity and the Bible because I began believing in science. For many years I was able to merge what I knew about science with what I believed about religion. It was not until I began to notice all of the contradictions present in the teachings of Christianity and the teachings that went against what I believe to be right that my faith went away. It was not a choice that I made lightly, and I still think about it almost every day.

We are not running out of time. The end of the world has been predicted by several religious groups countless times, yet here we are. Each false prediction is quickly forgotten when new calls of "The end is near" are heard from a different person or group. These predictions and warnings mean nothing, and I see no reason to fear them.

The last thing I will ask you to do is to take a good hard look at your religion and at those you discount as being wrong. All religions contain contradiction, even Christianity. Don't be so quick to claim that your religion is perfect and others are flawed when you haven't ever read their holy books or listened to their scholars. I hope that you can learn to keep an open mind but a critical eye.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 12, 2008 9:16am

my open mind and critical eye caught that christianity doesnt have any contradictions. would you show me some of these apparent contradictions please? and whats going on in the middle east around god's chosen people suggests the beginning of the end. look at matthew 24.

false prophets (just one in the link)

http://www.houstonpress.com/2006-11-30/news/this-man-thinks-he-s-jesus-h-christ/

rumors of war, iran is rumored to be dealing nukes with russia, who doesn't like the u.s. who is isreal's ally. this little example also works for nation rising against nation, at least tension in between those nations.

earthquakes, there is an earthquake in the news that china was hit by and the recent tsunami by japan was one of the biggest ever, i think it happened in 2003 or 05.

these things are the beginning of the end. Next christians will be persecuted, arrested, or even killed. And the gospel will then be preached everywhere, and then the big man comes in clouds with angels and all his glory :). as for the day and hour, of course we won't know those details. but i think we will be able to guess the decade.

mike, pittsburgh
May 12, 2008 4:28pm

I don't have much time, so I will have to link you to an article. In it are direct contradictions contained within passages of the Bible. These are very specific examples not open to interpretation. When I have more time I will be back to discuss them.

Here is the link:

http://www.wordwiz72.com/bible.html

On a side note, people have been using examples of wars and disasters like the ones you list above for decades if not hundreds of years. The times change, the examples change, the outcome remains the same, no end of the world.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 12, 2008 4:50pm

so far these "contradictions" are explainable even by me, in genesis one it says plants first, birds and fish second, land animals, third, then humans, at least for the order of living things. genesis 2 says that god made the man and put him in the garden and present him all the present existing creatures to find a suitable helper, then created woman. no contradictions there. again most of these are explainable or minor details that do not affect what is taken from the book, like learning how to get saved or how to act in this world where people who call the bible allegoricla literally interpret verses and try to tell you they make sense.

mike, pittsburgh
May 13, 2008 10:57am

How can the infallible word of god have minor errors in details? An inerrant being does not make errors, regardless of the size of the detail. You are contradicting yourself when you try to argue both of these points. I agree with you when you say, "most of these are explainable or minor details that do not affect what is taken from the book." If you are willing to say this, you cannot also say that the Bible is flawless and contains no contradictions.

If there are two versions of a story that can't mesh (what happens to Mary and Joseph after Jesus is born), there is a contradiction. If specific historical facts are given that cannot be true (two kings on the thrown at the same time when they never reigned simultaneously), that is a factual error. These are errors that are in the text and unambiguous.

Christianity claims that the Bible is the word of god and therefore without errors. The above examples show that there are errors and inconsistencies in the Bible. This is a contradiction. There are many more such contradictions in both the Bible and the Christian religion. You cannot claim that the Bible is unerring one moment, then state that there are small errors, and change which you defend depending on the situation. You have to pick a side and stick with it.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 13, 2008 11:08am

also man has passed down the bible, so man could have easily made a misprint. And also the bible was written by different men in different from different points of views. The message is from god, and from the message you hear of from the bible you gain faith (romans 10:17). God is perfect man is not, perfect example we couldnt even write down what he said right. That is my explanation for the minor details. As for the misinterpretations of the small details of the bible, they are explainable and again don't interupt leraning how to live and how to live eternally from the bible.

mike, pittsburgh
May 13, 2008 11:23am

Again you are changing your argument, your entire stance on the validity of the Bible, in order to prove a point. You told me in the other thread that man could not change the words of the Bible. You said that any man who changed the words would have plagues brought upon him as stated in Revelations. Now you say that words are occasionally changed on accident and that the Bible has mistakes.

Look at it this way, two men see a crime and write an eye witness police report. One report says the criminal was tall and had a beard, the other says he was average height and clean shaven. Their point of view doesn't matter here, the two reports have an obvious contradiction and one of them has to be wrong. The same goes with certain stories in the Bible.

Either Mary and Joseph fled immediately to Egypt after Jesus was born or they stayed for Jewish rituals and then fled to Nazareth. Either Herod was on the throne during Jesus' birth or Cyerenius was ruler of Syria. Those things didn't happen at the same time.

In the examples above, there are not different points of view or small details different. There are large factual inconsistencies. In each case, one of the two stories is wrong. There is no other way to interpret this. There are flaws and contradictions in the Bible and flaws and contradictions in the Christian religion. These flaws don't invalidate everything the religion teaches but you can't deny that they are there.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 13, 2008 4:41pm

These flaws don't invalidate everything the religion teaches but you can't deny that they are there.

If the flaws dont invalidate the religion then how did you reason that it was better for you to abandon your salvation?

mike, pittsburgh
May 14, 2008 10:29am

Please don't twist around what I am saying. I said that the flaws don't invalidate everything that the religion teaches, not that the flaws don't invalidate the religion as a whole. Many of the things taught in Christianity parallel normal parts of human morality. Don't rape, kill, or steal, treat others as you wish to be treated, etc. These things are universally true, and if you choose to teach those lessons using an all powerful god as a reason, that is your choice.

Once religion begins adding in other rules, regulations, and beliefs, that do not make sense or have no foundation in anything other than tradition, it strays into an area that I believe to be disadvantageous. Arbitrary rules exist such as no eating meat on Fridays, and having to go to church on Sundays. Things like homosexuality and premarital sex are deemed sins for no reason (at best very shaky and opinionated reasons). Narrow viewpoints are encouraged by teaching that only one way is the right way to worship and all other are wrong/going to hell. These useless additions to valuable lessons are what invalidate religion. The flaws just help to point out that some of these useless additions (infallibility of the Bible) are there.

I have already explained to you that I do not believe that I have abandoned my salvation. I have given myself more time to spend with my family, friends, and loved ones, by ignoring the pointless rituals involved with religion.

Steve Loeffelholz, Iowa City, IA
May 15, 2008 7:11am

When all the christians around you start disappearing you will be saying otherwise. All i know is it is the end of school and im out for summer so im just gonna wrap this up by restating that atheists claim god doesnt exist. And all beliefs are based on observational evidence. So therefore the only scientific way to claim for a fact that god does not exist is to be omniscient, and omnipresent, and omnipotent, aka be god himself, and therefore god would exist. Because atheists cant disprove the existence of god without making the proofless claim, which if they were really as logical as they claim to be they wouldnt, then there should be no such thing as an atheist, the least acceptance of the bible out there should logically be an agnostic, which by the way came from the word ignoramus. Because of logic, if anything you should be a headstrong christian. And one who believes in what the book acutally says. And it says god created heavens and earth, and living creatures and purpose to everything but since everything fell (fall of man) and is in a state of decay, also proven by thermodynamics, christ had to come and save us all by giving his life forus, so we oculd give our lives to him. All the other little details are petty, which means not worthwhile. And by the way the big bang completely contradicts thermodynamics. Thats my point, all the details are what the devil wants us to argue, stick with doing gods will out of love, becuase he loved us, period. peace steve, im out.

mike, pittsburgh
May 15, 2008 6:48pm

Russell's teapot strikes again... :-)

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
May 15, 2008 6:51pm

Well, I don't want to say that since school is out, that I am done fighting for my religion. Because I'm not. I beleive that There is a God. And only one. I believe that those of us who are christians will someday live forever with Jesus. I believe that those who don't know Jesus as thier personal Lord and Savior will suffer in Hell forever. I also believe that it is my calling to tell everyone that I am a christian and proud of it. Which is the main reason I started this whole disscussion. I know it sounds very "creepy" but I love you! If I didn't, I wouldn't keep trying to make you realize the truth. Like Mike has said, there is no way to prove there is a God, or there is not a God. So then you become an agnostic who has no faith in anyone. And to have no faith in any one is impossible. I promise it is. You haven't even realized all the things God has done for you. You may never be a christian, and I will never know if you decide to or not. These rules that you don't like are there for a reason. Sexuality, sexual relations, and those other sins that you claim are stupid are there for a very good reason. And no matter what you say, Being gay is a sin. Having sex before marriage. It's a sin. As is sinning against the ten commandments. I think you just don't like abiding by those rules, because you think they are stupid, and refuse to listen. You think life will be easier just not having a relgion. I don't know maybe not. I will continue to pray for you.In the mean time..peace

STephanie, Wichita
May 16, 2008 8:45am

Question:"What do you want?"

Neo:"Peace."

I for one found that a major anti-climax to The Matrix (WB). Neo, my hero, was not going to kick ass any more and simply give up.

To me that is synonymous with the Faither attitude.

Shall I tell you how brave evolution has made me?

Brave enough to fight your creator?

I don't have to win... but "that is irrelevant."

Is an omnipotent THING brave when IT fights me? I think not.

I think such a being would be below my contempt!

In fact I can't see how evolution could produce such a fallible THING.

But of course it has... evolution has produced the god hypothesis in your biological mind to simply "blind you from the truth" {Morpheus}...

Neo:"What truth?"

Neil:"Your faith is true, but the substance, its foundations and 'architecture' is a simulacra!"

Simulacra {see the book cover in The Matrix (WB)}...it means a 'fake' or a poor representation of the real world!

That's what religious life is... a Simulacra.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 20, 2008 4:59am

Huh? Just by using good analogies doesn't make you any smarter than me. As a matter of fact, I am so much smarter than you. I know things you don't!

Good luck with that...

stephanie, kansas
May 24, 2008 8:11am

Well, if I were trying to be smart, and I were to design a Universe with a planet which had life on it, I don't think I'd put life forms on it that completely depended upon one source of food for survival, or else they become extinct.

Also I don't think a smart guy would design animals whose young are born with horrific diseases, such that they live only a few hours (or days/weeks) at best, causing pain and anguish for all involved.

A lesson! I hear you cry.

Well that would be like giving my little girl a lesson about not touching a hot-plate, by firstly holding her hand on the red-hot hot-plate until she screams with agony.

Maybe I would chose to tell her to hold her hand 'near' and nearer to it so she could 'see' for herself. I would not, however, actually wish to inflict the pain on her.

So, if a god 'has' designed horribly deformed babies to 'show us the way', I think IT lacks imagination!

No. In fact I think Faithers lack the imagination; imagination required to explain the "real world" in any adequate sense. At all.

A young lad I was tutoring (age 16) told me, in answer to my question of the purpose of life, that when a baby dies (or anyone else) they do so because "they have fulfilled their destiny."

He was lost for words when I pointed out that a 2 month (or less) baby, born with no brain, so that the back of their head was sunken and could not live without the aid of science, had no time to achieve a destiny of any kind.

It's sad you believe

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 25, 2008 5:02am

Do you not notice in Myth #2 your description of Intelligent Design?

drew, USA
May 25, 2008 11:53am

Yeah! That's why it's called "MYTH"#2!

From the works of Darwin Himself-p419-"It is well known that several animals...which inhabit caves of Styria and Kentucky, are blind. In some crabs the foot stalk for the eye remains, but the eye is gone; the stand for telescope is there, but the telescope with its glasses has been lost! As it is difficult to imagine that eyes, though useless, could be injurious to animals living in complete darkness, I attribute their loss wholly to disuse."

Well, so much for the grand design and the grand architect of that design!

So we are expected to believe that an all powerful god would design crabs that live in complete darkness, in underground caves, with heads which have eye stalks but carry no eyes?!

Now there's a puzzle!

If ANY Faither is up to the job... please explain why IT would do this. Waiting...

Darwin goes further...

"In one 'blind' animal...a cave rat... the eyes are of immense size... so natural selection has struggled with the loss of light and to has increased the eye size (before finally giving up & going blind)..."

So here again we have a god who designs a cave rat, deep underground, with HUGE eyes, that is blind?!

I think it is Faithers who are blind to the facts around them. Open your eyes to the truth of Evolution.

Darwin goes on-"It would be most difficult to give any rational explanation of the affinities of the blind cave-animals...on the view of independent creation!"

Any Faithers?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
June 05, 2008 3:11am

yep, natural selection isnt evolution, and natural selection happened with those animals, next neil. i got a question for you, any organism that would connect any two species and confirm evolution. seems like theirs a fault in ur logic if u cant give one of those, wait you cant because theirs no proof to evolution, all claims without evidence that in no way agree with known scientific facts. And if u want to go on the logical side of it thats why im a christian, completely logical, i go to someone who knows the facts because he made them!

mike, pittsburgh
July 23, 2008 8:17pm

Let's use logic, logically! I have often heard atheists use the argument that “Because one cannot prove that there is a God, He doesn’t exist!” I found an interesting quote while looking at the evidence of whether or not the “protons” actually exist, though never observed. The article is found on the National Science Teachers Association website, under the “Elementary Science Classroom” section. Here, in part, is the answer posted to the question “How Do We Know Protons, Electrons, and Quarks really Exist?” “….Are electrons real? Are atoms even real? Fortunately for us, it doesn’t matter whether or not these things are real. If you ask this question of a room full of scientists, you will find some who say these models are so well supported by evidence that they are, in fact, real. You will also find some who will say that these models are just constructs that have been invented by people. All of those scientists, however, make use of the models. Your philosophy regarding the reality of models doesn’t affect your ability to use the models to guide your scientific investigations. If you believe these models represent reality, great. If you don’t believe these models represent reality, also great. You can use the models effectively no matter what you believe….” So, using this “scientific reason”, I have just proven that God exists! Case closed!!!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
July 26, 2008 7:42am

Mills,

Are you suggesting that God's existence is testable and supported by evidence, as scientific theories are?

Mike,

You're right that the theory of evolution predicts transitional fossils. I don't know what planet you're from, but Earth is full of them. For example, here's a transition between fish and amphibians.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Its location was correctly predicted by the theory of evolution.
More examples here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Creationism says that in the beginning, all species lived at the same time, so why don't you show fossil evidence of that.

Max, Boston, MA
July 26, 2008 2:47pm

im from earth lol, and in no way can you prove that that was a transitional form and that the little chart on the wikipedia page is in any way accurate. With no proof it's not science, making transitional forms nonscientifical, same thing with the rest of the theory of evolution. as for evidence of man and dinosaurs walking together,

http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

and trying to say that i can't prove this to be true, it's got observational proof, making it scientific evidence of man and dinosaur walking together.

And just for a kicker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

mike, pittsburgh
July 28, 2008 9:10pm

One of the major problems I have with religion, or at least the monotheistic religions, is their insistance that 'their' book is the word of God and therefore indisputable. This forces believers into trying to defend positions lioke creationismthat are patently indefensible; and polarises opinions so far that rationalists, in trying to restore some sort of balance, tend to miss out on the important spiritual aspects of their lives. At the same time, belivers are compelled to stop the process of rational thinking - this is called 'Faith'. The Universe, life and evolution are mind-blowingly wonderous things - even as a non-believer they fill me with awe whenever I stop to think about them. Why should religion insist that a few words in a book, be it 4,000, 2,000 or 1400 years old, which was attempting to explain this awe in language appropriate to the time and level of knowledge about the world, be the absolute truth? Accept that Genesis (or your chosen creation mtyh) is simply an analogy and the conflict vanishes. IF there is an intellegent Creator, I am sure S/he is far, far above all the petty squabbling about who's imaginary friend is biggest. The true wonder of the Universe is out there for anyone to see - not buried in books of ancient fairy tales. Looking for God here is like trying to sleep - it fails in the very attempt.

Mike, Bedford UK
August 02, 2008 3:37am

mike from pittsburgh,

The Flinstones is not a documentary. Dinosaurs walking with humans, that's got to rank up there with flat earth.

But seriously, your Bible website quotes Dawkins, "Creationists are so keen on the fake human footprints, which were carved during the Depression to fool tourists, in the dinosaur beds of Texas."

Skeptoid #65 talks about transitional fossils, for example the evolution of the modern horse Miohippus from its predecessor Mesohippus.

And just for a kicker

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polystrate_fossil

"According to scientists, polystrate fossils are just fossils which were buried in a relatively short time span either by one large depositional event or by several smaller ones."

It even gives examples of the same processes occuring today:
"The repeated deposition of sediments by volcanic lahars and sediment filled rivers not only created innumerable polystrate trees, but also 'polystrate' telephone poles, churches, and houses, over a period a few years."

As Skeptoid #82 says, "[Modern Young Earthers] honestly believe in alternate versions of virtually every science known, throwing away every shred of modern science that doesn't point to the age of the Earth as 6,000 years."

Max, Boston, MA
August 02, 2008 3:36pm

Mike (pittsburgh)

Thank you for directing our attention to the posts that you referenced.

The following sites have a bit of information that may shed some light on the questions of human/dinasaur coexistence and polystrate fossils for you. I hope that you find the reading interesting.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/mantrack.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC331.html
regards,
Craig

Craig, Antioch, California
August 02, 2008 3:52pm

Mike-from the Pitts.

Anyone reading your immature drivel will judge for themselves with regards to your "rationale".

As I wrote before {and nothing you have written in anyway changes that}...

Darwin goes on-"It would be most difficult to give any #rational explanation# of the affinities of the blind cave-animals...on the view of independent creation!"

In fact, if any of those Faithers out there can come up with one {just one} example of a creature that is quite obviously 'created' differently to all others, I'd be pleased to scrutinize it.

Or haven't you noticed that every mammal has 2 arms/2 legs or 4 limbs if you prefer!

2 eyes, 1 nose, 2 ears, one spine, head, heart, liver... The list goes on.

Name an animal that doesn't fit the idea of descent from a single source.

Now, as for a design?

Why is it that the THING you say created us all makes us look so much like a monkey or an ape? {Yes I know, to you they're the same. But not to science!}

To me that hints at a huge lack of imagination on the THING's part, wouldn't you say so.

I mean look at the 'Alien'. What an awesome 'design'. Some person thought that one up to do battle with Sigourney, and it shows 100x the imagination of the THING you believe 'designed' all us mammals to look nearly the same.

I suggest you educate yourself by reading up on the anatomy of mammals, start with the arm and hand, and see how all the bones are in the same place, there's the same number of them, too!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 07, 2008 3:59am

Hey Neil, being rational, what was the forerunner of the Platypus and is it's descent from a single source? It always amazes me that evolutionists cannot escape the fact of creation in everyday conversation. When you speak of the "Alien" that Sigourney Weaver battled, and that you so gloriously praise as a masterpiece of "design", you are fully aware that it was "created" by an intelligent mind and not by chance and random events.
And why not differentiate between 2 legged and 4 legged animals? Do the ones with 4 legs still have two arms? Are all the bones in the two arms actually the same as the ones in the two legs that you say are all the same? Perhaps the similarities in humans and apes serve the very purpose that we have witnessed throughout human nature. Men, without a soul that is attuned to God, are just another specie of animal! Just watch the daily news and you will see it to be so.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 09, 2008 1:57pm

Mike, did you read the Polystrate fossil article that you linked to? Geologists have a perfectly rational and logical explanation for their existence. The human tracks with dinosaur tracks argument is laughable. The majority of even creationists now agree that the Paluxy tracks are not good evidence for creationism. Perhaps you should check into your sources a bit more before using them.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm

In order to deny the existence of transitional forms, you need to be willfully ignorant. The scientific community has found and documented innumerable transitional fossils, species, and even fossil progressions that clearly show evolution in progress. The following are links to a short video about transitional fossils and a paper about a particularly interesting transitional fossil discovery.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q9a-lFn4hqY

The evidence in favor of evolution does not only exist in the fossil record, it exists in almost every known biological science. Every time technology has advanced and opened a new realm of study to us, that new study has fit perfectly into the theory of evolution. Genetics and biochemistry are both relatively new sciences that both confirm and bolster evolution and allow us to understand it even more thoroughly.

Before you call something unprovable and unscientific, you should take a close look at your own beliefs. The only evidence that supports creationism is the Bible, and that not a scientific nor reliable text.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 09, 2008 2:20pm

Steve, you used far too many words in the preceding post when you declared evidence in favor of Darwinian evolution. It should have read, "The evidence in favor of evolution does not really exist." What you call evidence is actually "interpretation" of the factual evidence. If it were actual scientifically endorsed evidence, there would not be so many quotes by opposing evolutionists arguing against the "evidence" that you declare to be true. Look at all the evidence!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 10, 2008 10:11pm

I have looked at piles of evidence and have yet to scratch the surface of evolution. I wonder how much actual evidence you look at. Please don't tell me that you are guilty of getting all of your evolution information from creationist/fundamental Christian websites.

Every quote I have ever been shown where a notable evolution supporter casts doubt on the theory of evolution has fallen well short of impressive. In fact, they fall into three main categories. First, and easiest, are complete fabrications. Second are quotes taken out of context to warp their meaning. Last are quotes where someone disagrees with a specific proposed mechanism of evolution, but not the process itself. I have yet to see a quote that doesn't fit into one of these categories.

I also ask two questions two YECs that are rarely answered in a straightforward manner, yet I will ask them again. What evidence would you require in order to be convinced that evolution is a solid scientific theory? What current evidence do you have that convinces you that the Christian creation story (and that means to the exclusion of other creation stories) is scientifically correct?

I would be more than willing to admit that I was wrong about evolution if I were given certain pieces of evidence. Several facts and findings could destroy the theory of evolution completely. I would be willing to bet that there is nothing that would shake your faith in the creation story.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 11, 2008 2:29am

Here's the evidence that I would require to believe the Darwinian evolutionary theory:First, In order for your theory of millions and millions of years of evolution to be true, the earth should be hundreds of feet deep with true transitional forms of fossils, not a few selected examples that scientists cannot even agree to be true transitional forms. Most of the so-called-transitional forms have long been proven fallacious, many of them created by evolutionists! Secondly, as to "Creation" being scientifically valid, creation itself is all the evidence that I need. Is there much dispute in science as to whether or not everything that exists came from absolutely nothing. And If it had a beginning, what was the cause? And why is the entire universe organized? What keeps everything in its course, so much so that we can compute where most planets and stars will be at given times and seasons? Not only is our universe organized, but as yet, science has determined that all of them are organized. Remember, science means knowledge, not philosophy or opinion. Look at what science has actually shown to be true. You do not have to know all things, just that which is clearly evident. "Life on earth appears to be designed", and that according to Richard Dawkins!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 11, 2008 10:12am

Mills,

Which of these transitional fossils has been proven fallacious or is disputed by scientists?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

According to "Creation", did humans live at the same time as dinosaurs?

Thanks.

Max, Boston, MA
August 11, 2008 11:24am

Max, Who has actually determined any of these to be transitional, and not merely fully formed species of animals? Evolutionists? Honestly investigate the actual fossils evidence that is discovered and then look at the opinions of the evolutionists as to what the creature supposedly looked like. "Java Man" was found to be created from a single pig tooth. "Haeckel's embryos" were drawings and were not the actual embryos at the prescribed points of development. "Lucy" was actually proven to be a Chimpanzee. World famous authority on birds from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and also an avid evolutionist, Dr. Alan Feduccia, said that:
“Paleontologists have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it’s not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of
‘paleobabble’ is going to
change that.” Which scientist do we believe? This is just to cite a few! Did man and dinosaur live together? Old earthers believe not, and young earthers believe that they did. According to scripture, they were created on the same day. I, as a young earther, believe that they co-habitated.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 11, 2008 10:54pm

Mills,

Let me quote Skeptoid #82 again. "[Modern Young Earthers] honestly believe in alternate versions of virtually every science known, throwing away every shred of modern science that doesn't point to the age of the Earth as 6,000 years."

Do you honestly believe that young earth creationism has more scientific evidence than evolution? Let's just compare all the evidence for and against the coexistence of dinosaurs, humans, and all the other known species.

Max, Boston, MA
August 12, 2008 1:11am

Millis,

So does that mean that Velociraptor meat is kosher? I mean, they aren't mentioned as being "forbidden", but I'm just not sure. I'll have to ask my minister about that RaptorJerky I keep hearing about...

On the serious side, "Transitional Forms" as you/they call them, ARE individual species in most cases. The definition of a species is (generally) that it is a distinct population mating only with others of its kind. That's why you can have so many kinds of raptors (birds of prey this time: peregrine falcons, red-tailed hawks, etc.) with many similarities, but they only mate with others of THEIR species; this is seen in all distinct species.

Furthermore, the "transitional forms" argument ignores a major factor in speciation/evolution: environmental factors. Look at Darwin's finches (for a textbook example): you have three separate species of bird (which no sane person can disagree with) inhabiting extremely specialized niches: species A has a beak specially adapted to eat ground nuts. B has a beak specially adapted to eat nuts with very thick shells, and C eats hanging nuts [I'm not 100% on the actual birds, but A,B,C DO have a real-life analog, look up darwin's finches].
Now what you see is that the source of food for these birds is particular to the galapagos; it is found nowhere else in the world. However, according to hard science, the galapagos are young volcanic islands. Now, these finches weren't anywhere before the islands rose, how did they get there? contd.

Andy, Los Angeles, CA
August 12, 2008 12:00pm

Andy, please explain how you know that "these finches weren't anywhere before the islands rose"? Or did they arise out the proverbial “primordial soup” of evolutionary La-La Land? It is common knowledge that Darwinian evolutionists have high jacked the usage of the term "evolution". Most creationists believe in the actual definition of the word, as it simply means change. Show me that the finches used to be iguanas and I will agree with your definition of evolution. Darwin's finches were not as important to Darwin as evolutionists claim; they are simply an example of micro-evolution, the genetic variation designed into creation. In the textbook "Advanced Biology", it documented the studies of two scientists, how that from 1977 to 1982 there was drought on one of the major islands. Due to natural selection the average finch beak size became larger. In 1982 the drought stopped and thereafter, they observed selection for birds with small beaks. Is this anti-evolution? They discovered that due to natural selection the average finch beak size vacillated, due to natural selection. During the drought, the small beaked birds died out; and during normal times, the small beaked birds flourished! But lo and behold, “Finches are still finches”! Their study gave no evidence for macro-evolution, and does not prove that natural selection and random mutation could produce life on earth as we know it from simple single-celled ancestors, as your comrades try to propose.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 13, 2008 9:10am

Mills:"Hey Neil, being rational, what was the forerunner of the Platypus and is it's descent from a single source?"

'The' forerunner was a mammal, which is what the Platypus is. Don't tell me you think it's a bird's beak! Or that those eggs are reptilian?

Here's a site I think you'll enjoy.

http://www.nwcreation.net/platypus.html

But of course, you would! What do you make of this, from that site:"This distribution pattern must be explained through natural affects upon these animals following their release from the ark."

The Faithers on this site are talking about how the Platypus {et al} are only found in Australia! There are numerous examples of plants & animals that are only found in certain parts of the world, and nowhere else.

Strange, isn't it, how these animals & plants can get from the ark, to these isolated points, and also be individualistic in their very nature.

I suppose the ark was a bit like a mini bus, dropping peoples and animals off on a Saturday night, at their chosen drop-offs!

You're having a laugh.

Only a theory whereby each life form changes gradually into another can explain these anomalies. Oh yes, yes. A god could put them anywhere! Then we must ask ... why? Or why not? Here or there?

That Faither explanation is weak and hollow.

I'd love to see the Faither "intermediates" between egg and placental mammals!

I suppose it would have an umbilical chord connected to the shell!!!!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 13, 2008 5:38pm

Neil, your theory lacks a bit of logic. Use your head man! What if there was only one land mass after the flood and it was divided into several continents after the animals were dispersed? Would certain animals become landlocked to their specific continent? Logic, my boy!!!! According to your fairy tale, if the Platypus' forerunner was a mammal, how does a mammal grow a duck bill and lay eggs? Do you really believe such a thing? You say: "I'd love to see the Faither "intermediates" between egg and placental mammals!" I would love to see the evolutionists' proof of these intermediates! After all, evolution is your fable, not mine.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 13, 2008 7:02pm

Yes, Neil, use your head! Logic, my boy! Everything was poofed into existence magically by an invisible, incompetent, sick, flying sorcerer who demands that you worship him. Logic!

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 13, 2008 8:38pm

I have come to expect just such a response when evolutionists are forced to face the fallacious improbability of their beloved fables. How about actually addressing the issue at hand, Eric?
Show us how that your ideology is much more probable and logical. Let's review your theory: 1)Everything that is came from nothing. 2)Life as we now know it sprang from an unguided, unorganized, purposeless non-existence, into what we now witness to be very, very complex organisms. 3)The very first lifeforms organized themselves and somehow guided their own evolutionary developments, while somehow reproducing themselves. 4)Against all odds, these early lifeforms flourished, even to the extent of self gratification through successive self induced mutations, yet surviving to further reproduce with lifeforms at various and sundry stages of their own evolution and without detriment to their existence. (This by the way is not witnessed in modern science.) 5)Though, undoubtedly sequencing through billions and billions of years of transitional modes through evolution, when asked to give examples of transitional fossils, evolutionists offer a mere handful of so called examples, all the while ignoring the debate, even among evolutionary scientists, as to the reality of what is or is not a transitional form. Most are simply the results of the whims and "artistic freedoms" of scientists with an evolutionary bent toward Darwinian theory, while constructing an entire creature from minimal evidence.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 13, 2008 9:48pm

I don't debate the issues because there's no point. Young Earthers have no interest in learning the science, their only interest is in inventing and promoting whatever anti-science they feel supports the Bible. There's no such thing as a productive conversation with such a person.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 13, 2008 10:55pm

The sad fact is that I don't believe that there is such a thing as actually having a "productive conversation" with a Darwinist. Most believe themselves to be of an elitist bent and highly intelligent. Riichard Dawkins uses the term "brights" for atheist/evolutionists, and we, as Creationists, are the "dims". Like yourself, they absolutely refuse to admit that a high degree of faith must be accepted in order to believe in evolutionary progression, as there is no solid evidence to its support. When "faithers" present an argument that you would rather not confront, the almighty "anti-science" card is thrown onto the table and then you fold. I simply gave you the opportunity to address several problems in your theory and you simply cannot defend them. Neil poised an assumed problem in the creation debate and I provided an answer as an address. I am still waiting for responses to the several queries in the previous few posts, but I am not holding my breath!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 14, 2008 8:14am

Mills, a few responses up I posted a link to a video where Ken Miller explains transitional fossils and points out a fantastic example. Please watch the video as it explains transitional fossils with pictures better than I can in 1500 characters.

If I am understanding you right, you are claiming that the Earth had one super-continent less than 6000 years ago. Taking that statement and comparing it to what we know today makes it sound ridiculous. We can actually measure continental drift and the fast ones move at a rate of about 10cm/year. Given your age of the Earth, Europe and the US should be about 60m apart. Furthermore, we know that the Mayan Empire (~2000BCE)was already vastly separated from the European empires. That gives less than a 2000 year window for New York to be separated from Portugal by around 3400 miles, or about 1.7miles/year drift. Does it seem logical that the tectonic plates would move that fast for that long and then just slow down?

Your description of the platypus shows that you are either ignoring information or that you have not done your homework. The platypus does not have a duck bill. A duck bill is hard and made of keratin. A platypus bill is soft and filled with sensory receptors (it functions as a sensory organ especially when the animal is under water). Also, the platypus creates an egg in its uterus, which birds and reptiles don't have. The below link is a brief article on platypus evolution.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/platypus.htm

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 14, 2008 10:20am

Steven, In the book of Genesis we are given the lineages of Shem, one of Noah's sons. In that lineage we are given the following statement: "Two sons were born to Eber: One was
named Peleg because in his days the earth was divided." Genesis 10:25 This was around the time of the confusion of languages at the Tower of Babel. If I believe this event to be an act of God, time is not a factor as to whether or not it must be accomplished in a short or long period of time. If I believe that all of creation was accomplished in 6 literal days, time is of no consequence thereafter. And Ken Miller does not display pictures, he displays drawings! Search scientific websites and look at the actual fossils that have been unearthed. They usually look nothing like the finished drawing. The "walking whale" fossil that Miller has glorified as a transitional example is missing most of the major components that he uses to argue his case. As for the Platypus, you generously ignored my argument as to what ancestor of the animal it inherited its bill and egg laying abilities from. What difference does it make to this argument as to where the egg begins; it is an egg. And not all duck bills are hard as you insist. Many duck bills are hard only at the tips and they are filled with nerve endings for sensing food. Mature adults also have heavy keratin pads in the bill for crushing their food. But I think you get the point.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 14, 2008 1:27pm

Yes Mills, your point is clear. You consider ancient writing to be more valid evidence than anything modern science uncovers. This is why I think Steve is wasting his breath.

You base your science on your religion, rather than on rationality. If you're a truly faithful man you'll proudly admit that, instead of trying to weasel out of it.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 14, 2008 1:34pm

Eric, Your psychic abilities are impressive as you attempt to speak for Steve and myself, but I am a grown man and handle my own affairs quite adequatly. I use true science to affirm my beliefs, not the opposite. The "ancient writing" that consider outmoded absolutely condones all true science and if you would research it, you may find it amazingly accurate. Rationality tells me that when I observe complex organisms and see design in nature, I find it extremely improbable that dumb chance and unguided happen-stance could be the driving force of all of what we witness in creation. If that is irrational, so be it!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 14, 2008 2:44pm

I wouldn't call that irrationality unless it's willful. If you understand science and then say "But that doesn't agree with some of the ancient creation myths, so science must be wrong", yes, that's irrationality.

In many cases it's just ignorance of science, which is true of most people, and so they tend to default to what they trust - the Bible. This is just a failing of the education system, I would not call it irrationality.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 14, 2008 2:49pm

Sure, Mills, you came to the conclusion that the universe is 6000 years old and humans coexisted with dinosaurs, by following the scientific evidence to the most plausible explanation, not because the Bible said so.

Max, Boston, MA
August 14, 2008 4:57pm

Gentlemen, I stand corrected, understanding that you probably have personally hypothesized, tested, and reproduced examples of Darwinian evolution, and having witnessed such, are dually convinced of its reality. Conversely, I have only studied the arguments for and against macro-evolution, taking into account the personal statements of lifelong evolutionists as to the actual evidence for the theory. Time does not permit quoting the hundreds of evolutionists that have doubted it, including Darwin, who was a theologian, by the way, and not a scientist. I am positive that if he could see what the modern fossil record actually reveals, he would refuse his own theory. David Pilbeam, from the Boston Natural History Museum, in the June 1978 issue of "Human Nature magazine, wrote an article entitled, ‘Rearranging Our Family Tree’. He knew that far too many of the statements made in the field of human origins had very little to do with the real data and a great deal to do with unstated assumptions. He was convinced that this was true not only of his field but, "Much of what is said in other areas, I think, is also highly speculative". See, I can agree with evolutionist's views!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 14, 2008 6:17pm

Still waiting for the evidence of all species existing at the same time 6000 years ago.

How about a list of papers that accept young earth creationism or reject the entire theory of evolution, published in reputable peer-reviewed natural science journals. Bonus points for flat Earth.

Max, Boston, MA
August 14, 2008 7:54pm

Mills, you are in definite need of reeducation about both Darwin and evolution! Your posting is rife with errors. Yes, Darwin was training to be a minister, but became a biologist. It is a straw man argument anyways, even if he was a minister, he still came up with the theory of natural selection. As for evolution in action right now? Just look at how a virus mutates, or how bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or read about the peppered moths, or read about guppies. There are MANY documented cases for evolution. As for the doubting of evolutionists, they are doubting the method of natural selection, not the process. What you define as theory, scientists call a hypothesis. Evolution is NOT a hypothesis. It is a theory just as gravity is or that the earth goes around the sun. As for the fossil record, you have got to be mad if you think it does not support evolution. If there are gaps, well, pardon them for not uncovering all the 197060800 square miles of earth, most which is under water. Oh, and nice quote from 1978. What's great about science is that it keeps moving forward and gathering information. Thankfully, they have learned a hell of lot in 30 years. Of course a lot of science is speculation, that's how questions are asked. But, answers are not widely accepted without rigorous testing. They don't just say, "Oh, we don't know that, God must have done it." If they did this, then you can stop typing on this blog as the computer would not have been invented.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 14, 2008 8:15pm

Hmmm. A million junkyards with a million workers. So the million junkyards represent a living organism and the welders are....um… intervening.

Mutations that result in the evolution of the millions of versions of optical devices that can’t be duplicated by today’s sharpest minds or industrialist takes some kind of advanced thought to be realized. If your confused I’m speaking of the eye.

A narrator of a popular nature program once informed my children and I that the flower had a strategy, one where it would produce a color odor combination that would make it irresistible to a certain type of bee.

A virus mutates or becomes resistant. So the virus became a …..Salamander. It grew appendages that enabled it to become a flying virus, or it became a bacteria. No, it is still a virus.

Billions of years of evolution well not exactly, look at the current evolution timeline there were no mammals and x million years later there are. There are little mice and horses, dogs and cats, the list goes on. In that time organisms did a lot of changing. They did not become more resistant to a more harsh environment they changed……almost everything about themselves. The temperature regulatory systems, digestive tracts scales turned to hair or feathers claws to hooves the list goes on.

I believe there was evolution, but like a mechanic takes a heap and creates a fine street rod, it took some kind of intelligence to direct the changes in the right path. Evolution was anything but random regardless of whom you believe was at the helm.

Brian B., Friendswood, TX
August 14, 2008 9:24pm

Correctly interpreting “evolution” as merely change, characteristic changes due to natural selection are not equivalent to mutations. Mutations are almost always destructive to the species. When a baby is born with a mutation, is it ever a positive change? In the case of viral strains, mutation never changes the species, only the respective strand. A virus remains a virus! You need to take a fresh look at the opinions of the results in studying the peppered moths. Because a predator can find a white moth on soot covered tree easier than a dark one and then the white population goes down in comparison to the dark population; that is not evolution! When the pollution in Britain was addressed, the populations stabilized. The peppered moths are still peppered moths. Improved conditions may bring out better characteristics, but it does not show evolution. As stated, mutations are commonly known to be detrimental; especially in the animal world. Show me proof of new mutating races of people that should be evolving to make us better? Selective breeding any given species to force characteristic changes does not provide evidence for evolution. A fruit fly will always be a fruit fly. Researchers forcing selective breeding by intelligence is far from proof that the natural world exists due to unguided, dumb chance. You are correct though, when you state that Darwinian evolution is not an hypothesis. A hypothesis is “an educated guess”. In rethinking the argument, I stand corrected!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 14, 2008 9:56pm

Mills,

Whenever you stand corrected, you just pile on more BS from the Discovery Institute. You can't stay focused, can you. Where are the 6000-year-old dinosaur fossils?

Max, Boston, MA
August 15, 2008 8:40am

Max, All dinosaur fossils are 6-10000 years old or younger. Is that straight forward enough for you?

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 15, 2008 10:30am

Mills, do paleontologists agree that all dinosaur fossils are 6-10000 years old or younger? Have reputable natural science journals published these findings? Where's the beef?

Max, Boston, MA
August 15, 2008 11:52am

I am not surprised with what I am seeing here as I guess you are not scientists. For one, micro/macro evolution are not true different things. Macro is normally considered the compounding of micro events, usually over time. You would not expect a virus to turn into a bat while we watch. The other examples I sited are most definitely examples of evolution and if you don't see this, then you need to learn more about evolution. But, please do not study only from pro-god sites! Hit up a text book or a science journal. I don't go to I-hate-god sites to get my info, I try to go to the source or somewhere that has no hidden agenda (yes, hard to find, true). Mutations, in the gene world, are not commonly detrimental. In fact, mostly they are benign. The process of gene duplication is full of errors. Some may be bad, in which future generations die off, some may be beneficial creating a higher fitness for the next generation. Some "bad" mutations are beneficial in other environments ex. sickle cell anemia (bad) helps prevent malaria (good). Don't leave it up to non-scientists to teach you these things. If I want to learn to cook, I don't ask a plumber. I urge you, as intelligent people, don't just read things that support your argument, you must read the other side. By the way, why are you ignoring all the fossil evidence that supports evolution? You can't find a gap and say "Aha! It's not here. Therefore all the other evidence must be false." That's ridiculous!

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 15, 2008 11:59am

"When a baby is born with a mutation,is it ever a positive change?"

Occasionally a person is born with a mutation in the CD-4 gene(the gene that the HIV virus attaches to on the cell). The mutation allows the protein to function normally but HIV no longer recognizes the cells and the person is immune to HIV.

Gene duplication creates a portion of DNA that codes for a functioning protein but is no longer necessary for survival. This portion can now freely mutate to create new proteins(look into the evolution of hemoglobins/myoglobin).

"Mutations are almost always destructive to the species."

Exactly! Though most mutations are destructive,those that are not are sometimes beneficial. It is these mutations that allow a species to change over time.You are asking to see monstrous changes in minuscule amounts of time. Evolution does not happen over night. Small changes add up over thousands of years until the animal is clearly distinct from its ancestor. Amphibians didn't one day give birth to lizards,slow changes eventually made them more suited for terrestrial life.

"All dinosaur fossils are 6-10000 years old or younger"

Do you have an example of a bone that has been verified to be in that age range?In order to make a statement like that,you have to be completely ignorant of radiometric dating,or you have to honestly believe that every scientist in that field knows less than you do.

This link explains radiometric in simple terms.

http://www.asa3.org/ASA/RESOURCES/WIENS.html

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 15, 2008 12:47pm

Steve,

Even if you find a living dinosaur, it would just be a living fossil like paddlefish, whose oldest fossils are older than dinosaurs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Living_fossils

Mills says that ALL dinosaur fossils are less than 10000 years old, so it's not a matter of finding a young bone, it's a matter of discarding physics and geology.

Max, Boston, MA
August 15, 2008 1:47pm

"Mutations are almost always destructive to the species."

No! Read up on mutations. Here is a great, user-friendly site:

http://www.cod.edu/PEOPLE/FACULTY/FANCHER/Mutation.htm

Like I said earlier, many, probably most, don't have any effect at all. Whether it is destructive, or beneficial, depends on so many variables.

A mutation does not maketh a mutant. That would be a tetratogen.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 15, 2008 3:09pm

My apologies Elaine (kind of). I was referring to mutations that cause a noticeable change in the organism. It is true that many mutations cause no change to the protein (due to multiple codons coding for the same amino acid). I would still be willing to argue that the majority of mutations that do actually change the protein are not beneficial to the species. I partially conceded this point because of the 1500 character limit and because Mills' understanding of genetics seems to be more suited for big picture analysis and not for specific nuances and details.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 15, 2008 10:43pm

Sorry to stay away so long kiddies. I took your advice visited some of the websites that you added to your posts. Very educational! May I share? As for your selected sites, Elaine, in an article linked from the “Evidence for Evolution Page” I noticed a rather interesting pattern throughout the opinions of your Darwinian darlings studying mutations. I could not get over the number of times the phrase “improved fitness in a particular environment” or some similar wording was used throughout these findings. Guess what! Every one of theses experiments were done in a controlled environment and governed by evolution supporting scientists!!!! This statement: “The easiest way to demonstrate this is from experiments based upon lines of organisms developed from clones (genetically identical by definition) of a single individual”, affirmed the very basis of one of my arguments in favor of the bias’ used by evolution supporting scientists. Are clones common in nature? Do you actually believe that these organisms would survive very long outside of the laboratory? This is very deceiving “science” to say the least! Elaine, even Steve does not agree with you. He posted that “Though most mutations are destructive, those that are not are sometimes beneficial. It is these mutations that allow a species to change over time.” But “change” is not automatically your definition of “evolution”. Most of the time, this change is actually a loss of genetic information. Will cont. after next post.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 15, 2008 11:09pm

Mills is right, guys. All sciences must be wrong. Since he's discovered that genetics is wrong, then organic chemistry has to be wrong. And if chemistry is wrong, so is mathematics. Thankfully the TRUE math is provided in the Bible too - I believe a circle's circumference is thrice its diameter.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 15, 2008 11:17pm

Elaine, just for the record, Mutant: 1. undergoing or resulting from mutation. 2.a new type of organism produced as the result of mutation, whereas Teratology generally refers to disfiguring birth defects or malformations, not necessarily of genetic origin. So a mutation doth indeed maketh a mutant! Eric, it’s not the science that I resist, but the atheistic scientists with a Darwinian bent. There you go again, attempting to kidnap the term, refusing to admit that not all scientists search for the truth, while working to dispel truth for their own philosophical agendas. As for the fossil dilemma, while Stephen Gould insisted that evolution was a fact of life, he understood and admitted to the lack of intermediate species in the fossil record. In response, he then proposed his own model of “punctuated equilibrium” to cope with the still missing, missing links. Then we find Richard Dawkins blowing Gould out of the water, insisting that without gradual change, macroevolution cannot occur! Are they both correct, or, who is wrong? Or do you insist that they are not that far apart in their doctrines and you accept both opinions? Mad Max, This statement of yours confuses me: “Even if you find a living dinosaur, it would just be a living fossil like paddlefish, whose oldest fossils are older than dinosaurs.” Are you sure that this statement is acceptable to your comrades, seeing that in this one sentence, you have done more for my side of the argument than I could ever hope to do?

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 16, 2008 12:00am

Mills, fine. It is true that once part of the gene is changed, technically it is a mutant. However, most of the time proteins are not affected by mutations and there is no change in phenotype, just genotype. When proteins are changed, then possibly they do more harm then good (I don't know the stats).

As for the Gould/Dawkins argument, once again, neither doubt the theory of evolution, they disagree on the mechanism. That's what scientists do, they debate and test theories, they don't just follow Darwin blindly like most Christians would like to believe that we do.

As for the "evolution supporting scientists", don't even think for a second that there aren't scientist out there that would LOVE to find something that goes against the grain. To find evidence that supports an old theory is hum-drum. To find evidence that questions it (and stands up to rigorous testing) is what all scientist want. That is what wins you the Nobel Prize.

Working with clones in a lab is ideal for studying evolution! You can rarely publish data from studies in the real world because you can't control all the variables. Most science is done in controlled environments, if possible. But, there still are some out there, like the guppies and peppered moth (which ARE examples of evolution).

Mad Max is perfectly fine in his statement about living fossils. I have no idea what you, Mills, are confused on. Can you explain?

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 16, 2008 12:49pm

Mills, don't get your hopes up. My point was that even a LIVING dinosaur would NOT falsify evolution. It would only prove that not all dinosaurs went extinct. What WOULD falsify evolution is realizing that the oldest fossils of all species are no more than 6000 years old.

By the same token, what falsifies young earth creationism is all the evidence that the universe is more than 6000 years old. Which is why, as Skeptoid #82 says, "[Modern Young Earthers] honestly believe in alternate versions of virtually every science known, throwing away every shred of modern science that doesn't point to the age of the Earth as 6,000 years."

Max, Boston, MA
August 16, 2008 1:57pm

Lucy, you have some 'splaining to do! Tell me Elaine, what part of this statement do you agree with? "Even if you find a living dinosaur, it would just be a living fossil like paddlefish, whose oldest fossils are older than dinosaurs.” Is it the living dinosaur part? Is it the paddlefish is a dinosaur part? Is it the paddlefish is a "living fossil" part? Or is it the oldest paddlefish fossils are older than dinosaurs part? Please specify all that you agree with and we will debate from there! As for the mutation debate, if I were to ask you if it would be preferable for your children to be born with a mutation or without a mutation, what would your answer be? After all, they might get a good one! Gould and Dawkins simply disagree on the mechanism? HMMMMMM, let's see: One says that evolution occurs over eons of ages and one says that it occurs very quickly and in short bursts. What is left to debate? They still agree on what mechanism? One declared that there are no transitional fossils, and one says that there are oceans of them! How do laboratory experiments prove an event that cannot be reproduced in the real world, because in the real world you can't control all the variables? Aren't "the variables" the key factors in determining the process of which Darwinian evolution occurs? Does "natural selection" ring a bell? It makes no sense! At the end of all the experiments, guppies are still guppies and moths are still moths. Turn a guppy into a moth and I am in! To be cont.!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 16, 2008 2:00pm

Mills, paddlefish is not a dinosaur, it's a fish that appeared some 100 million years before the first dinosaurs, and happened to survive to this day. The first crocodiles coexisted with dinosaurs, so what? Evolution doesn't say that ancient species have to go extinct. If they're well adapted, they survive.

Max, Boston, MA
August 16, 2008 2:57pm

Max, I did not state that paddlefish were, or are, dinosaurs. You posted that, "Even if you find a living dinosaur, it would just be a living fossil like paddlefish, whose oldest fossils are older than dinosaurs.” According to the evolutionists beloved Wikipedia, a "living fossil is an informal term for any living species (or clade) of organism which appears to be the same as a species otherwise only known from fossils and has no close, living relatives." Let's concentrate on the phrase, "has no close, living relatives." So, by definition, if a living dinosaur was to be found, it could not be a "living fossil" because there are no living dinosaurs. But keep hope alive as I hear they have a dead Bigfoot on ice! And I know that the first crocodiles coexisted with dinosaurs; they were created on the same day. Also, I am absolutely sure that the discovery of a living dinosaur would pretty much be the nail in the coffin of Darwinian evolution, as it would nullify all of what Darwinian evolutionary theory has taught. I have been mocked to scorn for believing that men ever walked with dinosaurs, and now you are telling me that it would not matter? Now I am really confused!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 16, 2008 5:21pm

Thanks, Max. No need to address the fossil barrage.

All babies are born with mutations! We are gathering mutations as we sit here and type! Your definition of mutation is not accurate when discussing evolution.

I stole and edited this from "The Quote Mine":

Gould is widely cited by creationists in their effort to establish that the fossil record documents "no transitions." But, this is talking about the failure of the fossil record to document fine-scale transitions between pairs of species, and its dramatic documentation of rapid evolutionary bursts involving multiple speciation events -- so-called adaptive radiations. It is not talking about any failure of the fossil record to document the existence of intermediate forms (to the contrary, there are so many intermediates for many well-preserved taxa that it is notoriously difficult to identify true ancestors even when the fossil record is very complete). Nor are they talking about any failure of the fossil record to document large-scale trends, which do exist, however jerky they may be. Furthermore, fine-scale transitions are not absent from the fossil record but are merely underrepresented.

They both differ in their explanation of natural selection. NEITHER disagree that evolution is the end result.-I am done arguing this point.

I'll have to address your experiment comments in the next post.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 16, 2008 5:35pm

All babies are born with mutations? Says who? More on those stats to come! Gould's biggest problem was his lack of foresight when he first made his oft quoted statements. It was only after creationists started using his statements against the theory of Darwinian evolution and the evidence, so called. He was left with no choice but to try to salvage some shred of anti-creationist ammunition in defense of this blunder. But previously, in 1980, in “The Panda’s Thumb”, Gould wrote that “The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and “fully formed.” (The Episodic Nature of Evolutionary Change, p. 182) In writing this, Gould unequivically defended his believe that there were no transitional fossils. I am sorry Elaine, but Mr. Gould does not agree with you and your posted statements.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 16, 2008 10:45pm

Mills, though you seem to be skirting my questions,I have not forgotten them. I disproved your view that there are no beneficial mutations. I also explained that mutations causing negative effects fit perfectly into the theory of evolution. I have yet to hear you address the topic of radiometric dating. Do you know of a dinosaur bone that has been dated(and verified)to be in the age range you stated? Do you honestly believe that every scientist in the field of radiometric dating either knows less than you or is conspiring to fool the public?

You seem to be confused about some basic points about the fossil record and evolution,so I will explain. Finding a living species that also exists in the fossil record does not disprove evolution. If a species is well adapted,there is little reason for it to change,and it can remain virtually unchanged for millions of years(crocodiles). In order to disprove evolution you would need to find fossils that don't fit into the evolutionary time line. Find one mammal fossil from the Jurassic period and evolution is done. Finding a living creature that also lived in the Jurassic period is just fascinating/impressive.

The double standard you hold for evidence is laughable. You expect paleontologists to find minuscule fossils showing every step in evolution, yet you don't bat an eye when you hear that no one has found a 5000 year old boat on a mountain big enough to hold every animal on the planet.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 17, 2008 1:39am

Mr. Loeffelholz, concerning the topic of radiometric dating, it is common knowledge that different radiometric methods give very different age estimates on any given geological stratum and are often different by hundreds of millions of years. There is no long-term, absolutely reliable radiological clock simply because the basis for the “setting” of the clock is subject to far too many variables. Many geologists and evolutionists are troubled by the uncertainties found to be inherent in most radiometric dating methods. The unreliability of radiometric dating methods have been well documented, especially when considering the results of nearly every case in which dates from recent lava flows have come back excessively large. When rocks from Hawaii’s Hualalai Volcano Kaupelehu Flow, which was known to have erupted in 1800-1801, were tested, they were dated by many various methods. 12 of the dating methods reported 140 million years as the youngest and 2.96 billion years, the oldest. The dates averaged a mind boggling 1.41 billion years! Geologists say that about 5 or 6 of the known Kaupelehu lava flows have consistently given ages as hundreds of thousands of years; this has been explained by the lava being cooled in deep ocean water very rapidly and not being able to vent trapped argon. The biggest problem with many of the dating methods is that they actually declare the age of a given fossil first, and then consider the surrounding strata accordingly. So much for integrity!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 17, 2008 8:21am

I just 5 mintutes, I found these on PubMed.
"The average mutation rate was estimated to be z2.5 3 1028 mutations per nucleotide
site or 175 mutations per diploid genome per generation."-Nachman et al., 2000.

"We estimated the rates per base per generation of specific types of mutations..." "Our data suggest an overall mutation rate of 2.14×10-8 per base per generation, or 128 mutations per human zygote."-Giannelli, 1999.

Mills, have you read a book by Gould instead of just picking out quotes off pro-creationism sites? Gould is a hard read, especially when it isn't one's field (I find it difficult and I have Ph.D. in a scientific discipline), but at least you could read what he says in context.

Back to experiments. I did not say that you can not observe events in the real world. The point is that you can not determine what the cause of the event is without holding all variables constant and manipulating one at at time. Otherwise, you can never say for sure what the cause of something is. That is why clones are ideal!

After reading this from Mills: "...evolutionists beloved Wikipedia..."

I am just shaking my head in disbelief. Do you even know how Wikipedia works? Do you get all your info from Conservapedia? I really hope that you can start gathering information about these topics, in their ORIGINAL context and refrain from referring to pro-god sites to clear up your confusion. I have wasted way too much time here. I don't think anyone can convince a closed mind.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 17, 2008 10:14am

Let’s consider one of the evolutionist’s highly touted laboratory experiments. Herman Muller and Thomas Morgan conducted a “Frankensteinian-like” study of drosophila fruit flies, feindeshly looking for any evidence in favor of “evolution”. But the flies were quite uncooperative and refused to evolve, even after many, many generations. Eventually they discovered a solution: they saturated pure strains of the poor flies with large doses of radiation and/or chemicals. The result was severely disfigured flies; the oddities were numerous. The flies developed brown, purple, or yellow colored, flat, dented, and bulging eyes. Some were totally without eyes; some flies were without antennae; some came with fine, coarse, curly, or shaggy hair. Some had no hair! Many other abnormalities were "evolved"; even the wing pattern variations were outstanding. Some wings were broad, others were truncated. Many of the wings were too small and the fly was unable to fly. There were larger flies; smaller flies; very active flies; and very sluggish flies. Those that did not die at once had much shorter life spans. Many of the surviving flies were sterile or the offspring were too feeble to survive. In spite of these mutations, these monsters were hailed as a great success. Many scientists loudly declared the matter settled once and for all. It was final: “Mutation is the driving force behind evolution.” But in reality, almost all of the induced mutations killed the flies. A great success!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 17, 2008 12:49pm

Mills, you may like to read some of"On The Origin Of Species" here...ESPECIALLY the part titled "Morphology", half way down. I've quoted a few of His {Darwin's} words.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/origin/chapter13.html

I'm reading this book at the moment and I can tell you that I've read at least a dozen references by Darwin to His assertion that:-

"Nothing can be more hopeless than to attempt to explain this similarity of pattern in members of the same class, by utility or by the doctrine of final causes. The hopelessness of the attempt has been expressly admitted by Owen in his most interesting work on the `Nature of Limbs.' On the ordinary view of the independent creation of each being, we can only say that so it is; that it has so pleased the Creator to construct each animal and plant."

Many other quotes could be lifted from this book and all will say the same thing; Darwin did not believe that each and every living thing was 'created' at one moment of creation but rather was modified over 'eons'.

QUOTE:"How inexplicable are these facts on the ordinary view of creation! Why should the brain be enclosed in a box composed of such numerous and such extraordinarily shaped pieces of bone? As Owen has remarked, the benefit derived from the yielding of the separate pieces in the act of parturition of mammals, will by no means explain the same construction in the skulls of birds."

So Mills, care to tell us why ?

And do you now retract Darwin the believer?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 17, 2008 3:59pm

Neil, I am well aware that Darwin was not a believer, and where you got the idea that I did is beyond me. I am also well aware that Darwin believed in individual species evolving separate and apart from each other. That is why I use the term "Darwinian evolution" to draw a distinction between your definition of evolution and mine. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Mill Frellpirs, Houston MI USA
August 17, 2008 6:29pm

Mills,different radiometric methods typically do not give radically different ages for materials. In fact,multiple radiometric dating methods are used whenever an object is dated in order to ensure accuracy. When the methods agree,the fossil or rock in question is considered to be the age that the dating methods pointed to. When different methods return very different results,the object is considered to be of indeterminate age. Scientists don't simply choose a test result they agree with and keep only that one. The results must be within a certain margin of error or a specific age will not be given to the object.

Although it is true that radiometric dating is not perfect,there are always reasons why one method or another will not work in a given circumstance. Examples given by creationists where radiometric dating gives false answers often include obvious shortcomings. For example,the excess argon trapped in the volcanic rock in Mills' example makes the K40-Ar40 dating method(which was used in that particular study)completely useless. Any scientist in that field worth his salt would know that and choose to use different dating methods.

Did you even read the paper that I linked to? It explains both of the points I made much better than I ever could. Are not interested in learning new information? Are your reading comprehension skills seriously lacking? Or is there a different reason that you chose to ignore that paper? I even picked a paper written by a Christian for you.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 17, 2008 6:59pm

"...including Darwin, who was a theologian, by the way, and not a scientist..."-Mills

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 17, 2008 7:18pm

Are we still flogging this skeletal dead donkey?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
August 17, 2008 7:58pm

You may insist that I am in error but you are overlooking a simple, provable truth: belief in evolution has driven the processes of radiometric dating from the beginning. According to supporters of Darwinian evolution, radiometric dating has proven that the earth and the universe are billions of years old and that radiometric dating is the only satisfactory chronometer for dating the earth, solar system, and universe. In truth, nearly a century before the French scientist Henri Becquerel even discovered radioactivity in 1896, formulizers of evolution had already been teaching that the earth and universe were very ancient. Radioactive decay being the very basis of radiometric dating, radiometric methods were supported to be the reason evolution "knew" the universe to be billions of years old. Charles Lyell, an evolutionist, had already begun to popularize the idea of an old earth in the 1830’s, many years before radioactivity was discovered, much less used for radiometric dating. Years before 1896, evolutionists were already writing papers and articles claiming a very old age for earth. Evolutionists insisted that they knew the earth to be old long before modern dating methods. The first radiometric dating of rocks was attempted in 1906, long after evolutionists began to suggest that the earth to be old. Obviously, belief in an old earth was independent of any proof from radiometric dating. It is silly to think that radiometric tests first "proved" the age of the earth.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 17, 2008 10:57pm

Mills,

Many observed processes take a long time. Just a few examples are radioactive decay of certain isotopes, starlight reaching the earth from a million light years away, continental drift, stratification of rocks and ice, biological evolution, and early technological progress from the first primitive tools to the wheel and axis.

These examples are from different disciplines, and they all pretty much agree with each other, so you'd have to reject every science to maintain that the universe is too young for any of these processes to have occured.

Max, Boston, MA
August 18, 2008 1:14am

Mills, what do you mean by:"I use the term "Darwinian evolution" to draw a distinction between your definition of evolution and mine."

Read this:

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species-6th-edition/chapter-14.html

I've just finished reading this very chapter of the book, but it's free to everyone online these days.

Mills, just read the section on Rudimentary body parts and tell me what you 'think'.

I am interested in alternative readings. Just because a person {such as Darwin} says it's this way, doesn't mean it's the truth. However, give it a read and see if you feel the explanation is valid.

E.g. quote:-"What can be more curious than the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; or the teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of unborn calves?"

So, you see Mills, a foetal whale with teeth it never uses- not a baby whale who needs teeth for the first 6 months, or something, but a totally useless set of teeth.

The reason I {and probably Darwin too} chose this example is that when I've pointed to the fact that whales {and snakes} have a rudimentary pelvis, the usual response is that "they must be useful for something" [implying a justification of the 'design' by a creator concept.]

Yet what can a set of teeth be of use for in a foetus?

Surely all that calcium is wasted making teeth that will never be used. Better for the bones to get it!

RSVP.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 18, 2008 3:30am

Neil, I must get a clarification from you as to what your argument requires of me. A “foetal” whale is an unborn whale and can be of any specie. As many whales have teeth as adults, could you please specify which specie you would have me consider as to the losing of teeth. I tried the link you posted and could not log on. The site may be experiencing problems. As for radiological testing, the possible variables are the determining factors and are what must be considered when determining such a wide expanse of time. For an example, a rock can be tested, the age determined, and then submerged in water at a particular depth. When retested, it will show an age much different than it originally did. There have been entire trees discovered that, instead of lying flat, were fossilized standing upright and they extend through several layers of strata. When tested, the lower part showed a quite different age than the upper part. We know fossilization must occur very quickly, so why the different ages? The only possible answer is that the tree was submerged in several different sediments and that the leaching of the natural elements into the wood affected the test results. The point is that we know that the earth has undergone thousands of very violent events throughout its history, and the geologic record has been rewritten over and over again. Without a truly controlled standard of measurement, many of these tests can be manipulated, and this has been proven again and again.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 18, 2008 9:09am

Mills, you're obviously aware that virtually every non-YEC in the world who knows anything about physical sciences disagrees with every assertion that you and your fellow YEC minority make. How do you reconcile this? How do you call your beliefs "science" when your only support comes from religious sources?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 18, 2008 9:16am

Eric, you cannot find one post where I claim that my creationist opinion is scientific. My main argument is that neither is the theory of Darwinian evolution, but instead is as philosophical as my beliefs. I do contend that no true scientific evidence is at odds with creationism. The reason I say that is that neither your definition of evolution, nor my belief in creation fit into the five main tenets of scientific theory. They are: 1)It is guided by natural law; 2)It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law; 3)It is testable against the empirical world; 4)Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word; 5)It is falsifiable. I just cannot see that evolutionary ideology fits the criteria to be true science. I accept radiometric dating as science, but I do not believe that it proves evolution. I believe in geology and paleontology, but I do not believe that the interpretation of the evidence is as stated. In turn, if I believe in an Almighty Creator, I must believe that He is greater than His creation and as such cannot be explained by it. He is transcendent and beyond the laws that He has created! What is greater, the blueprint or the draftsman that draws it? What is more complex, the space shuttle or the engineers that designed it? What is more intelligent, a computer or the programmer of it? I believe the evidence of the natural world excludes evidence of modern evolutionary theory, starting with cosmology. It has yet to be explained!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 18, 2008 10:16am

Would you like to answer the question I asked you? You'll find it above, in black & white. Or at least say you'd rather not answer it, which is fine too.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 18, 2008 10:19am

Eric, please read all of this post!Seeing that you are unable to glean the answer from my last post, let me spell it out, in black and white! Most "old-eathers" must believe in evolution in order to justify their views. When the lineages stated in the bible do not add up to millions of years, they must then turn to evolution as justification for the time discrepency, and then insist that Adam was a special creation, because the bible declares him "made in the image of God", not an ancestor of apes. As I have explained many times before, the bible declares creation "very good" until man sinned. The book of Romans states that death came because of sin, so if death entered into creation after sin, nothing died before sin, except plants which were created specifically for food. That is the main distinction between young and old earthers.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 18, 2008 10:50am

Mills,are you actually contending that if something is believed before it can be proved,it is not true? Many people believed that the body was made up of smaller functional units long before microscopes were able to see individual cells. Einstein believed in general relativity before we had the technology to test it thoroughly, and human/ape relation was believed long before genetics. Does this mean that these disciplines should be thrown out along with radiometric dating?

Evolution does stand up to the five main tenants of theory. One and two are obvious since it is a natural explanation for the process of animals changing(something easily seen in nature). The theory makes many predictions that pan out in the natural world,therefore it is testable. Watch the video in the link below for one particularly fascinating example.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

The conclusions made by evolution are tentative and change over time. The funniest thing about that point is that you have repeatedly insulted evolution for being tentative. When two scientists have competing theories you shout,"See it can't be true." In fact,this shows that the theory changes in order to incorporate new information and is constantly getting better.

Finally,evolution is completely and easily falsifiable. Find a mammal from the Jurassic period and evolution is wrong. Piles of potential findings in genetics and biochemistry could prove it wrong. No such evidence has ever been found.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 18, 2008 10:53am

Mills, if you're a young earth creationist, you have to reject not just evolution, but also radiometric dating, cosmology, astronomy, geology, climatology, anthropology, abiogenesis, and many more scientific disciplines that hold the universe to be more than 10000 years old.

Max, Boston, MA
August 18, 2008 10:57am

I do not need a Bible lecture, thank you anyway though.

I'll repeat my question. Since you know that your beliefs contradict those of every science-minded person on the planet, how do you reconcile that?

Either you're right and all the people who study science for a living are wrong, or you're wrong. Please do not answer with a Bible quotation.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 18, 2008 10:59am

I read this quote from Michael Shermer yesterday and I think that maybe we, the people of logic and reason, should abide by it:

"Evolutionists had the burden of proof for half a century after Darwin, but now the burden of proof is on creationists. It is up to creationists to show why the theory of evolution is wrong and why creationism is right, and it is not up to evolutionists to defend evolution."

So, Mills, why don't you just show us some of your evidence.

p.s. I can not find the journal article about that "Frankenstein" experiment you talked about anywhere. I can't even find references to it. If you have the document (and I mean the journal article), I'd love to read it.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 18, 2008 11:11am

Mills, you say young earth creationism is not scientific, but it does predict that nothing is older than 10000 years. This has been falsified in many scientific fields, so you're saying they're all wrong and you're right.

The only way out is to say that the Creator deceptively made the universe look exactly as if it's old.

Max, Boston, MA
August 18, 2008 11:13am

I found a site with an example and here's a quote concerning the Whalebone Whale:-

"8. The Argument from Rudimentary Organs.—In his "Lectures on the Phenomena of Organic Nature," 1863, Huxley mentions as illustrations of this type of evidence the foetal teeth of the whalebone whale, the rudimentary toes in the horse's leg, the rudimentary teeth in the upper jaw of the calf. He concludes:

Upon any hypothesis of special creation, facts of this kind appear to me entirely unaccountable and inexplicable; but they cease to be so if you accept Mr. Darwin's hypothesis, and see reason for believing that the whalebone whale and the whale with teeth in its mouth, both sprang from a whale that had teeth, and that the teeth of the foetal whale are merely remnants—recollections if we may so say—of the extinct whale. . . . The existence of identical structural roots, if I may so term them, entering into the composition of widely different animals, is striking evidence in favor of the descent of those animals from a common original.

But from the same facts Chambers had argued to the same conclusion nearly a score of years earlier.

The baleen of the whale and the teeth of the land mammals are different organs. The whale in embryo shows the rudiments of teeth; but these not being wanted, are not developed, and the baleen is brought forward instead."

Site-

http://www.brocku.ca/MeadProject/Lovejoy/Lovejoy_1909_2.html

On my screen it's 3 quarters the way down.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 18, 2008 12:37pm

Eric, I do not have to reject the sciences, simply the opinions as to the evidence proscribed. Eric, when asked a question, please be prepared to receive the answer. I asked you to read the entire post, and if you cannot find the answer there I have no idea as to how to respond to you. Sorry!
Max, young-earth creationism does not predict, it confirms what the biblical record states. Simply because human beings cannot correctly interpret the evidence given us, God is under no obligation to give us an account of why. Romans 1:19-20 states that"…because what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world his invisible attributes – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, because they are understood through what has been made." In other words, nature, or creation, tells us everything we need to know about God to believe in Him. The rest is up to us to discover truth in light of that truth. Elaine, I thought that you had given up, according to your previous posts, but it is so good to hear from you. If you will follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hunt_Morgan
Scroll down to the heading-Columbia University-in the third paragraph by the drawing of the flies, you will find this statement: "he mutated Drosophila through physical, chemical, and radiational means, and began cross-breeding experiments to find heritable mutations." Footnote 15 will direct you to the journal.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 18, 2008 1:57pm

I believe I understand your position. You believe all of science to be "opinion", so all opinions are equally valid.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 18, 2008 1:58pm

Hey Mills! Where is that Franken-drosophila" article?

-patiently waiting

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 18, 2008 2:02pm

Neil, I am curious as to why you would direct me to read this article. I researched many of the people mentioned in the article and was surprised by what the article was actually stating. At the beginning of the article, it mentions Robert Chambers and he is then mentioned several times throughout the article. Victorianweb.com states that "Robert Chambers was a prolific journalist of Edinburgh. A well-know literary and intellectual figure at his time, he is primarily remembered today as the then secret author of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (1844)." In the Lovejoy article, a Mr. Benn is quoted: "Hardly any advance has since been made on Chambers' general arguments, which at the time they appeared would have been accepted as convincing, but for theological truculence and scientific timidity. And Chambers himself only gave unity to thoughts already in wide circulation. . . . Chambers was not a scientific expert, nor altogether an original thinker, but he had studied scientific literature to better purpose than any professor. . . . The considerations that now recommend evolution to popular audiences are no other than those urged in the " Vestiges." Not a scientific expert, nor altogether an original thinker? I see no reason to accept the opinions of a non-scientific writer that "intended his book to be a "philosophy of phrenology"…and… drew heavily on the naturalistic rhetoric and especially the doctrine of the natural laws from Combe's Constitution of Man."

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 18, 2008 2:50pm

Mills,

The Bible requires some creative interpretation just to avoid contradicting itself and the most basic scientific facts. Genesis chapter 1 says plants were created before the sun, and animals were created before Man. Then, chapter 2 says Adam was created before animals. While making sense of these inconsistensies, why not also interpret the text to be consistent with old earth and evolution?

Max, Boston, MA
August 18, 2008 5:03pm

Max, you are correct in your observation of plants being created before the sun, but not before light. This signified that God is the sustainer of all life, independant of all of creation. Chapter 2 does not say that man was created before animals. It simply says that after man had been created, God allowed the animals to come before Adam and he was allowed to name them. But Adam did not have a mate for himself, so God caused him to sleep and Eve was created from Adam. As I explained before, the problem with old earth theology, is that it must explain death as part of a creation that was considered "very good" by God Himself. I do not consider death and disease very good. Cancer has appeared to have even been found in some dinosaur fossils. If Darwinian evolution is true, man is not a special creation of God, just a glorified ape.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 18, 2008 5:36pm

"If Darwinian evolution is true, man is not a special creation of God, just a glorified ape."- Mills.
Now we're getting somewhere.
Man is not a product of god because, well, there is no god. Glorified ape though? Not really. We just share a common ancestor. Your position is untenable. To try to justify it is asinine. Matters of faith cannot be shored up with any form of justification. That is why it is called faith. You believe something despite a lack of or contrary evidence.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
August 18, 2008 5:52pm

Marius, An example of revisionist Darwinism rears its ugly head! Your almighty Darwin believed that not only are we ascended from apes, but that those of African heritage were closer to apes than white people are. Not to mention those with birth defects and the mentally retarded. Not as evolved, you know. One more proud moment in the history of evolutionary ideology. You should thank all those nasty, foolish Christians for all the hospitals, orphanages, and homeless shelters that you pass everyday. Funny that I have never heard of an atheist hospital. Would you happen to know the phone number of a good one? Never mind, no matter how long the phone rings, they won't answer!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 18, 2008 6:34pm

Because only people who believe in invisible flying wizards would ever think to build hospitals to treat people using scientific medicine. A fine argument, Mills. LOL

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 18, 2008 7:47pm

I'm sorry Eric, were you referencing me? I don't remember ever addressing a belief in invisible flying wizards. Oh, I get it! Your talking about God. I realize that if you could actually respond with a civil answer, you would have. The problem is that when faced with the historical facts of Christianity, atheists just cannot stomach the reality of its affects upon civilization around the world. The topics of the crusades and witchhunts are favorites among atheists, but compared to the death and destruction at the hands of atheistic humanistic ideologies, much of which was driven by Darwinian thought, in the just the past century, it is a mere drop in an ocean of violence! When you respond in the fashion in which you have above, you cannot be surprised when I respond in kind. So please, let us remain on topic.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 18, 2008 9:18pm

So your example of staying on topic is falling back to the same tired, tired old "Who kills more, Christians or Atheists" debate? I suggest you listen to Brian's podcast on this, as he presents the first cogent discussion of this debate I've ever heard.
http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4076

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 18, 2008 9:29pm

Been there, done that! Seems as though the argument may not favor your side, so it's, let's not discuss it. I really don't get this statement from Brian, so maybe you can help me: "The number of religious exterminations of entire villages throughout history is innumerable, though most had body counts only in the hundreds or thousands." Do you really think the number is innumerable? It just seems a bit much!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 18, 2008 9:52pm

Mills, go ahead and say "Hitler was an atheist" so we can invoke Godwin's law and be done with you.

Ah yes, Fundamentalism rears its ugly head, claiming a monopoly on morality (refuted in Skeptoid #02 http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4001), and warning that evolution is wrong because it leads to abortion and gay sex. Think I'm exaggerating? http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wwtl/images/ch8_block2.jpg

So Mills, you think you gave a fair description of human evolution that evolutionary biologists would agree with? You know, blacks and retards being "not as evolved" as healthy whites.
By the way, pretending that science hasn't progressed since the 19th century is the same thing Scientologists do when they rant against psychiatry.

In general, if you don't like the implications of something, then it's not true? Well I don't like the fact that cigarettes cause lung cancer. I also don't like the Bible condoning slavery, justifying racism with the Curse of Ham, drowning babies in the Great Flood, and condemning most people to an eternity in Hell. So none of it is true, right?

Christians build hospitals, so they're right and science is wrong? That doesn't sound retarded to you? Let's start with the fact that Catholics and Jews build hospitals, and they can't both be right, but they have both come to accept theistic evolution.

Max, Boston, MA
August 19, 2008 6:23am

When Marius tells me that "Your position is untenable. To try to justify it is asinine. Matters of faith cannot be shored up with any form of justification.", I was forced to respond that with an example of what I feel to be contridiction on the part of the evolutionist viewpoint. You continually denegrate those of faith with the type of statements above, and then when shown problems on your side of the fence, you whine about all the evil done in the name of religion. Remember episode 4076? It is a human problem, not one of religion. So why do you guys continially trash believers because of their faith? Just argue the main points and don't get personal. Max, the statements about "blacks and retards being "not as evolved" as healthy whites" was written by Charles Darwin. I figured that you would agree with him, seeing that you are a devotee of his ideology. I tire of hearing of all the evil done at the hands of religion, when in fact, much more good has come from it, than bad. By the way, Max, what does the "curse of Ham" have to do with racism? And I am very surprised that you believe all the events of the bible actually happened. Do believe in an eternity in Hell?

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 19, 2008 7:28am

Mills,

I don't believe in all the events of the Bible and an eternity in Hell not simply because I don't like them, but because there's no evidence for them, they contradict other parts of the Bible, other religions have their own contradictory versions of history and the afterlife, and it's more plausible that people made them up.

As far as race, what would happen to a Northern European in Africa? Without special precautions, he'd die of malaria or develop skin cancer. So much for "more evolved".

The Curse of Ham was widely invoked to justify racism and enslavement of blacks. Mormons banned blacks from receiving the Priesthood until 1978 for this reason.

Max, Boston, MA
August 19, 2008 8:35am

Speaking of contradictions: According to Darwinian evolution, natural selection "organizes" mutations and claims that it keeps the beneficial ones and eliminates the harmful ones. Then tell me, how does natural selection recognize one single mutation as beneficial when it requires a series of mutations to produce a beneficial change? Natural selection would undoubtedly have eliminated any transitional forms long before having developed enough to have an advantage. For an example, a reptile whose front legs were to evolve into wings would be a cripple, and would be easy prey until the wings were functional. Even when it is demanded that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form between flying reptiles and birds, there are no known fossils in transition showing how legs became wings. Evolutionists used to list many “vestigial organs” in humans including the appendix and hypothalamus, which were thought to be now useless organs that were left over from early stages of human evolution, but thier list has slowly disappeared as important functions were discovered for each of the organs on their list. Neither the fossil record, nor currently living animals provide any examples of evolving organs or half-formed limbs, yet it is insisted that millions can be cited as such. Do you not see this as a contradiction within your theory?

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 19, 2008 9:22am

Mills,

Here you're making the "irreducible complexity" argument. But evolution has been demonstrated to be a messy process, as we'd expect. Some mutations are harmful in one way and beneficial in another. Some are useless at first, but allow for beneficial mutations in the future. Some are beneficial for a completely different function at first.

Don't you think that scientists have already thought about all these things? Creationists have long cited the eye as an example of irreducible complexity, but with increased knowledge it's become a textbook example of evolution.

There are some awesome transitional fossils between fish and amphibians. Check out Tiktaalik.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik
Fish gills, tetrapod lungs,
half-fish half-tetrapod limb bones and joints, fish-like fins instead of toes, half-fish, half-tetrapod ear region.

"Intelligent design" doesn't explain the how and why of vestigial organs, but evolution does. Like, why does this insect have shriveled flightless wings? Well, its ancestors used to fly, but now the wings serve a different purpose.

Max, Boston, MA
August 19, 2008 10:22am

Wouldn't it be nice if this forum could be used to ask questions and become educated from them? Clearly, Mills isn't actually digesting anything we say and must be spending his time contemplating his next move instead of understanding the responses.

Mills is continually bringing up the same issues, while completely ignoring previous responses. How about a "Hmmm, I didn't know that, let me think about it?" Instead of, "I have no idea how evolution works and I am going to continue spouting nonsense and pretend I do know." The comments you keep making about evolution points to the fact that you still have little understanding of it. I guess you would ask a plumber to teach you how to cook.

Sill waiting on the previously cited drosophila experiment. I guess I'll have to assume it was fake. Nice try.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 19, 2008 12:09pm

Elaine, A little less ranting and a lot more reading and you would have seen that I gave you this info on 8/18. But let me save you time as you have a lot oreading to do. If you will follow this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Hunt_Morgan
Scroll down to the heading-Columbia University-in the third paragraph by the drawing of the flies, you will find this statement: "he mutated Drosophila through physical, chemical, and radiational means, and began cross-breeding experiments to find heritable mutations." Footnote 15 will direct you to the journal. And no, I did not write this wikipedia entry! Max, Gotta run be I will be right back.

Mill Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 19, 2008 1:47pm

Mills,
I apologize. Our postings were nearly at the same time which means that I moved on without ever saw that answer. However, you do realize that the footnote is to a book, not an article, and that the author is a Ph.D. in the history of Science, not genetics.

Not that it matters. What on earth do you get out of this wiki article that suggest these studies are evidence against evolution?

"...he mutated Drosophila through physical, chemical, and radiational means, and began cross-breeding experiments to find heritable mutations..."

So?

"...he concluded that (1) some traits were sex-linked, (2) the trait was probably carried on one of the sex chromosomes, and (3) other genes were probably carried on specific chromosomes as well."

Oh! Awesome work.This is a major breakthrough.

"Much as Darwin's insights into the evolution of animal species first gave coherence to nineteenth-century biology as a descriptive science, Morgan's findings about genes and their location on chromosomes helped transform biology into an experimental science."-Eric Kandel

To this day, Drosophila is a VERY powerful tool in the field of genetics. I hope you wouldn't doubt that.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 19, 2008 2:25pm

Max, Let's take a good, hard look at this example that YOU have cited, and see just what the actual facts are to the story! Let's all visit the official Tiktaalik website @ http://tiktaalik.uchicago.edu/ and then just a quick click on the "Meet Tiktaalik" button in the middle-left of the page. Now, first off, here we see an actual photo of our little dead buddy, and what you see is what you get! This is all that was found. Remember this photo, because you will not see it much after this page. Now let's visit the photo gallery. (the button is right below the Expidition button near the top) With a show of hands, do you see anything strange? Yes, that's correct. They have "created" an entire creature from an almost unidentifiable hunk of fossil. Very, very flat! Except for an endless supply of imagination we might never know what it really looked like. Good thing we have "A diagram illustrating how Tiktaalik roseae is a transitional species between lobe-finned fish and tetrapods of the Devonian."(Illustration by Kalliopi Monoyios) Drawings are always better than photos because you can get a better idea of what you want it to look like. Pay no attention to the fact that Kalliopi Monoyios, studying "a model of a fin she constructed", looks nothing like the real fin as seen in the single picture of the real thing. Just call it artistic license! So let me get this straight, the drawings of Noah's Ark...? I love science.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 19, 2008 3:01pm

Mills,

Start with their "Fossils 101" link.

"How then is it possible that we're finding tropical species like Tiktaalik in the rocks of the Arctic? The answer has to do with continental drift. 375 million years ago in the Devonian, the world did not look anything like it does today. The continent Tiktaalik lived on was not located at 78° N. Instead, it was located almost entirely in the southern hemisphere."

Here we have geology, climatology, and evolutionary biology predicting that fossils of ancient tropical fish will be found in the Arctic. Scientists go there and find it!

So, how is the search for Noah's Ark and the Holy Grail going?

Max, Boston, MA
August 19, 2008 6:40pm

No no, Max, I did not want you to address the issue of the absolute contrivity of the concocted Tiktaalik wannabe, I wanted you to fully ignore the reality of the lack of evidence on their website, and then refer me to some more non existent fossil evidence and meaningless information that I would have no idea as to its importance! Scientists go there and find a fossil that they can manipulate to say whatever they want it to say. I can say with all honesty, that the search for Noah's Ark and the Holy Grail are going at least that well!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 19, 2008 7:23pm

"Marius, An example of revisionist Darwinism rears its ugly head! Your almighty Darwin believed that not Blah, blah, blah......all those nasty, foolish Christians for all the hospitals, orphanages, and homeless shelters that you pass everyday. Funny that I have never heard of an atheist hospital. Would you happen to know the phone number of a good one? Never mind, no matter how long the phone rings, they won't answer!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 18, 2008 6:34pm"

Getting a little hot under the collar Mills? Are you familiar with the term " logical fallacy?"

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
August 19, 2008 7:59pm

Marius, I am indeed familiar with logical fallacies. Let me share one of my favorites: 1) Darwinian evolution being proven scientifically is dependent upon evidence of transitional fossils being found in the fossil record. 2) Evolution supporting scientists have declared that the fossil record is full of transitional fossils. 3) Therefore, Darwinian evolution has been proven. There are several more logical fallacies used in science that you may not be familiar with: 1) Hasty Generalization: This occurs when a small sampling of data is used to “prove” a large conclusion. For example, because a scientist says that evolution is true; it would be a hasty generalization to conclude that all scientists believe in evolution. 2) Misuse of Authority: When one points to a group of “experts” to validate a conclusion, even if that group disagrees with the conclusion. An example would be to state—without ever conducting a poll—that all scientists declare Darwinian evolution to be true. 3) Hypothesis Contrary to Fact: Trying to prove a point by creating a hypothesis that has already been disproved. For example, stating that it is possible for the Law of Entropy to be reversed. (The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics states that all changes in entropy may only increase entropy, while Darwinian evolution goes against that law)4)Chronological Snobbery: This fallacy occurs when a point is refuted or proven by simply dating the evidence as very old, thus making it impossible to be verified or proven.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 19, 2008 9:59pm

Mills:"Funny that I have never heard of an atheist hospital. Would you happen to know the phone number of a good one? Never mind, no matter how long the phone rings, they won't answer!"

The majority of hospitals are public hospitals, which are secular and government funded. Without any sort of religious label attached as you are claiming. There is no such thing as a religious public hospital.

Even the catholic based hospitals the second most common usually, are secular in the same sense that private schools don't indoctrinate. The name is catholic but that's about it.

I tire of these self glorifying self righteous big "moral" christians who sit at their pc with an internet connection while typing utter rubbish like yours and trying to claim anything with decency as part of their own.

The fact is the christian philosophy is suits these kinds of people.

"jesus has saved the world"

I can give you a number of a hospital or institution if you really like.

Jon, Canberra
August 20, 2008 12:34am

You have left out Post Hoc, Ad Hom, Strawman, Argument from Ignorance, Argument from Personal Incredulity(a regular favorite of yours), Confusing currently unexplained with unexplainable, Should I go on?
Fail, Mills. Fail.
Beliefs are fine. As long as it doesn't scare the horses or chant to loudly late at night. You are free to waste your own time as you see fit. But please, don't use flawed reasoning to justify you obviously ignorant of the scientific method beliefs. Second Law indeed. FAIL.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
August 20, 2008 3:39am

Comrades, let us stay on course here. Evolution! That is the topic. Since the argument that Darwinists use against creationism most always comes around to the argument against proof of the existence of God, I began reviewing the real evidence used to support their views. The “Tiktaalik” website led into question, so-called evidence. I found that the punctuated equilibrium theory was intended to explain the obvious gaps in the fossil record. Darwin himself had described these gaps as “the most obvious and serious objection” against his theory of evolution. At this point, all evolutionists are quick to declare that "Darwin did not have all the evidence of what the true fossil record shows!" But Gould did, and in response to that knowledge he accused modern paleontologists of trying to keep the missing fossils “a trade secret,” and insisted that there ought to be an explanation for it. Gould and Eldridge in turn argued that “gradualism” is clearly not substantiated in the fossil record, and said so in the February 1978 issue of Natural History. From this point of view, he would rather believe in the existence of “hopeful monsters", as his theory would try to establish. In light of these truths, Darwinians now decry these facts as some sort of creationist conspiracy against Gould. Googling the topic "Where Gould was wrong" reveals many articles written by evolutionists. They clearly do not need the help of creationists in finding fault with these discrepancies!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 20, 2008 7:27am

Mills, I apologize that we are not extending the same courtesy to you that you are by calling us Darwinists. Do you prefer to be called a Grahamist or a Sharptonist? We will courteously comply.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 20, 2008 8:57am

Eric, Is the term offensive to you? It is my way of not having to type out "Darwinian evolutionist", as opposed to evolutionist, as I am. I would not be offended to be called creationist or simply Christian. I am not actually a follower of Graham or Sharpton, but of Christ. If I have offended you please accept my apology. If you disagree with Darwin, I would be very interested to know the specifics of your disagreement. Thanks.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 20, 2008 12:09pm

So it would be more appropriate to call you a Sharptonian Christian? Bakkerist Christian? Which particular practitioner of Christianity represents the entire religion so that you should all name yourselves after him?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 20, 2008 12:16pm

Mills,

From just a few pictures, you can tell that all the scientists who studied Tiktaalik are wrong. You're a genius. I look forward to seeing your argument from incredulity published in "Nature".

And how do you respond to the fact that the fossils were found in the Arctic? Lucky guess?
What fossils do creationists expect to find, and where? Human bones buried next to dinosaur bones?
Why does Hawaii have no native species of land mammals? Because God didn't feel like creating them there?

Max, Boston, MA
August 20, 2008 12:17pm

Eric, Jesus Christ would be His name. Maybe you have heard of Him!!! Still waiting on the answer to where you disagree with Darwin. Max, In Hawaii there are two native species of mammals, the Hawaiian Hoary Bat, and the Hawaiian Monk Seal. Nice try though. A global flood would easily justify animals being deposited all over the globe, after the waters receded. Fossils are found on every continent. But, keep the questions coming. I feel like we are bonding through this process!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 20, 2008 12:50pm

Mills, you seem to be arguing that because the initial theory of evolution laid out by Darwin was flawed, the entire theory is incorrect. Do you realize that since "Origin of Species" was published we have learned quite a bit about evolution. Mendel's work on genetics was not really discovered until the early 20th century. The structure of DNA was not discovered until 1952. Darwin's ideas were revolutionary; they were not entirely correct. They caused the scientific community to continue the research and find answers closer to the truth.

Criticizing evolution by pointing out some of Darwin's incorrect ideas is the same as criticizing Christianity by pointing out its flaws in the past. The funny thing is that you berate people who criticize Christianity in that manner while continuing to insult evolution in the same manner. How hypocritical can you get? If we aren't allowed to dismiss your ideas because of its obvious shortcomings in the past, than why are you allowed to do that to evolution?

Finally, bringing up the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics shows just how clueless you are when it comes to actual science. The 2nd Law states that the entropy of a closed system must increase. The Earth is not a closed system. Any decrease in entropy seen on Earth is more than made up for by a huge increase in entropy by the Sun (which is the energy source that drives the small decrease in entropy). Do you willfully ignore actual science, or do you just not care to learn?

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 20, 2008 1:21pm

"Darwin did not have all the evidence of what the true fossil record shows!" But Gould did..."-Mills

Goodness! Gould has (had) all the fossil evidence? That's amazing. I guess we should stop looking for new ones them, Gould has 'em all!
Silly paleontologists!

"...“gradualism” is clearly not substantiated in the fossil record, and said so in the February 1978 issue of Natural History."-Mills

1978? 1978??? Steve argued that very well, I need not say more.


I know you have already dropped the drosophila thing, as you seem to do this on many issues as soon as someone calls you out on it, but I still am curious why you think it was anti-evolution and what you read in that same wiki article I read, that led you to this.

Why are we still here? It's like a train-wreck, I can't stop staring...

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 20, 2008 1:39pm

Mills, "modern evolutionary synthesis" would be the name of the branch of science (not "Darwinism") and the people who study it would be "biologists" (not Darwinists).

If you choose not to be called a Sharptonist because it's condescending and illogical, then you have a little bit of an idea why scientists chuckle when they hear Young Earthers dismiss biological sciences as "Darwinism". We don't call astronomy Tychoism, we don't call math Newtonism, we don't call theoretical physics Bohrism, and we also don't name evolutionary biology after one particular researcher from 200 years ago.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
August 20, 2008 1:45pm

I am at a loss as to what to call those of your ideological bent! I just don't understand the reason for your "dissent from Darwinism". Please advise me as to the correct terminology. Thanks. Darwinian evolution makes a demand that the development of original life and any subsequent life thereafter must form from a completely natural process. True or false? Life is not known to function without a strict control of raw solar energy being converted into useable energy. Please explain the specific, observed evidence of the original mechanisms and processes that led from nothingness to such a conversion capability in raw matter, and now are observed as very complex and varied mechanisms and processes that are now absolute in every living organism known at the present time? The many laboratory experiments held forth as evidence of Darwinian Theory absolutely postulates that without such control, viability for many organisms is an observed impossibility. The specimens could not survive the real world. In the natural world, how could life have flourished in such an environment as evolutionary ideology has posited to have occurred in the early history of this earth, out side of such a law to govern it?

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 20, 2008 2:06pm

It took a while but we finally got to this point. Evolution does not describe how the first self-replicating system came to be. That is the study of abiogenesis and is a completely separate topic. Evolution can only happen once you have a molecule (or set of molecules or what have you) that can replicate itself but does so in an imperfect manner. Until then, evolution cannot function and the theory of evolution was never meant to address this topic.

If you ask the question, "How did this all get started?" the definitive answer is, "We don't know... yet." The problem of abiogenesis not being solved (though there is interesting research in the field) has no impact on evolution whatsoever. Life on Earth could have started naturally, because aliens introduced the first cell, or because a god/spaghetti monster created the first cell. That is irrelevant to the study of evolution.

If you would, I would like you to take a look at a study for me. It is rather long so skimming the abstract and conclusions would be fine. I am interested in how you are able to dismiss evidence like this. Sixty separate fossils were examined, and the gradual transmission of terrestrial hearing to aqueous hearing was observed in early whales.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/114265699/HTMLSTART

Evidence like that is pretty hard to explain away.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 20, 2008 2:36pm

Mills don't you read what I write?

He was writing about T.H.Huxley. Didn't you notice that name?

Look him up.

The other guy is just a jour-no!

Anyway.

The point I was referring to was calves having teeth at the foetal stage, that they never use.

And the whale, you asked me for details on, is the whalebone whale.
It has teeth as a foetus that are never used.

I don't know if you missed it but I also asked:-"Yet what can a set of teeth be of use for in a foetus?

Surely all that calcium is wasted making teeth that will never be used. Better for the bones to get it?"

How does your theory of "special creation" fit with these facts?

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 20, 2008 4:30pm

"Darwinian evolution makes a demand that the development of original life and any subsequent life thereafter must form from a completely natural process."
-Mills

Biology is a natural science. So are Physics, Chemistry, Astronomy, and Earth Science. Not Creationism, Alchemy, or Astrology though, because they involve magic.

Max, Boston, MA
August 20, 2008 6:33pm

Steve, I am not avoiding answering you, I amvery busy the next several days. My oldest daughter has several health issues and I have been running her to several different medical centers. My youngest daughter is heading off to college and we have been spending time together with her. It may be several days but I will respond to your articles. I am having trouble finding pictures of almost all of the actual fossils mentioned in the article. I have viewed many drawings but very few actual evidence. If you have a location for any, please post them. Neil, I cannot find a visual example of any foetal teeth being documented. If you can post the website, I would appreciate it. Thanks.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 21, 2008 3:37pm

I've been pondering this quote from Mills:

Funny that I have never heard of an atheist hospital. Would you happen to know the phone number of a good one? Never mind, no matter how long the phone rings, they won't answer!

It is true, there are few charities under the term "atheist", although they are growing. But, then I realized that the reason is that atheists don't do things in the name of atheism. We do them because we are humanitarians Some examples of these humanitarian charities are:

The Red Cross
Oxfam
World Health Organization (WHO)
Mercycorps
United Way
Save the Children
World Wildlife Foundation (WWF)
Humane Society of the United States.

(There is a chance that I may be wrong about one or two, it is hard to figure out where funding comes from).

So, there is your answer. I volunteer at the Humane Society here in Austin. Do I do it because I am an atheist? No, I do it because I'm a good person and I want to.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 21, 2008 4:12pm

Elaine,

Take United Way.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Way_of_America

"The organization has roots in Denver, Colorado, where in 1887 church leaders began the Charity Organization Society which coordinated services and fund raising for 22 agencies...
The first Community Chest was founded in 1913 in Cleveland, Ohio, after the example of the Jewish Federation in Cleveland"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Federation

"A Jewish Federation is a confederation of various Jewish social agencies, volunteer programs, educational bodies, and related organizations, found within most cities in North America that host a viable Jewish community."

Is there a viable atheist community with various social agencies, volunteer programs, and educational bodies? Not really, but there's no reason why the emerging secular humanist community couldn't have all these things.

Max, Boston, MA
August 21, 2008 8:40pm

True, I doubt there is really a secular humanist community in the sense that you mean. But, how could there be one? What would be the tie that would pull them together as a community? There wouldn't be a common religion, language, history nor a common culture. They are just be people from all walks of life.

The Jews have a very good reason to set up so many community services. They absolutely know the importance of sticking together as a culture. So strong is this culture, that I was constantly amazed when Jewish strangers would invite my ex-boyfriend and I to dinner at their house, and sometimes even offer to let us stay the night, just because he was Jewish. Humanitarians don't have the kind of history that would bind them together like that.

Just for a start, I looked up the Red Cross, Oxfam and Save the Children and those do not have religious roots. They were started by humanitarians.

I am not really sure what you want me to say...

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 21, 2008 9:31pm

Mills, I cannot link you to pictures of the fossils that were examined in the paper. The reason is that the paper does not make these available. I do not see why seeing pictures of the fossils is necessary as they are thoroughly discussed in the paper. By asking to see the actual fossils, are you implying that the scientists could just be making this evidence up? That is highly unlikely since this paper was originally published in a peer reviewed journal with a good reputation (Nature). It is almost impossible to think that they would have accepted the study without seeing the fossils themselves.

The same thing applies to your asking Neil for pictures of the foetal teeth of a whalebone whale. The fact that these exist is readily available, and a picture is not needed in order to prove it.

There are only two reasons I can imagine that would lead you to ask for pictures of these things. First, you will not believe these conclusions (which are supported and accepted by experts) until you see photographic evidence (which you have to admit is pretty ironic). Second, you believe that the experts looking at and interpreting the fossils/foetal whales are wrong. Honestly, both of these reasons are a bit ridiculous.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 22, 2008 4:52pm

Try these:-

http://www.1911encyclopedia.org/Teeth

With this report you need to scroll down about 3/4 of the document...to page 88 & 89

http://www.wvdc2007.com.br/WVDC_Abstracts.pdf

The above article is a document from the "10th World Veterinary Dental Congress" and shows clear 'pictures' of the different stages of destruction of the foetal teeth, by the whales own immune system - actually they are photographs from under a microscope... close-ups, you might say!

Quote:"Degenerating tooth buds of the Mysticeti during the fetal periods was destructed by the two ways of other types of immunocytes; one was the large typed odontclast which is destructed the calcified dentine, and other small one was the macrophage like cells which might be destructed collagens and some matrix protein. Large number of later type cells might be quickly destructed huge volume of dentine matrix (proteoglycans and glycosaminoglycans in the dental pulp."

NOW, Mills, please explain to us why the 'creator' would give a foetal whale 'teeth'. We see they are not fully formed, by any means, and certainly can't be said to create a jaw structure, as is the standard explanation I've come across on 'creation' sites.

Then these ill-formed teeth are destroyed by the immune system as if they are 'foreign bodies'!

I've done the donkey work for you, now it's time to pay-up with the answers.

Good luck...

Boy, I'm good, when pressed! This took a lot of searching, but it's worth it!

Neil.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 22, 2008 6:57pm

Griff, I'm not so sure I would want to be "pressed" by a creationist.
I'm sure there is a mortal sin there somewhere.
I predict using my God given psychic powers, that Mills will find your donkey work wanting, despite its obvious merit. He will again be forced to shift the goalpost. The only work that a donkey could do that would interest the Armies of the Night (those of a creationist bent)is transportation of a Messiah, or a Messiah's virgin mother.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
August 22, 2008 7:54pm

I agree. If Mills doesn't trust radiometric dating techniques, then I doubt a photo is going to do the job.

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 22, 2008 11:08pm

If I may get in on this discussion, I read the posts between Mills and Neil, and I went to a pro-evolution website to document every, cited specie of "early whales". I then searched the internet for actual fossil evidence for each listed. They were: Pakicetidae; Ambulocetidae; Protocetidae; Basilosauridae; Dorudontidae; Mysticeti; and Odontoceti. The more I searched; I was quite surprised at the lack of actual hands on fossil evidence. An evolutionist, Barbara J. Stahl, considered one of the premier evolutionary biologists of the 20th century, said that: "The serpentine form of the body and the peculiar serrated cheek teeth make it plain that these archaeocetes could not possibly have been ancestral to any of the modern whales...the structure of the skull in the odontocete and mysticete forms shows a strange modification not present, even in a rudimentary way, in Basilosaurus and its smaller relatives. . ." Where are all the fossils documenting how the side-to-side movement of the land mammal's tail changed to the down and up movement of Ambulocetus and the whales? This is no small transformation. The terrestrial ancestor of these whales would have to eventually eliminate its pelvis, gradually replacing it with a very different skeletal structure and associated muscle feature that would support those large, flat flukes. No fossil represents this necessity! Lots of drawings but no real fossils. Prove this yourself on the internet. How is this to be explained?

Onus Ford, Detroit, MI USA
August 23, 2008 6:46pm

Well thats an easy one Onus. God did it. As that is the only possible explanation, why bother debating it?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
August 23, 2008 10:07pm

Marius, I'll do anything to prove evolution! No matter how low it goes!

Onus, you need a little more searching and reading-up I think.

The 'tail' of a whale follows the spinal movements inherited from land mammals, namely up&down. It may probably be an extension of legs. The most closely allied species to whales are...?

I'm sure you know Onus {or Mills}...

Enough 'donkey' work from me... go look it up.

Have a guess first and see if you get it right... as I did!

You can look in Dawkins' books if you wish. N.b. a 'donkey' is not too far from the mark!

It is the fish who go side-to-side. Fish are related more closely to reptiles e.g. crocs and they move with a side ways oscillation.

Oh, and yes, related to serpents, don't you know. But they are less related to mammals. And don't snakes have rudimentary leg bones, too? What an enormous coincidence. Thanks for reminding me Onus. That strengthens my case!

Oh, and don't some snakes swim rather well, while others are land based. Maybe they changed to fish?

I NOTICE THOUGH, THAT in ONE grand SIDE-WAYS MOVEMENT like a slimy fish or eel, the Faithers have side stepped the whole issue of the 'design' of 'useless' embryonic teeth.

I won't let this lie until you can give an adequate explanation.

As I said, the usual one is the idea that they are needed for jaw formation; but this is wholly inaccurate. Strange how a child can form a jaw without teeth, at birth.

NEXT....

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 24, 2008 5:26am

Perhaps off topic, but this foetal tooth issue reminds me that I have always wondered what the ID claim is for why it is that all humans are born "female" and then, only after exposure to the certain hormones, develop into males or stay female. Wouldn't we have just been designed as male or female like the bible says?

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 24, 2008 10:22am

Elaine, were in the name of rationality did you come up with "all humans are born "female" and then, only after exposure to the certain hormones, develop into males or stay female." This is getting downright creepy! Long before any of my kids were born, we knew what the sex was. You need to let go of this evolution thing before you go nuts, trying to fit everything into this fairytale. While a few some time, please hurry and repost as I have some info for Marius and Steve.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston MI USA
August 24, 2008 1:34pm

Mills, you should really call on your god, and not rationality. You have a lot more of one than the other.
Elaine indeed is in error with the sexual development thing, and in this information age,it will only take seconds to locate how sexual characteristics develop. Have a look here for instance.
http://www.scienceclarified.com/El-Ex/Embryo-and-Embryonic-Development.html
http://message.snopes.com/showthread.php?t=25638
So evolution is a fairy tale?
Perhaps for you. Thats fine, you are free to embrace whatever doctrine you desire. Just don't expect others to swallow your medieval superstition without question.
Tell me, Mills, what is your position on unicorns?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain , Australia
August 24, 2008 2:58pm

Onus, I have spoken with you before, and it is disheartening to see that a leopard never changes its spots. The closest you have ever come to an argument is spouting quotes you pluck off of sites like Answers in Genesis and the Institute for Creation Research. When and where did Dr. Stahl say this? In what context did she say it? Is she disagreeing with a specific fossil? a specific species? a specific theory? evolution in general? Without context this quote is utterly useless.

I have to agree with Neil that no one has even attempted to explain the foetal teeth of the whalebone whale or the terrestrial to aquatic evolution of the whale ear. When hit with a direct question you sidestep and bring up other topics in an attempt to maintain face.

With respect to the evolution of the tail, why does it surprise you that the tail moves up and down. Though fish and sharks have a side to side tail, they are quite different than whales (mammals vs chondrichthyes and osteichthyes). A mammalian tail is made of vertebrae and has considerable dorsal/ventral as well as side to side flexibility. A reorganization of muscle connections to strengthen the dorsal ventral movement is well within the realm of possibility when evolution is considered.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
August 24, 2008 3:14pm

Thanks for the chance to post. In the Darwinian lineage of life, what came first, Marius, or the donkey? Name one land mammal that has a tail movement up and down! (Be careful, you don't want to mess up the order of evolutionary development.) Neil, I have been quite busy and have had little time to research your "toothy" demands. Absolutely no actual pictures of these teeth exist; which I find laughable in this day of technology. I have found many problems with the teeth bud theory. The pictures that you cited are not of teeth but of antibody odontoclasts. http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/79707/abstract?CRETRY=1&SRETRY=0
contained the following statement: "Three dental hard tissues, i.e., cementum, dentin, and enamel, are resorbed by multinucleated cells referred to as odontoclasts. These cells have morphological and functional characteristics similar to those of bone-resorbing osteoclasts." The problem is that according to www.unintelligencedispelled.blogspot.com: "What is interesting about modern mysticetes is that even though they are toothless, they still undergo tooth development in the fetal stage. These vestigial teeth only go through the bud, cap, and bell stages, but are reabsorbed before the crown stage. The crown stage is when the hard tissues of the teeth, i.e. dentin and enamel, begin to develop." If there is not yet dentin or enamel, how is it possible that odontoclasts are forming? Are we actually observing osteoclasts? More on the bone connection.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 24, 2008 3:16pm

Jesus, Mills! Before you freak out (too late), I meant to say "during development", not "born"! Now, with the explanation that I typed the wrong thing, I'd still like to know what your fairytale says about this.


Fairytale-(n)an interesting but highly implausible story; often told as an excuse.

Hmmm, I think that is a little more befitting of intelligent design, not evolution....

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 24, 2008 4:30pm

Steve, are there spotless leopards? You can find the quote by B.J. Stahl, in "Vertebrate History: Problems in Evolution, p. 489. I have decided to quote only non-creationist materials in answering these topics, and believe me, there are plenty of materials available. Previously, you questioned Mills motives as to why pictures would be so important and asked if he was "implying that the scientists could just be making this evidence up?" In light of statements made by Darwinologists such as geneticist Professor Richard Lewontin, in an article entitled "Billions and billions of demons: "We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism….for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.", anyone that would make a statement such as this is not above any sort of flim-flam. Again, as to the foetal teeth, you posted that "…The fact that these exist is readily available, and a picture is not needed in order to prove it." But evidence is needed to prove it. Not opinion! You are always demanding "proof" from creationists, and in response, you hold forth evidence such as this in support of your ideas. So, let's just take a good, hard look at what your evidence actually proves; according to your sources, not mine.

Onus Ford, Detroit, MI
August 24, 2008 4:47pm

Mills, the donkey (Equus asinus) and I (Homo sapiens sapiens) are contemporaries.
As are you and your own ass.
We share common ancestors, but went down separate evolutionary branches some millions of years ago.
My donkey can lift her tail up and down and side to side with remarkable ease, as she whisks aside those pesky flies. So Mills, while we are on subjects equine, what is your position on Unicorns?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
August 24, 2008 7:57pm

Marius, keep it coming. I have much more to say. These "teeth buds" have an entirely different composition in both makeup and numbers, from those in toothed whales, and even from fetus to fetus. In a study of 24 fetuses, Ishikawa H, Amasaki; in an Institute of Cetacean Research paper, said that "In the fetuses with 135 and 153 mm BL, the upper jaw had a larger number of tooth buds than the lower jaw, although the number of buds varied in different individuals. Formation of rudiment of baleen plate was observed with degraded tooth buds in the fetus of 903 mm BL "and it may be induced" by the degradation of tooth buds." (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8519895) Your problem now is based on more evidence that is unexplainable. "Baleen is made of keratin (a protein that also composes hair and fingernails). It is strong, yet elastic. Keratin is a fibrous protein that also composes hair and fingernails. It is strong yet somewhat elastic. Like our hair and fingernails, it grows throughout a whale's lifetime, and the ends continually wear off." So baleen is in no way akin to teeth, neither in composition nor in relationship. Fetal whales have been observed to have these protrusions on the upper and lower jaws, but baleen only grows on the upper jaw! As you have stated, some biologists have hypothesized that the buds are anchor location points onto which the developing bone forms itself during the development of the jaw. When formed, the buds are absorbed, as evidenced.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 24, 2008 8:15pm

Not much to say on Unicorns though. Why don't you let us know what you think of them?
"Name one land mammal that has a tail movement up and down!" you ask of us, and lo, I do so.
Are you not satisfied with my answer, and if you are, where are your manners? If not, then please, tell me why you do not accept the rise and fall of my burro's tail. Thats burro, not burrow, in case you were wondering.

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
August 24, 2008 11:38pm

So, these "teeth buds" are actually nothing like teeth in the toothed whales, seeing that there is never any cementum; dentin; or enamel. When the jawbones are located, they are absorbed, and in the process of absorption, odontoclasts are produced, which have "morphological and functional characteristics similar to those of bone-resorbing osteoclasts." From this evidence, we can clearly see that another "vestigial" member indeed has a purpose; as many others that have been dispelled. How's that for donkey work, Neil! I came across another fine piece of information as I researched this topic, and I just wanted to share it with everyone. Please view: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/whales/evolution_of_whales/ and you can view the material for yourself. A quote that I found to be quite telling was one by Dr. J.G.M. Thewissen. He said: "There are a number of reconstructions of entire Pakicetus skulls out there which were made in the mid-80s and are based on only a braincase and partial lower jaw (all that was available back then). The snout, nose, area of the eyes, and the area between the eyes in those reconstructed specimens was modeled after Protocetus. With the new material, it is clear that this reconstruction is incorrect about the position of the eyes, and the site of the nose opening." An illustration of the actual skull fragments is provided. What I find humorous, is that the supposed position of the nose holes is not evident on the fossil, but were located nonetheless.

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 25, 2008 12:29am

Mills has apparently decided not to address the questions that I have put to him. I guess that he must believe in unicorns, as If he can accept the myth of creation as fact, then a mere Unicorn is obviously well within the bounds of possibility. He is also choosing to dodge my pointing out that my ass has a tail which it can move up and down with aplomb. He seemed to think that this ability was lacking in terrestrial mammals some posts back, and asked for an example. Perhaps his ass is rigid in that department. This is not unheard of most often due to injury. Should this be the case, and I guess that is the most likely scenario, I would advise Mills to fit his ass with a sling.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
August 25, 2008 12:50am

Mills, I notice that on that site there's another report:-
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10331193?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

Here it is..."The immunohistological distributions of fibronectin, tenascin, type I, III and IV collagens & laminin were observed in the tooth buds of fetuses of minke whale, Balaenoptera acutorostrata. Distributions of extracellular matrices(ECM) examined in this study were generally similar to those of terrestrial mammalian species during development of the tooth bud. {Tenascin in the fetuses of minke whale showed characteristic distributions in the dental lamina and the enamel organ in the early tooth developmental stage.} In the physiological degeneration stage of tooth bud development, immunoreactivity of the ECMs were very weakly and limitedly detected in the dental papilla and the surrounding mesenchyme. Immunoreactivity of tenascin and type I and III collagens were positively detected in the developing baleen plate germ which was associated with the degenerating tooth bud. These findings suggested that expressions of the ECMs were related to the formation of the tooth bud and baleen plate germ, and that the lack of the ECMs was related to the degeneration of the tooth bud in the fetal minke whale."

So, we plainly see that the tooth bud is degenerating while the baleen plate is forming. You've got the cart in front. You may wish to look up the definition of a tooth bud...Bud.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 25, 2008 4:40am

Neil, I went back and read the article. I then began to individually define what each listed compound actually performed in the development process. I have listed several: Tenascin-there are four members of the tenascin gene family: Tenascin-C is the founding member of the gene family. In the embryo it is made by migrating cells like the neural crest; it is also abundant in developing tendons, bone and cartilage. Tenascin-W is found in the kidney and in developing bone. Collagen-a fibrous protein usually used to construct connective tissues, tendons, bone matrix and muscle fiber. Fibronectin-a high-molecular-weight ECM (extracellular matrix) glycoprotein…that binds to membrane spanning receptor proteins called integrins. ECM’s are is the defining feature of connective tissue in animals. (Note: connective tissue and not teeth) Laminin is vital to making sure overall body structures hold together. (Not fall apart) I found this to be a very misleading statement: ”In the physiological degeneration stage of tooth bud development, immunoreactivity of the ECMs were very weakly and limitedly detected in the dental papilla and the surrounding Mesenchyme (or tissues: connective, bone, cartilage). Immunoreactivity of tenascin and type I and III collagens were positively detected in the germ which was associated with the degenerating tooth bud.” Developing baleen plate alone would cause a rise in these levels. 24 fetuses examined, and no pictures? Sounds, dare I say, FISHY!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI
August 25, 2008 8:39am

Don't take too much offense, Marius. I have been rereading a some of these postings and Mills has conveniently stopped arguing on numerous topics.

Among many of these topics, I still want to know how the "frankenstein" drosophila experiment somehow disproves evolution. I also, despite losing all credibility with a typo, still want to hear an explanation of why we develop as females first.

I guess we will have to wait until Mills is overwhelmed with foetal whale tooth evidence before he gives up on that one as well,

elaine ellerton, austin, TX
August 25, 2008 10:49am

Elaine, let's consider the term "natural selection", "natural" being the operative word! Please explain how that the results of any experiment performed, using the following facts: an intelligent designer; a controlled laboratory environment; "un-natural" chemicals and controlled amounts of radiation, along with physical manipulation; induced pairing and mating; etc., could possibly be considered a vial means to an end in considering natural selection? I would think that one with a "Ph.D. in a scientific discipline" would be a little more demanding as to how we arrive at truth. My goal is not to have to disprove evolution, simply so that your so-called evidence is a fallacy. Elaine, please cite the location for your info, as to the femininity of all fetuses. Male fetuses have an X and a Y chromosome. Females have two Xs. If you wish to determine fetuses by virtue of their sex organs, males and females look the same. All fetuses are asexual before sexual development. Next issue, please!

Mills Frellpirs, Houston, MI USA
August 25, 2008 1:26pm

Mills, the reason I quoted the article above was to show how you 'cling' to wording, thereby attempting to hold an author to account. The term "may be related" in your 1st article was replaced by "was related to" in the above one. I merely wish you to be fair to the authors.

On a simpler note, the idea of 'teeth buds' being the necessary precursor of a baleen plate, I find hard to accept, given your starting point is - intelligent design.

You made an issue that the baleen is more like nail/hair than teeth -obviously - but fail to account adequately for the presence of the tooth buds. The definition of 'tooth bud' is a structure that leads to the formation of a tooth; the action of antibodies in their removal suggests they are a defect not a requisite for the formation of the baleen bone - which isn't bone {I know}.

This is turning into one of those cases where there are several outcomes:

1- You are correct & the design brief requires the tooth buds to be present for baleen formation and the antibodies are there to remove the 'scaffolding'.
2- You are wrong and the tooth buds are there as ruminants of former teeth possessed by the progenitors of the baleen whale, which are still coded for by the common genotype but have become 'foreign' and are removed.
3- We are unable to decide due to lack of information.

My judgement is that the widespread 'common' form of all species does not imply 'intelligent' or 'individual' design. Further the fossil record shows teeth.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 25, 2008 4:49pm

Neil, I cannot find the instance of changing words that you cited. I am not saying that I did not, but I cannot locate it. If you like, you can specify its location and I will revisit it. Per your previous admonishment, I took your advice and revisited the definition of a "tooth bud". I do not know how I missed this point before, but if I may re