How to Debate a Young Earth Creationist

I have a slight problem with this episode. You state that evolution was developed to deal with fossil evidence, and therefore all of the fossil record is proof of evolution's validity. However, Darwin didn't consider the fossil record to even be a good support of evolution, let alone something to be explained by evolution. There are too many holes in the rock record for it to be used. Paleontology uses evolution to explain pretty much everything, but Darwin didn't work with fossils very much.

James, Ohio
September 11, 2007 1:35pm

That's a fare point but these days the fossil record is far more comprehensive than Darwin's day. And it DOES back up what Darwin thought.

Darwin gained his insight into evolution circa 1832 by hands, feet and eyes-on studying of plants and animals; plus the topography required for selection.

Griff... The Man's a Genius.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 13, 2007 10:38am

In her Talkorigins.com Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, Kathleen Hunt, in Part 1- What is a transitional fossil?, does not cite even one example of what she considers a transitional fossil to be. Brian, in your introduction to this topic you stated that "The layperson need look no deeper than Wikipedia to find a long list of transitional fossils." Now Wikipedia is the textbook for what is real science and what is not? So all I have to do is log on and edit the topic of "Transitional Fossils" to say that there are none? Simple! Case closed.
All that creationists need to do, is to keep quoting famous evolutionists and let their own words do the arguing. Many honest evolutionists have readily admitted the weaknesses found in the Darwinian faitytale. Revisionist evolutionists are now finding themselves having to defend the historical writings of past evolutionists and are finding it ever the more difficult to defend.
As a creationist, I do hope that you will indeed "stick with what you know." It sure makes intelligent design easier to defend!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 15, 2007 3:51pm

You need not understand or agree with evolutionary theory. Obviously you don't, and that's fine. But what is the value in spreading misinformation about it? I don't go to sunday schools and tell the children that god created everything using an erector set.

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 15, 2007 3:56pm

Eric.Operor non disputato fossor.
http://www.tranexp.com:2000/Translate/result.shtml
Its Latin.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullarbor Plain, Australia.
September 15, 2007 7:33pm

I saw a video in which another case against evolotion was presented: If evolution is true, then a lot of death would have to happen before Adam and Eve's time, which means that Adam and Eve's mortality would not necessarily be a result of their sin, which eliminates the need for a savior.

Then again, I've also heard the case that homosexuality leads to increased crime rates.

On a completely different note, I'd love to hear a show on feng shui, especially since Wikipedia proports that "Landscape ecologists find traditional feng shui an interesting study. In many cases, the only remaining patches of old forest in Asia are 'feng shui woods,' which strongly suggests the 'healthy homes,' sustainability and environmental components of ancient feng shui techniques should not be easily dismissed." Wait...what?

Spencer, Los Angeles, CA
September 16, 2007 2:30pm

Eric, Above you asked this question: "...But what is the value in spreading misinformation about it? I don't go to sunday schools and tell the children that god created everything using an erector set."
If evolution is not true, it is mis-information. If you want an answer to this question, read a few of the posts by your comrade Neil. Truth has never stopped him from posting. If left to him and Dawkins, I would be hanging on a gallows in the town square.
If evolution is true, when you and I die, we are simply dead. But if creation is true, it is a matter of dire importance!
Do you believe everything came from nothing, or has the cosmos always been? I am interested in your reasoning.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
September 16, 2007 3:33pm

Are we talking about the evolution of species or cosmology? Those are two unrelated sciences.

Actually why not come onto Skeptalk, it's easier to discuss in a back-and-forth manner there. I'm flying out of town in a few minutes.

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 16, 2007 3:39pm

"If evolution is true, when you and I die, we are simply dead. But if creation is true, it is a matter of dire importance!"
Sounds like Pascal's wager to me, Garry.Look it up.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
September 16, 2007 5:47pm

Three things:

First, you didn't address one of the biggies, namely, that 'survival of the fittest' is a tautology. Creationists like to throw this one out there (but also claim that it's false...go figure).

Second, you write:

One of the fundamentals of any science is that it's falsifiable. If a test can be derived that, if it were to fail, falsified a proposition, then that proposition meets a basic test of being a science.

Nobody believes this kind of naive falsificationism anymore. It's too simplistic and is open to many devastating criticisms. Basically, your these statements are, strictly speaking, false. (Have you never heard of confirmation holism?)

Third, you write:

Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science. Creationists accept this to the point that they use it as an argument against evolution's status as a science.

This is a confusing (and confused) sentence. Or maybe just sloppy. In any event, you keep referring to claims as if they are themselves, sciences. Maybe what you mean is this:

There is no imaginable way to test the truth value of the claim 'God exists'. Therefore it is not falsifiable nor is it a claim of science.

Is that what you meant? If so, it may not be confused, but it's certainly not true. I can imagine countless ways to test the truth value of the ontological status of God. Isn't the point of much of Dawkins' work against ID that the claim 'God exists' has scientific import?

Robert, New Haven
September 16, 2007 10:16pm

When contemplating arguing against evolution, one need look no further than the supposed "missing links" between distinct kinds of animals which are held forth as transitions between kinds, when actually, there are no unambiguous transitional fossils. The oft cited Archaeopteryx was thought to be a transition between reptile and bird because of its teeth and the claws on its wings. The fact is some fossil birds had teeth; some didn't. Some reptiles have teeth; some don't. Some mammals have teeth; some don't. The claws on its wings? We have birds living today that have claws on their wings. Nonetheless, they are birds, and no one disputes it. Besides, superficial similarities do not imply genetic relationship. And, every one of the ten Archaeopteryx fossils found, were discovered in one small region in Germany. They were not widespread, as an intermediate would be, if true.
Colin Patterson, as cited before, was Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History and editor of an accepted scientific journal, a well-known expert having an intimate knowledge of the fossil record. He stated, "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."
Statements, (by evolutionists) such as this, are deadly to Darwinian theory! Many, many more can be found in the writings of renowned evolutionists. And still the parade of the faithfuls' sound bites goes on and on to the contrary. It's ironic (and very useful) that in the evolution of Darwinian belief, some of the greatest weapons against have come from within its own ranks!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 18, 2007 4:00pm

Ahh, the God of the gaps argument. Clearly we have a creationist here,who like his bretheren, is blissfully unaware of what evolution actually is and how it works,and fearful of what it implies.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
September 19, 2007 4:37pm

Marius is right on the money. Garry, you really didnt listen did you?

Simon Ash, Adelaide, Australia
September 20, 2007 12:46am

Marius, You are somewhat correct in your assertion that I am "blissfully unaware of what evolution is and how it works", mainly because most evolutionists apparently aren't too sure themselves! According to most of the posters on this website, evolution is not the fairytale that Darwin put forth, but now has become something that would be unrecognizable by it's early proponents. And why?
Evolutionists have no choice but to change their ideology due to the newly developed genetic research being done worldwide and the afore mentioned lack of fossil evidence that is so needed to affirm the "theory". Many scientists are turning from evolutionary thought and toward design simply based on the evidence that they see through their microscopes. Do you think all these men and women are idiots for turning from what they see to be in error? Check out www.dissentfromdarwin.org and the number is growing annually.
I notice that you did not confront the examples that were put forth in the preceding posts, but don't feel bad, most evolutionists can't confront the evidence. It gets in the way of denying what is so evident all around them! I see all the wonder and grandeur of this universe and am in awe of it's vastness and complexity, and I am forced to say with the Psalmist, "The fool hath said in his heart, "There is no God!" Open your eyes mate, you can believe what you can see.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
September 20, 2007 1:59pm

I have a little motto Garry. It goes something like this.
Operor non disputato fosser.
Are you of the catholic persuasion? You might understand Latin if you were.Im not going to argue with you,as it is pointless. You will see this as some sort of " victory ", but It isn't. Why do the righteous feel so superior in their folly? Is it because they have become immune to rattlesnake venom?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
September 20, 2007 2:36pm

Sorry, I don't get the Latin as I am Protestant. I do get the rattlesnake quote though! My Grandfather was a "snakehandler". I am surprised that someone from Aussie-Land knows about the practice. It is rare, even here in the States. Nice touch!
If I have in any way offended you, I sincerely apologize. I apparently represented myself in a bad light and did not mean to. If I may ask, Do I as a Creationist, have a right to defend my beliefs? Especially when an atheist/evolutionist like Dawkins spews his vitriolic venom towards all things religious! I recently read a book on the topic of Dawkins irrational hatred of religion and "God". I was surprised to find that some of his harshest critics are other evolutionists. They cannot understand why he refuses to recognize the positive influences that many "religious men" have contributed to the world. Many of the great scientists of the past 4 centuries have been bible believing creationists. Michael Ruse called Dawkins "an embarrassment to atheism."
That's why I love to quote the experts. Sometimes I agree with them! Take care, and keep studying. I hope to hear from you again. God Bless!

Garry Webb, LIberty Twp., Oh USA
September 20, 2007 5:06pm

Are we talking about atheism or evolution? The two have nothing to do with one another.

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 20, 2007 5:08pm

Again, I am sorry! I am speaking from a biblical perspective when I say that I do not see any way that one can believe the scriptures and believe in evolution. On www.answersingenesis.org, Ken Hamm cites 20 reasons that the Book of Genesis cannot be true, if indeed evolution is. I agree with his position.
This is not a post on religion, and I do not want to offend the host, but every major theistic religion does not believe in evolutionary history. Are you a theist and where does God and evolution meet?

Garry Webb, LIberty Twp., Oh USA
September 20, 2007 6:01pm

I would hope that no intelligent adult believes Genesis is, in any way, a true account of actual events. So there's some middle ground where we can both agree - Ken Hamm is right about that. :)

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 20, 2007 8:47pm

Eric, You may want to sit down before you read any further. I believe every event of the Book of Genesis. From beginning to end!
The way you look at Genesis is the exact way I look at the theory of evolution. I honestly cannot believe that a rationsal human being could reason that the obvious complexity of our universe happened by chance, random events.
And I think that you misread Ken Hamm's beliefs. He believes like I do. I recently visited his creation museum in Northern Kentucky. It is about 30 minutes from me. Top notch and very informative!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 21, 2007 9:46am

Describing evolution as "chance, random events" is a gross mischaracterization. "So wrong it's not even wrong", as the saying goes. But that doesn't matter, you're not likely to change your mind, and I respect that.

Let's assume that the universe was designed top-down by a paranormal force. Why must a rational mind then conclude that snakes used to be able to talk intelligently?

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 21, 2007 12:00pm

Please help me with the "chance, random events" mischaracterization.
If there is no intelligence driving the events, what then affects the outcome? Are you saying that there is a deciding "force" behind the outcome? Do you believe that nothing became something, which then became everything? Or, are you in the camp of Carl Sagan and say that "The cosmos is all there was, is, or ever shall be."
And it was actually not the serpent that spoke, but rather, Satan spoke through the serpent. That is an oft misquoted verse among many. It's called "hermanuetics: quoting scripture within the context".
You never did say what your "religious" preference was. I am just curious.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 21, 2007 3:53pm

Natural selection drives the outcome. It's an amazingly powerful bottom-up design mechanism. Look at some of the results of genetic algorithms used in industrial design - stuff no person would have thought of, new developments in crashworthiness, data compression, water distribution, antenna design. It's a hell of a mechanism. Play with Lee Graham's Irreducible Complexity Evolver.

Carl Sagan was an astronomer, not a biologist, so not sure where you're going with that. You tend to mix unrelated sciences together.

I do not have religious convictions. I think they are silly and childish, but I respect those that believe otherwise.

Eric Shultheiss, Corona, CA
September 21, 2007 4:02pm

Hooly mooly, you go bush for a couple of days and things kick off. Apology accepted Garry, not that it was required. Eric. Whatever you say, all the Barry's in the world still will not accept evolution and the absence of a deity. You could bury them under every fossil on record, and still it would fail to convince the true believers. Arthur C Clarke described religion as a "Mental illness". It is a good working definition. Deliberate, calculated ignorance would be another. One should pity these people. My mother is one. What are we to do in the face of such a mind numbingly past its use by date hotch potch of theologies?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 22, 2007 2:37am

Great non-answer, guys, which I always expect from evo-atheists. Eric, did you say "It's an amazingly powerful bottom-up design mechanism. Look at some of the results of genetic algorithms used in industrial design - stuff no person would have thought of, new developments in crashworthiness, data compression, water distribution, antenna design."????
Are you for intelligent design or anainst it? All of this stuff is what "persons" have thought of. And guess where they found it! In nature. You are right. It sure looks designed!
Marius, Who is Barry? I don't need to be buried under a pile of fossils (I assume you mean fossil evidence, i.e: intermediates and transitionals), but I would like to see ONE! But, we have already visited that subject. And by the way, Arthur C. Clark was a science fiction writer! Get it? Not much reality involved in that is there? I bet you wish you could withdraw that one, ey, Matey? And as far as theism goes, atheists are in the minority. And just what are you trying to say about your mother? According to your own words, you turned out just peachey.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 22, 2007 9:56am

My beloved mater,Garry, is 85 and belives in god. She is like all belivers, unfortunately mistaken.She is of a generation in which such folly is more understandable. It is time now to put aside childish things.as a global society, it is time to discard medieval superstitions and grow up. Religion is a dangerous, violent, indulgent, superflous anomily in the modern era, that seeks only misery and enslavement for the faithful (financial,physical and intellectual), and is prepared to inflict all ths on those of us who have discarded off the chains of piety. As for the A.C Clarke reference, that stands on its merits, regardless of what you might think of him. Remember, the bible was also written by authors of fiction. As for intelligent design, well Garry, parlais vous Francais? Merde. In even responding to you I have broken one of my own rules. Remember the Latin? "Do not debate with fools" is the translation. You are so far off whack here that It is pointless to continue. You and your gang are the enemies of reason, thus the enemies of the greater good.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 22, 2007 3:45pm

The atheist argument always ends here! So Dawkinesque of you, my (self induced)blind man. Atheists so easily overlook the violence and murder throughout history, at the hands of Godless regimes worldwide. Upwords of 130 million people killed over the last 150 years. And that was in times of peace! Not to mention Hitler; Stalin; Lenin; Pol Pot; Idi Amien; etc. And all this while ignoring the billions of people helped through missionaries and Christian workers throughout the planet. Food pantries; orphanages; battered women's shelters; homes for unwed mother's; and on and on and on. So don't try to foist your unmerited hatred of all things Godly upon those of us that are aware of the facts to the contrary.
And speaking of this generation, Wow! We have come so very far???

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
September 22, 2007 4:15pm

Gentlemen -I've only had to do this once before, but I've deleted each of your last comments. Please restrict yourselves to discussing the issues, and refrain from useless personal attacks. Nobody is interested in reading those.Better yet, move to the form or to Skeptalk where you can discuss more freely. Thank you.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
September 22, 2007 7:02pm

Free Marius!

Simon Ash, Adelaide
September 23, 2007 1:54am

OK, let's open with a quote from Garry:-

"Eric, You may want to sit down before you read any further. ~~~I believe every event of the Book of Genesis. From beginning to end!~~~
The way you look at Genesis is the exact way I look at the theory of evolution. {{{I honestly cannot believe that a rational human being}}} could reason that the obvious complexity of our universe happened by chance, random events..."

Firstly ~~~I believe every event of the Book of Genesis. From beginning to end!~~~

Well then that means you believe the bit that says IT "separated light from dark"... When (hopefully) any rational adult would realise that there is not such thing as "the dark". Darkness is the result of 'no light' and "Darkness" cannot be separated from anything!

Opps! Neil 1 - Genesis 0.

Next:-

{{{I honestly cannot believe that a rational human being}}}

In the same fictional (ad hoc) book it says:"iron and bronze (or brass)" are 'both' dug from the ground. {I don't read the rubbish that often so forgive my lapse of metallurgic data!}

I liked that one particularly (especially if it's bronze) because it's like saying faithers only believe the Earth formed 'after' the Bronze Age and "HENCE" you could dig bronze out of the soil!

He he he....

Neil 2 - Genesis 0.

Garry started but DNF.

Oh transitionals: well Garry where are all the ''modern human'' fossils next to the really old fossils (like T-Rex) then matey-poo?

Griff.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
September 23, 2007 4:34pm

Neil, Once again one prove that you are a "one show pony". Again, inanely ranting against the dreaded mental "Boogey-God"! Do you have light bulbs in your home? Certainly you do! Why? Because in the absence of light, what do you have? Non-Light?
You are not only NOT a metalurgist, you are nonsensical. Use your head, man! Being a steelworker by trade, I know exactly what bronze is. Bronze is the traditional name for a range of alloys of copper (mined from the earth). It is usually copper with zinc (mined from the earth)and tin (mined from the earth as Cassiterite) but it is not limited to those metals. And the "Bronze Age" is simply the period when men learned to mine the ore and smelt it for useful purposes. Did you not say that you were a teacher?
The lack of human fossils helps to prove that man has not been on earth as long as the evo-theists have imagined.(Approx. 2000 yrs.)At the time of Noah's flood, the human population was probably not as plentiful as plants and other creatures, thus the lack of human remains in the fossil record. I cannot wait for the day when a human and dinosaur remains are found together, as I have no doubt that there are some.
"Sometimes when you win, you actually lose!"

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 24, 2007 10:06am

ok so i have homework tonight and i need help i have to write a paper about Evaluate the creationists’ argument. Is it valid? please help

jon, florida
September 27, 2007 6:12pm

No Jon, there is no Santa Claus.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 28, 2007 12:32am

Jon, Honestly ask yourself this question: Does the theory of evolution, answer the questions of beginnings, existence, and the confirmed presence of organized complexity now seen within the foundations of modern genetic sciences?
If looked at through an unprejudiced mind, all of these questions must be answered in the negative. This is why I contend that evolution must be considered non viable in the light of modern scientific discoveries. Evolutionists have yet to account for the gaping holes in evolutionary theory. Perhaps, at least one, could explain how the evolutionary tree was constructed so many decades ago without knowing what the DNA sequences were for organisms. The theory simply falls apart under close scrutiny. If the right questions are asked, evolutionists simply become anti-theists, as observed so frequently in their posts. This is why the church of Darwinism is losing members. Simply consider the evidence!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 28, 2007 12:25pm

Brian, sometimes ridicule is the only thing that one can employ against the deliberatly ignorent. My responses to this particular gentleman have been I believe, reasonably measured, despite the howlers regularly posted.
"I cannot wait for the day when a human and dinosaur remains are found together, as I have no doubt that there are some."-Garry.
Garry, you have made your position obviously clear. There are no new converts to be had here, so you are wasting your time.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
September 28, 2007 6:20pm

Marius, Here in America, we are not afraid of a little heated debate. Christ taught that the truth must never be comprimised, no matter the repurcussions. If you and your ilk would simply stick to the issues, and not get personal in your comments, you would be the wiser. But you are of the Dawkins mindset, wherein those of the theistic worldview are the "dims", and you atheist-evolutionists are the "brights". Now that the theists have learned to respond to the atheists, there is a history of the past 100+ years that must be accounted for, and, we are up for the challenge.
Just stick to the evidence that you believe you have and please leave personal attacks aside. Why is it, that when atheists get cornered, they feel that they must rail against God (that they don't believe in?) and belittle those of faith. Just present your argument, don't get personally derogatory, and we should get along swimmingly!
I have been attacked far greater than anything I have said in response to previous posts. Past posts will confirm this. What would you have Brian do, not allow me to post? That would really be boring, don't you think?

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 29, 2007 1:49pm

operor non disputato fossor.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
September 29, 2007 4:34pm

I rest my case!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
September 29, 2007 7:15pm

An argument that I've heard more frequently lately is, "If evolution is correct, why don't we observe any transitional species?" This is a variation on the sixth italicized argument above, except that the transitional species are expected to be extant.

My lay response to this argument is that all extant species are transitional, but I'm sure evolutionary biologists have a better reply.

Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
October 01, 2007 5:59am

Brian stated above in point #6: "If evolution is true, shouldn't there be examples of transitional stages between Miohippus and Mesohippus? The creationists say that there are not. Well, there are, and in abundance. You can tell people that there aren't, but you're either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you're claiming to be authoritative on."
Not only do creationists claim that there are none , most leading evolutionary biologists claim that there are none. Stephen J. Gould claimed that the lack of transitional fossils was the "trade secret of paleantologists." At least he was honest enough to affirm what science knew to be true! All that one need do, is a search of quotes by experts in this field and let their own words speak for themselves.
And using a borrowed phrase,"You can tell people that there [are], but you're either intentionally lying or intentionally refusing to inform yourself on a subject you're claiming to be authoritative on."
I could not agree more. See we can find a common ground in this debate!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 01, 2007 12:36pm

Garry - You keep quoting Gould on that. Are you aware of what he was arguing in the broader sense, and if so, would you care to restate it for us?

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 01, 2007 12:43pm

Gould was painfully aware of the lack of transitional fossils, and like most evolutionists of the last 50 years was forced to practise "Revisionist Darwinism". In order to excuse this lack, he formulated his "punctuated equilibrium" hypothesis. This theory views evolution as episodic rather than continuous. Relatively short periods of branching speciation, they argued, are followed by much longer periods of stasis. Instead of the evolutionary process being long and drawn out, it is instead, a "growth spurt", so to speak.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 01, 2007 4:09pm

Well, you're partly right. This was part of his explanation of punctuated equilibrium, but where you're grossly wrong was that his theory was in some way a response to a lack of fossil evidence.

It's really scary that this is the level of understanding some people have of basic evolutionary theory. And once again, you're using the term "revisionist Darwinism" as if the process of improving a theory to accommodate new discoveries is a weakness of science!!!

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 01, 2007 5:06pm

I do not contend that "the process of improving a theory to accomodate new discoveries is a weakness of science". On the contrary, I contend that "the theory" is unscientific, in that it does not meet the following criteria: 1)A theory must originate from, and be well supported by, experimental evidence. 2)It must be supported by many strands of evidence, and not just a single foundation.
3)A theory must be specific enough to be falsifiable by testing. If it cannot be tested and refuted, it can't qualify as a theory.
4)A theory must make specific, testable predictions about things not yet observed.
5)A theory must allow for changes based on the discovery of new evidence. It must be dynamic, tentative, and correctable.
The lack of fossil evidence is exactly why he first considered this idea. All you have to do is read his own quotes to see this.
Dude, if you want to believe in evolution, that is your right, but, in light of the evidence to the contrary, I am forced to call it an adult fairytale!
If I were to ask you what convinces you more than anything else, that evolution is true, what example would you cite? I am curious as to your answer.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
October 01, 2007 7:01pm

LOL. At least you're not condescending about it. Thank you for granting me the right to accept evolution. You are most generous.

There are four main foundations of evidence for modern evolutionary synthesis. First, obviously, is genetics. Second is observation. Third is the fossil record. Fourth is experimentation. There is plenty of info available online if you want more data on any of those.

By continuing to point to missing fossils, you are like the crime lab who dismisses DNA evidence, the blood stains, and the murder weapon simply because every possible fingerprint was not also found at the scene.

I would love to know what it is that creationists say happens instead of evolution, and what their evidence of that is. Dinosaurs on Noah's ark, etc.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 01, 2007 7:55pm

They would say Lo ," the lord sayeth SHAZAM!! And it came to pas that all things came to be. With a few fossil red herrings to catch the unbelievers and send them to hell"

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain,Australia
October 01, 2007 11:40pm

Garry:"Neil, Once again... Do you have light bulbs in your home? Certainly you do! Why? Because in the absence of light, what do you have? Non-Light?"

YOU said YOU believe every word of genesis...So what's 'non-light'?

Next:"You are not only NOT a metalurgist, you are nonsensical. Use your head, man! Being a steelworker by trade, I know exactly what bronze is. Bronze is the traditional name for a range of alloys of copper (mined from the earth). It is usually copper with zinc (mined from the earth)and tin (mined from the earth as Cassiterite) but it is not limited to those metals. And the "Bronze Age" is simply the period when men learned to mine the ore and smelt it for useful purposes. Did you not say that you were a teacher?"

HOW NICE (A PERSONAL ATTACK); actually I'm a CHEMICAL ENGINEER who spent some time working for British Steel as a research engineer! And you're a what... steel worker?

BRONZE - is not mined. That's like saying glass is mined on the beach!

AND FINALLY:"The lack of human fossils helps to prove that man has not been on earth as long as the evo-theists have imagined.(Approx. 2000 yrs.)At the time of Noah's flood... I cannot wait for the day when a human and dinosaur remains are found together, as I have no doubt that there are some."

NO THE LACK OF HUMAN FOSSILS PROVES THEY WEREN'T THERE!!

"Sometimes when you win, you actually lose!

YOU SAID IT! MATEY-POO, is it?

Yeh 'poo' that about sums it up...

Griff...BEng(Hons)ChemEng

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 02, 2007 1:25am

Operor non disputato fossor.
Garry Webb is a creationist.That is his outlook, but certainly not one that we share. It is pointless attempting reason and logic as tools of debate with one who denies basic accepted everyday facts.
Unfortunately Ridicule is unsporting on these pages, so lets just deny him the oxygen of publicity. Let him have what he will undoubtedly be described by him as a triumph over the evil forces of the ungodly, yadda, yadda, yadda. Please don't delete this entreaty, Brian, as I am trying to end this pointless discussion. I couldn't possibly describe it as a debate.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
October 02, 2007 5:08am

Whether they realize it or not, biblical literalists actually do believe in evolution, which is defined as a change in allelic frequency over time. They believe that all humans are descended from a founder population of 6 individual deluge survivors. This population is too small to contain all existing genetic alleles in the human species. For example, which one had the allele for Tay Sachs disease? Which one had the cystic fibrosis allele? Which one had the allele for albinism? Obviously many of these alleles would have to arise de novo over time, which is ipso facto evolution.

Literalists concede the existence of microevolution as an explanation for change in allelic frequency, but they decry macroevolution as unscientific. Obviously macroevolution is what happens to microevolution if you let it run long enough, so the whole argument reduces to an argument about the age of life on Earth, or at least it would if it could be discussed in any kind of orderly fashion.

Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
October 02, 2007 6:39am

Technically you're right, Shayne. But they would disagree with you, in part because their misunderstanding of evolution is so profound that they think it's about the origin of life, or even the origin of the universe - which would, of course, conflict with Genesis.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 02, 2007 7:09am

Your "four main foundations of evidence", like evolution, seems rather vague in its presentation. I do not know how to respond to simple statements such as "First, obviously, is Genetics. Second is observation. Third is the fossil record. Fourth is experimentation." Without some sort of example for each, I have now idea as to how much evidence you actually think you have.
Has genetics proven evolution? Has it been observed? I have studied the facts as to the lack of evidence in the fossil record, unless of course you have some news of a blockbuster discovery. Have there been experiments that have proven evolution? Please cite examples if possible.
As far as denying your evidence, if all the evidence at a crime scene does connect all the facts of the case to a particular suspect, there is no case. Remember, "If the glove does not fit, you must acquit!"
Why do I believe in God? One only has to take an honest look at the complexity of all life on our planet and the organization within and beyond our solar system. When we look to all of science, we can see that there is order and that there is a definite pattern to the layout and structure of not only the human body, but also the universe in which we live. Evolutionists love to cite the similarity within the genetic makeup of humans and apes. They love the "90% to 95% similarity", but the real wonder lies in the
5-10% that is different. What if human and ape DNA was, let's say, 96% homologous? Would it mean that humans 'evolved' from a common ancestor with monkeys? Not at all! The enormous amount of information in the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA in every human cell is roughly equivalent to that in 1,000 books

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
October 02, 2007 2:54pm

If you are genuinely interested in learning more about speciation, I will take some time and find further information about anything you like, if you are unable to find it yourself.

But I find it extremely unlikely that you are interested in learning. I suspect you are only asking because you think that things like genetics don't exist and you want me to discover that for myself in a vain effort to look up information.

So I don't feel too compelled to spend a lot of time researching on your behalf right now.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 02, 2007 2:58pm

Fellows, If I may borrow a line from you evolutionists, "They simply don't understand the theory of evolution!" Shayne, are you saying that the aforementioned maladies that you have cited are examples of evolution? I would call them de-evolution! But such is the price for living in a fallen world.
Addressing the honesty issue, I would like to draw your attention to the words of famous evolutioni David B. Kitts:"Few paleontologists have, I think ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. An examination of the work of those paleontologists who have been particularly concerned with the relationship between paleontology and evolutionary theory, for example that of G. G. Simpson and S. J. Gould, reveals a mindfulness of the fact that the record of evolution, like any other historical record, must be construed within a complex of particular and general preconceptions not the least of which is the hypothesis that evolution has occurred. ...The fossil record doesn't even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories and special creationist theories and even historical theories." ("Search for the Holy Transformation," review of Evolution of Living Organisms, by Pierre-P. Grassé, Paleobiology, vol. 5, 1979, p. 353-354)
Let's look at the real evidence.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
October 02, 2007 3:43pm

Gentlemen please! Lets leave Garry and his colourful belief system. Time to move on. Eventually, all faithers will drink the cool-aid. They will in time, become extinct.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain,Australia
October 02, 2007 6:19pm

Marius,

Considering the higher fertility rates of faithers in comparison to nonbelievers, I actually doubt if they will become extinct. Even faith appears to be a product of evolution.

Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
October 02, 2007 6:43pm

Have no fear Shayne!Us evil evolutionary scientists here at the headquarters of Big Global Conspiracy are engineering a faith based virus that will attack the parts of the brains of the faithful that harbour the tendancy to religiosity. The virus will root out all theological and Godly beliefs and terminate them with extreme predjudice. A side affect will be a new found scientific curiosity and tendancies of acceptance of different cultures and skin colour. Sure there may be some of the afflicted who fling themselves of cliffs with lemming like zeal when they realize the magnatude of the wrongs committed in the name of God, but we must accept these losses, as they are inevitable. I can understand their motivation, as we in the secular world have our share of bloodied hands, imperfect beings that we are. The former faithers will understand this, with their new found understanding of the universe and their place in it.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain,Australia
October 02, 2007 7:52pm

It's an amazing thing to witness. Not one of you have addressed the topic of this post. If you are the future of evolutionary thought, the future of "faithers" is looking very bright. None of you have yet to answer the two most fundamental problems of the evolutionary theory: 1) There is no adequate explanation for the origin of life from dead chemicals. Even the simplest life form is tremendously complex.
2) The fossil record, our only documentation of whether evolution actually occurred in the past, lacks any transitional forms, and all types appear fully-formed when first present. The evidence that "pre-men" (ape-men) existed is dubious at best. So called pre-man fossils turn out to be those of apes, extinct apes, fully man, or historical frauds. And you are unable to debate the truth!
Your fairytale is about to come to an end, and it is time for beddy-bye, little children. Some day when you grow up, you may realize the absurdity of your folly and, with me, snicker at the idea that evolution is possible. Sleep tight!

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 02, 2007 8:54pm

Does this mean that you are going away now? Do you know something that us heathens dont? Can you see the horsemen? The nostrils of their steeds flaring as they breath in the stench of sulfur, their eyes aflame with righteousness? The beast cometh from Olduvi in the form of Dr Leakey? Go to this link for the Grand Grimoire of evolution.
http://www.leakeyfoundation.org/

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
October 02, 2007 9:48pm

Garry, in answer to your question to me, not all evolution is driven by natural selection. Other drivers include genetic drift, bottlenecking, founder effects, etc. With these drivers, evolution doesn't necessarily proceed in any particular direction.

Each human carries at most two different alleles for each gene: one from mother and one from father. Take one gene as an example: human leukocyte antigen A. Between them, the 8 survivors of Noah's flood could have had a maximum of 16 different alleles for human leukocyte antigen A. However, there are 237 different alleles for human leukocyte antigen A among the entire human species.

This leaves us with a trilemma: either there has been evolution since Noah's flood, or the human population was never reduced to only eight individuals, or both. Which is it?

Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
October 03, 2007 5:50am

Please bear with me and allow me to express my opinion of that which, I believe, you may be calling evolution. I am not asking that you agree, I am simply stating a possibility as to where we are as a species. Genesis gives the account of man's creation. That creation was perfect in all ways, but because of the choices made by the humans, all creation became tainted. I believe that from the time of "sin", the genetic makeup of humans began to degrade. The question as to "Who was Cain's wife?" often comes up in conversation of religion. It had to be his sister! And inevitably, then the topic of brother and sister mating leads, naturally, to malfunctioning and deformed offspring, children. But I believe that perhaps it took many generations for the degraded genetic makeup to actually make a substantial difference in the offspring of the early peoples. As generation upon generation multiplyed, the genetic deficiancies would become overwhelming, and sickness and disease are a natural response of our degraded physical bodies. The number of generations in a 4000 year period, multiplied by the number of possible genetic mutations and weaknesses would be quite enough to decimate humanity.
We see in our own time, how many "new" maladies that we face around the globe. We have come so very far technologically, but as a specie, we suffer the same as previous generations. As our immune sysytems are a natural function, so are those of germs, bacteria, parasites, etc. It is programmed in.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
October 03, 2007 3:21pm

Operor non disputato fossor.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabor Plain, Australia
October 03, 2007 3:45pm

"To work not debate a digger"?????

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., Oh USA
October 04, 2007 9:12am

Garry,

An increase in the diversity of HLA alleles does not represent genetic degradation; on the contrary, it increases population fitness.

Another example: the gene for human melanocortin 1 receptor (MC1R)has over 75 known alleles. Since Noah's family could have carried no more than 16 (10 actually, because of relatedness), you must believe that there has been a change in the number and, necessarily, frequency of alleles over time. Because they affect skin color, different MC1R alleles are advantageous in different climates. So changes in the frequency of various MC1R alleles have been beneficial for the human population overall. This is a very clear example of evolution.

Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
October 04, 2007 4:43pm

Language, hey! What a complex beast. One small line of Latin can be interpreted so many ways. What interperetive sources you might use, typos, poor grammar. Still it isn't my native tongue, or yours Gazza. Imagine if you had a whole book to translate, perhaps from a really old obscure tongue. Say...Aramaic.What if you had to translate that to Hebrew, or Yiddish. Crikey, lots of room for error and embellishment here. All this without dictionaries! Imagine then having to do it all again hundreds of years later with again just a goose feather, some calf skin for paper, and grumpy old men in dresses smacking you about. Into Latin! Still no printing presses!I bet there was loads of differences from any original document in Aramaic! And later still,into Gnglish, German, French, Hindi etc etc etc. If this book was ever published it would be a foolish scholar who used it as a primary historical document of historical events that may have happened. Wouldn't it.Still, this is an unlikely scenario in this enlightened age. Isn't it?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
October 04, 2007 5:54pm

Marius, I know it is hard to break away from me, but please, just let it go! I was hoping you would stick to your promise and not respond to me any further. You are entirely off the topic and to be honest, you are getting really creepy!
I will get back to you soon, Shayne. I am really busy today.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 04, 2007 11:56pm

Creepy precioussss....?
Come over to the skeptoid forum, where I can explain the subtleties of my point, and you can swear at me.
Nicccee..

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
October 05, 2007 2:12am

Sorry, I don't swear. My father had a saying: "Profanity is ignorance made audible!" I am sure that you can do enough for both of us. As for the Forum, I could not stomach more than one of you at a time. I cannot get a decent comment here, I doubt very seriously that I would get one there. I cannot believe that Brian allows you to continue this .

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 05, 2007 8:21am

"Allows" me to do what? Make valid points on the utter unreliability of that most cited tome of yours- the Bible. Your the one who accepts the genesis creation nonsense as the literal truth with the only available reference for you being that completely flawed document.
The Evidence for evolution is there and is overwhelming
The evidence for genisis is absent. You produce the goods, something that isnt invisible, and I'm of to look for a few rattlers.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain,Australia
October 05, 2007 3:58pm

The first law of thermodynamics informs us that energy can be neither created nor destroyed and that energy or matter cannot be naturally created from nothing. It may be changed from one form to another, but never created nor destroyed. Yet, the evolutionary premise demands the initial creation of matter and energy from nothing.
The second law of thermodynamics, stated quite simply, is that spontaneity causes degradation-the tendency to run down. In other words, the universe runs just this one way: It is like a watch that is running down, not winding itself up nor evolving to a higher state. The second law of thermodynamics describes a universal law of decay and degradation over time. This is the diametric opposite of the evolutionary concept. Material things are not eternal. Nothing stays as fresh as it is the day one buys it; material items ultimately rot, rust, and return to dust. Everything ages and wears out. The effects of the second law of thermodynamics are all around us, touching everything in the universe. This second law of thermodynamics is, in fact, one of the major reasons many evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of creationism. The logic is inescapable. There's your evidence.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 05, 2007 4:28pm

Garry - Evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the universe or the origin of life. Your reference to the first law of thermodynamics is not relevant to anything here. The second law of thermodynamics pertains only to isolated systems. Organisms are not isolated systems - they exchange both energy and matter with their environment. I think Brian made this quite clear in the podcast.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
October 05, 2007 4:35pm

"This second law of thermodynamics is, in fact, one of the major reasons many evolutionists have dropped their theory in favor of creationism." -Garry.
Name one and cite any academic qualifications that person may have. I'm not talking about Bubba down the road here, I want you to tell me the name of a heavyweight. Someone I can check out.Some one who is educated and intelligent and part (formerly) of the scientific mainstream.Cant be too hard If science is so wrong.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain,Australia
October 05, 2007 4:54pm

Of course you want to avoid cosmology, as you may have to commit yourself to a definite answer as to the beginning of all things, thus the reference to the First Law. But even evolution has had to have a beginning. Just one simple question: Where did all matter originate? or Has it always existed? Cosmology deals with the origin and "formation" of the general structure of the universe. The belief that the atoms of a "big bang" eventually produced people all by themselves is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, which demonstrates that the universe is known to be "running down." Yet evolution postulates it is "building up and changing through time." While you may try to push beginnings back into the undiscoverable past, we must still ask the fundamental questions of where these first atoms come from, and to what laws did they conform, and where did these laws come from? Something cannot come from nothing either
gradually or suddenly. Just take a trip to WWW.Dissentfromdarwin.org for a list of scientists.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 05, 2007 5:24pm

Garry,

None of us is reluctant to discuss cosmology. Just realize that it's a change in subject from evolution. We can discuss how the Genesis version of creation violates the laws of thermodynamics, and to argue that thermodynamics don't apply in that instance commits the fallacy of special pleading. Furthermore, to argue that God "did it" doesn't tell us much. It only substitutes one mystery for another. Science is unconcerned with "who" did it; it is concerned with "how" it was done.

Shayne, Oxford, MA, USA
October 06, 2007 9:07am

Crux 1: the 1st law tells us that matter is formed from energy {they are interconvertable}. It says that "it can neither be 'created' nor destroyed. Nothing has ever contravened it.

So, how can god be 'everything' and create 'anything' because by being 'everything' negates the possibility of there being 'anything' else. Therefore 'creation' by god can't occur. QED {it's the only bit of Latin I need!}.

Crux 2: by the 2nd law, god can't create 'anything' if IT is 'everything' since this would cause a reduction in the THING that is doing the creating! So if 'something' created 'everything' IT would reduce to 'nothing'....

Bye bye god...

Bye bye Faithers...

However, evolution of complex molecular organisms here on Earth, is quite clearly driven by the Sun's energy, UP the potential gradient to organised life, and not DOWN the entropy slide to doom-nation!

Griff...

Nothing said to Nothing..."Hey let's be Something!"

And when all the other Nothings saw what they had done they all shouted "We want to be Somethings too!"

And hey-presto the rest is history......

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 06, 2007 10:36am

For not being relunctant to discuss cosmology, you have done a nice job of avoiding it. Once again, Neil is on his anti-God rant, totally evading a solid answer. All I am asking is, from an evolutionist point of view is a definitive statemnet as to where all matter originated. That's all! It's not a trick question. If "creation from God cannot occur", how then was matter and energy formed from nothing? Or has it always existed? Just a simple clear answer will do.
In a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various conservation laws of electric charges, the number of leptons etc., which means that you can only create matter, with particle accelerators, and they are subatomic particles, or, anti-matter . Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. It is actually a conversion and not a creation. This process actually consumes more energy than it esatblishes, just a the Sun is self consuming. Scientists believe that the Sun will one day die. And bye the way, the Sun is very destructive and not at all creative, as Neil has stated.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 06, 2007 4:31pm

Garry - You aptly illustrate why arguing with a creationist is like chasing your tail. You ask "from an evolutionist point of view ... where all matter originated." This is like asking "from a chemistry perspective, what's the square root of 9?" This forum is for discussion of creationist objections to evolution. Not the origin of the universe, not the origin of life, not Hercules, not laser printers. If you want to go off topic, I'm sure everyone here would be delighted to join you (myself included), but please take it to an appropriate forum - the forum, or Skeptalk, links are at the top left of the page.

Brian Dunning, Laguna Niguel, CA
October 06, 2007 4:41pm

Well Garry, www.dissentfromdarwin.org
has no list of former evolutionary scientists who are now creationists. It has a link to www.doctorsdoubtingdarwin.com
which is a list of believer doctors. Is that what you meant? Sorry. That's not what I asked from you. My bet is any scientist involved with the Darwin dissenters has always had a religious bent, and is not a convert from the mainstream. I think you might find that the opposite is the case. Besides for every religious scientist, there are many, many more who certainly are not.
Ever consider the faithful who fully endorse evolution? Are they going to burn as well?

Marius vanderLubbe, nullabour Plain,Australia
October 06, 2007 5:07pm

I simply do not understand your lack of ability to answer the simple question of beginnings. In order for evolution to have taken place, there had to be a beginning. Your inability to answer is due to the fact that you do not wish commit to a definite position, knowing that you can be pinned to the following conclusions:1) If you say matter has always been, it flies in the face of your main argument, that being, that when Creationists make the argument for God, being eternal, you claim that it is not viable.
2)If you then commit to the point that it had a beginning, you must then account for the cause.
This is one of the main arguments against evolution, and if this is going off topic, Brian, you are unabashedly selective in who you chastise for it. You allow your fellow fairytalers, Marius and Neil especially, to roam with a very long leash. I have tried to be civil and have tried to stay on topic. I followed this website for several months and did not post in that period. It became very boring and tedious just to read. Marius, you finally get your way. I am done.

Garry Webb, Liberty Twp., OH USA
October 06, 2007 7:04pm

How,how, HOWWWLLLL!!
(

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
October 06, 2007 8:54pm

Nice to see the 'old' Garry (I can hardly string a sentence together) back... I thought I had lost you my old friend!

Sorry to here you've lost faith and direction...bye!

We've always had to explain things so here goes... There is/was no creation, mass & energy inter convert...that's it!

The "consumes more energy" scenario you talk about is merely a reflection of Human's poor technology; nothing more.

AND if the Sun is so "destructive"... well according to YOU - who put it there?

Some nice IT with a hidden agenda!

I didn't say the Sun was constructive, in a broad sense, only that it drives the necessary 'life' reactions UP a potential hill... OH yeah, sorry you were just MISS QUOTING, MISS UNDERSTANDING or MISS LEADING...

Why are all these fallacies single gals?

I will be sorry to see you leave Garry as you have worked so hard to show all the readers/listeners what utter rubbish some people are prepared to believe to hide themselves from the inevitable truth...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 07, 2007 4:18pm

The main problem with the introduction to this topic is that of "cherry picking" the usages and definitions when considering the ideas of "Evolution". 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?
“…the fact of gravity is that things fall, and our theory of gravity began with Isaac Newton and was later replaced by Einstein's improved theory. The current state of our theory to explain gravity does not affect the fact that things fall. Similarly, Darwin's original theory of evolution was highly incomplete and had plenty of errors. Today's theory is still incomplete but it's a thousand times better than it was in Darwin's day. But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve

Roland Cumbers, Lansing, MI America
October 13, 2007 1:58pm

I actually {especially} liked the one about the Moon not adhering to it's flight path...

The (cretinist) story goes..."Since the Earth and Moon were formed together and the Moon is moving away... then the 'scientific' time scale of millions of years means that the Moon should be gone..."

BUT think one moment then Cretins...

If you are correct... why would IT want to remove the Moon from the Earth's orbit and leave us to a fate, without tides, without the ecological stability we have...

AND what of those poor Tarot readers... and women's monthly cycle...

How will we cope?

Answers on a post stamp please...

Griff...

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
October 15, 2007 5:22pm

Howdy, I'm an "Old Earth" creationist, and, though I am not completely convinced that what this article refers to as evolution is the honest truth, I do not discount it because it has many good arguments. I want to make two quick points.

First, using the term "evolution" is, I believe, deliberately misleading. You are lumping together the easily observed process of micro-evolution (one species adapting to its environment over time through Darwinian selection) and the difficult to observe macro-evolution (the process by which one living thing becomes so diverse/complex that it can no longer breed with its relatives). By lumping these two very different processes together, I feel that you have injured your overall point. It seems like the same bait-and-switch that I have been delivered again and again by people arguing for macro-evolution.

Second, on the front page of this site, you say that your goal is to defeat pseudoscience. In what way is Creationism pseudoscience? It does not claim to be science. At its most "scientific"(Old Earth creationism), it simply claims to be a system of arguments that promote the idea of a created universe.

I would conclude with one question that I pose to all people who try to promote science through an all-out war on Creationism. Why must religious belief be "stamped out" to promote science? You see, if a religion has no believers, it dies; but scientific fact will occur even if no one believes it. Attacking Creationism seems pointless.

Aaron Smith, Memphis, TN
December 04, 2007 11:00pm

Aaron, please explain how micro-evolution and macro-evolution are different? both are changes in the genetic sequence. Make enough little changes (micro) and you've got a big change (macro).

"In what way is Creationism pseudoscience?"
In the fact that it:
A - Does not fit the evidence.
B - Attempts to pass itself off as thruth, using "scientific" arguments.

For some examples of B, read the whole thread.

Alcari Ambaron, Enschede, the Netherlands
December 10, 2007 4:28pm

Why evolution is impossible:
1. Not a single step of evolution has ever been observed.
Stephen J. Gould wrote that: "In the fossil record we view our data as so bad that we never see the very process we profess to study."
2.The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter
3.It impossible to reproduce in the laboratory.
4. It cannot be refuted therefore it is outside empirical science.

Therefore, by the criteria that evolutionists judge creationism, evolution is simply pseudoscience.

Brahm Moseley, Clifton, Oh
January 02, 2008 5:06pm

As pointless as this post is, I would still like to point out that Brahm Moseley is an idiot.

You probably didn't even read the article.

When I was eight or nine years old, I learned something about evolution from my social science class. For hundreds of years, farmers from my land and those from China and other Asian countries have been trading varieties of rice and have been creating mixed breeds of rice, experimenting with producing new breeds of rice that are resilient to disease, produce the highest yield in the least amount of time, etc.

Wouldn't you agree that such is evolution? Induced by man nonetheless. QED.

You're fighting against SOLID evidence here. Funny thing is, most conservatives dumb enough to reject evolution are also against genetic modification, including stem cell research. That makes no sense! Do you, or do you not believe that genetic data changes?

Juan, Philippines
January 26, 2008 5:09am

Occams Razor might help here -

or the Kiss rule as I like to call it
(Keep it simple stupid)

1.Creationism is theory based on myth (whether it is true or not is irrelevent for this argument)

2.Evolution is a theory but with some substanial evidence behind it.It has gaps in its knowledge but it adapts and improves over time,and does not trip over itself as does the creationiat argument that is always emotionally and cultrually derived,therefore not solid enough as anything more then a perosnal held belief based on assumption and where you grow up.

3.It always amazed me that religous people have a problem with evolution. Surely it might acutally demonstrate a plan of such,which could mean a god.I suspect their adherence to the good book is the issue,therefore it's politics not theory they cling to.

Kind Regards,

Dante Peretz,London,UK

Dante Peretz, London
February 10, 2008 4:49am

ADABTED FROM ABOVE:"Why ARGUING WITH IDIOTS is impossible:

1. IF A single step of evolution WAS ever observed THEY WOULD DENY IT AND SAY THAT god JUST CREATED THAT A MOMENT AGO!

WHO CARES WHAT Stephen J. Gould wrote

2.The processes would exceed the lifetime of any human experimenter WHICH MEANS ZILCH! WHAT ABOUT STAR FORMATION, WE KNOW HOW THAT WORKS - DUMBY.

3.It impossible to reproduce in the laboratory. OH, SO BECAUSE TECHNOLOGY IS NOT GOOD ENOUGH TO REPRODUCE IT, IT DOESN'T WORK... DUMB TOO.

4. It cannot be refuted therefore it is CORRECT science.

Therefore, by the criteria that evolutionists judge creationism, evolution is simply GOOD science.

Brahm Moseley, Clifton, Oh
January 02, 2008 5:06pm"

Thanks Bra.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
February 12, 2008 10:47am

ive been talking to this creationist and ive told him to prove various stuff but he refuses point blank and never provides evidence how do i debate when no evidence is provided for me to refute

eddie, kings park
February 17, 2008 8:36pm

I suggest .357 "point blank".

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
February 19, 2008 4:06pm

I always thought that "intelligent design" was the idea that God started the evolution ball rolling but not in the "literal translation" of Genesis.

Also, why is it that most creationists' arguments revolve around the Bible, or references to someone else who references the Bible. I just read a book that told me zombies took over the planet and it was up to humans to retake civilization. The fact that it was in a book didn't make it any more true than anything else in print.

If I were looking at this whole subject from the outside in without a real opinion, I would have to say the more intelligent folks are the evolutionists for the simple fact that they are willing to question their own existence and look for answers on their own. Creationists it seems tend to say to themselves, "Oh? The Bible said it? Then that's what I'll go with, it makes me much more comfortable than not knowing."

Rob E., Memphis, TN
February 29, 2008 7:37pm

Simple refute:-

Is there an infinite; a god?

If we say infinite is 'so' big then what of 'so+1'? Isn't it bigger... and so on.

So there is no infinite and hence no god.

Did a god create the Universe from nothing, zilch or zero?

Answer, no. There is no such thing as 'zero' so everything has not been created, at all.

From above. Since we can see there is no infinite then 1/infinite is not equal zero, since we can make infinite bigger and the answer smaller, but never realise either in truth.

Both of these points 'prove' god does not exist.

Q.E.D.

You have the permission of the author to spread the word!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
March 08, 2008 11:58am

Neil, what you have there is also a fallacy.

While I agree with you in spirit, your logic is incorrect.

Look up the mathematical concept of "infinite". It is not an absolute, and therefore is not definable in "so" terms.

No "so" indicates that there is no "so+1", which renders the remainder of your argument moot.

As for the second, I'm not actually sure I follow, but it seems to be based on the concept of "infinite" as a definable measurement. Again: wrong.

Of course, there are always the paradoxes, such as "Can god make a rock so heavy he can't lift it", and "how would an all-powerful god grant the wish (assume he is in a wish-granting mood) 'I wish you would not grant this wish'", but I've always looked at those more as a mental exercise than anything else.

I am not a religious man, but I am also not going to say that god (in whatever form) does not exist. The absence of evidence does not equal the evidence of absence, to quote the popular maxim.

Good day!

Rob Auz, Ohio (currently Iraq)
April 25, 2008 2:24am

The fact is, infinite (hence a god) is also lacking any definable traits.

For instance, to say you can have 'infinite' odd and even numbers, so that this is infinite times two, is ridiculous; as ridiculous as saying a god can have infinite energy/power 'and' create 'anything'... where the 'anything' then adds to the already infinite... in which case the previous infinite wasn't an infinite...

So infinity is itself a paradoxical term, born from the irrational 'belief' that there is a 'zero' by which you can divide a number.

Maths doesn't give the correct answer unless you start with a sensible initial event.

zero is not

creation is not

god is not... sensible.

And as for the maxim "." I shan't quote it...

Absence of evidence, 'and' contrary scientific evidence 'and' the 'feeling' that it is inherently wrong... is all the evidence I need.

Because just as they claim to feel a presence, I feel it is embarrassing to listen to them.

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 04, 2008 1:35pm

Again, you make the mistake of trying to (at least mentally) define infinite as a rational number. If there are infinite odd numbers, and infinite even numbers, the sum of those does not equal (infinite x 2). The sum is merely "infinite", that is, cannot be defined in any type of bounded definition.

Also, zero is DEFINITELY a sensible starting point for mathematics, in fact, it is the basis on which our math is made possible. Euclidean mathematics relies on the concept of zero; without it, even the simplest calculations are rendered nonsensical. And to say that "infinite" is not a valid mathematical concept, well, I'm not even going to touch that one.

As with your last one, I agree with you in spirit, but you seriously need to brush up on your theoretical mathematics.

Cheers.

Rob Auz, Ohio (currently Iraq)
May 14, 2008 12:06am

how do you explain human babies that are helpless for years and animals are able to survive in a matter of minutes.
how do you explain human reproduction which needs both male and females.
if we come from something like bacteria how come the are sexless.
how do you explain the earths age because noahs ark explains it correctly
how do you explain a wale something that came from a cow but it's nose and moth are not join did it siddenly decide oh i think i will unjoin my nose I DON"T THINK SO
oh by the way i am not 30 or even 20 i am much younger so that shows just how silly your "theories" are

nothing but noby, not gonna tell
May 23, 2008 12:35am

-From a link:-
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Zero.html

Quote- "0^0 itself is undefined. The lack of a well-defined meaning for this quantity follows from the mutually contradictory facts that a^0 is always 1, so 0^0 should equal 1, but 0^a is always 0 (for a>0), so 0^0 should equal 0. It could be argued that 0^0=1 is a natural definition since
lim_(n->0)n^n=lim_(n->0^+)n^n=lim_(n->0^-)n^n=1.
(2)

However, the limit does not exist for general complex values of n. Therefore, the choice of definite for 0^0 is usually defined to be indeterminate."

Unquote.

In other words: neither zero or infinite exist.

If you'd like to give me a definition of either that I can look at I would be welcome to do so.

However, throwing away all logic and saying 2 x I = I, because we say so is not a valid point.

That's more a religious point. (he,he)

It is not I who have a problem with theoretical maths (I nearly typed - myths!) it is theoretical maths that can't adequately define the 2 of them.

Regards.

I wouldn't want to be in Iraq at the moment! Especially if your a white, homosexual athiest, who uses the curan for loo paper!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
May 25, 2008 6:10am

> oh by the way i am not 30 or even 20 i am much younger so that shows just how silly your "theories" are

Oh, we can tell. Call back in ten years after you've studied biology.

Rudd-O, Guayaquil
June 15, 2008 4:45am

"How to Argue with a Creationist"

-Don't. It's like arguing over the internet... even when you win, you lose.

eric thorn, Seoul, ROK
June 22, 2008 7:46am

I would like to point out a simple text. Jeremiah 8:9
"Since they have rejected the word of the Lord, what kind of wisdom do they have?"

I am a Christian, and i argue with my boss who is a hardened evolutionist. I am 18, he is 53. He was a proffesor for 10 years. I have only ever used one of the arguments you listed. I will not go into the various fronts that I discuss with him. However your arguments seem rather silly to me. I just want point out that text to you. Today's scientists have rejected God, and try to fill that void with various theorys, proofs, facts, or whatever you may call them. The truth is, they will never be satisfied.

Dustin Wieske, Ontario
June 24, 2008 7:40pm

"Today's scientists have rejected God, and try to fill that void with various theorys, proofs, facts, or whatever you may call them. The truth is, they will never be satisfied."

They have not rejected God, They have simply come to the rational conclusion that based on the evidence, there is no such thing as "God."
PS. Learn how to spell and/or proof read before trying to sound so knowledgeable.

Autumn, Wa.
July 02, 2008 2:31pm

I wouldn't agree with either one of you. The existence of God is not a scientific field and is irrelevant to the work of people doing real science.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
July 02, 2008 2:45pm

And there we must disagree Eric.

Science puts forward the theory of evolution and explains that a creator {i.e. a THING capable of "spontaneously" creating, well, anything} is quite simply not needed when it comes to making, well, us.

That may not disprove a god, in your mind, but is certainly at odds with every religious text, every Faithers mentality and personal beliefs.

Science most certainly does deal with the so-called super natural; it disproves it. No single piece of testable/repeatable evidence for any 'super' event has ever been produced.

And if something exists, it is merely 'natural'. The term 'super' is meant simply to elevate the user above the level of Human understanding - so how the hell do 'they' claim to understand it.

Call a spade a spade and a liar a liar.

Some people need alcohol or drugs to make their lives interesting - others 'believe' in rubbish.

Take your pick.

There is no god. {Level 7}

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
July 11, 2008 1:36pm

"Today's scientists have rejected God, and try to fill that void with various theorys, proofs, facts, or whatever you may call them. The truth is, they will never be satisfied."

You're right on the mark, if by "God" you mean "ignorance". May scientists never be satisfied with ignorance.

Max, Boston, MA
July 11, 2008 5:11pm

Scientists should not reject the possibility of god, there being nothing to either prove or disprove the existence of a higher being. God, at least pro-actively, has nothing to do with science that we know for sure of. Science is a human tool, a way to understand, label, and explain the hard facts of what we see of our surroundings.

The theory of evolution, as an observable fact, should not be ignored by creationists. This is even more ridiculous.

The only time these two groups cannot get along is when people try to use ancient religious dogma (indeed useful for some things, back in the day) to fight a valid fact of the progress of natural life.
Dogma and science will never get along.

But God and science still have potential. There is nothing wrong with this combination, as long as they do not interfere with each other. There is nothing wrong with innocent beliefs alongside genuine scientific method. Do not let them damage our understanding of the world around us with science.

And do not let science, a work in progress, take out its stubborn adolescent fury on the driving force of millions of years of faith as an irreplaceable cultural developer.

Who knows. Maybe the primitive instincts of humanity are right about the presence of god. Maybe not. Our tools are not yet sufficiently developed to properly approach this immense equation in a factual light.

Sahara, Victoria, BC
July 12, 2008 12:20pm

If God designed all life, why is it so poorly designed? There is so little intelligence in "Intelligent Design" it is enough to make your eyes pop.

The human brain is the most important part of the body. Damage the brain and you cannot survive. You can survive without limbs, but not without a brain. But the brain is out in an exposed position where anything can get to it. Not only that, but due to the design of the body, if a person falls from a long distance, they are more likely to turn so that they are falling head down.

Why are the structures of the eye on the opposite side of the head of the area of the brain that controls the eyes? Why does the left side of the brain control the right side of the body and vice versa? What possible reason could there be for incorporating this into human design?

Why does a nerve run right behind the elbow where it's most likely to be banged and cause pain? Why don't we have separate tubes for breathing and eating, which would prevent choking? Why does our heart have to flip over during development, causing so many birth defects among infants where that doesn't happen?

The answer is that evolution doesn't have to be pretty or perfect. Evolution only has to work, more or less. Breathing through the eating tube (or vice versa) works, more or less. The crossed brain works, more or less.

If I thought that there was a God behind human design, I wouldn't consider him worthy of worship.

TychaBrahe, Chicago, IL, USA
August 15, 2008 1:50pm

I'll keep this short as my PC is playing up!

Look at the work of Darwin Himself:-

http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/chapter-13.html

Quote:"Organs...in this strange condition, bearing the stamp of inutility, are extremely common throughout nature. For instance, rudimentary mammae are very general in the males of mammals: I presume that the `bastard-wing' in birds may be safely considered as a digit in a rudimentary state: in very many snakes one lobe of the lungs is rudimentary; in other snakes there are rudiments of the pelvis and hind limbs. Some of the cases of rudimentary organs are extremely curious; ### for instance, the presence of teeth in foetal whales, which when grown up have not a tooth in their heads; and the presence of teeth, which never cut through the gums, in the upper jaws of our unborn calves.### It has even been stated on good authority that rudiments of teeth can be detected in the beaks of certain embryonic birds. Nothing can be plainer than that wings are formed for flight, yet in how many insects do we see wings so reduced in size as to be utterly incapable of flight, and not rarely lying under wing-cases, firmly soldered together!"

I must add that these are not Darwin's opinions. They are well known facts contained in the natural world for anyone who cares to go and look at; using your well designed 'back-to-front' eyes!

You often get that off a Faither; "that's your opinion!"

No it is FACT!

neil griffiths, Cardiff uk
August 18, 2008 4:41am

I may not be the brightest star in the universe, however, the human ego for most people keeps them from accepting the fact that we are nothing. We are smaller than atoms in the size of the known universe. less than a grain a of sand is our galaxy. Relearn rethink, come to grip. Step out of your selfish ego. Science is so much more accurate than myth, i.e religion.
Science has more than dramatically replaced religion, it has killed it. Maybe in a few thousand years something will advance and evolve into our thinking science like religion. Myth is imagination run a muck at the expense of growth and destruction of intelligence.

I am reminded of a great statement that is easily applied to religious nuts and creationist's... "EVERYONE'S A GENIUS UNTIL THEY OPEN THEIR MOUTH"

Kevin

Kevin, Hudson. Florida
September 12, 2008 5:26pm

I quite enjoy listening to Skeptoid, and this post has been a good resource for me lately. I recently became engaged in a debate with an acquaintance I knew in college who has offered many of the arguments contained in this post. What's particularly frustrating about it is that we were both physics majors; boggles my mind that he can have a degree in physics and still deny the validity of the scientific process.

Nathan Wahlgren, Fryeburg, Maine
November 08, 2008 6:21am

Sarah, Victoria, BC, Said:
"But God and science still have potential. There is nothing wrong with this combination, as long as they do not interfere with each other. There is nothing wrong with innocent beliefs alongside genuine scientific method. Do not let them damage our understanding of the world around us with science."

The problem comes with the knowledge is that God acted like a roadblock to understanding.

Copernicus could not bring himself to say that the Earth was not the center of the universe.

Newton, who literally invented calculus just to win a bet, could not postulate that gravity might affect the entire universe. God was the roadblock in his development.

Huygens, a brilliant astronomer could not divorce himself from God when he talked about Plants and animals. Does not say anything about God in his other writing.

Laplace wrote a 5 volume tome on Celestial Mechanics, was able to divorce himself from God when he figured out how small tugs can be calculated out of big tugs. This was something that Newton could have come up with, but God got in the way.

God may be a wonderful things for a society, but Belief in it is also a crutch that makes people useless for further developments in a field.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
November 24, 2008 11:58am

Evolution HAS been witnessed:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080417112433.htm

Is this not proof? Why?

I don't see evolution as anything more than a scientific fact that has little or no meaning in larger arguments: The origin of the universe and the genesis of life. These are the questions that need to be discussed realistically. The problem is that almost everyone who contemplates either of these questions, comes to a conclusion(no matter what it is or how they reached it) that they "know" is the only "right" one.
Anytime both sides are already positive their own position is correct, the discussion breaks down. The truth is, nobody knows the answers to these questions. Theory and faith are equally at fault until a real breakthrough is observed. Failure to admit this single truth is the biggest problem on both sides.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't have an opinion, just understand that it will, no matter which side you fall on, be considered "silly" or "unproven" by the other side in much the same way that you probably consider theirs.
There is no scientific explanation for our universe or its existence, there is theory but no proof. There is no proof of God, faith but no proof. Both should be equally unacceptable in reality as we know it.
"I don't know" are three words not spoken enough.

Kevin, Michigan
December 06, 2008 8:23am

Evolution is not concerned with the origins of life. It is more concerned with how live changes over time. Now, the religious people keep moving the goal posts. They make a claim, the scientist backs it up with evidence, then they shift the goal post. "Show me a transitional form" they say. The scientist shows them hundreds. Then they say "where is the transitional form between these two. There's a gap, I win!"

Of the world's religions, Buddhism is the only one that does not have an origin story. Buddhism is not concerned with that question. It is more concerned with the here and now.

There is a story of a man that converted to Buddhism when the Buddha was alive. He gave up all his worldly possessions, found Buddha, and was accepted as a disciple.

After a few years of studying with them, the man had this little doubt about the origin of the universe. He went to the Buddha and ask him, "You speak of humans and the human condition today, but do you have anything to say about the origins of the universe?"

The Buddha looks at the man and says, "If a man shoots you with an arrow, what would you have me do: Treat the wound, or find the man that shot you?"

I think other religions should do that.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 06, 2008 9:10am

True. Evolution, by itself, is not concerned with origins of life or the universe, but creationism concernes itself with both. That is why evolution is really not the polar opposite of creationism.
Finding a gap in the evolutionary process doesn't disprove evolution any more than filling it disproves creationism.
Both scientific theory and religious faith are riddled with the unknown. As scientists make advancements, older schools of thought are abandoned- both scientific and religious. Yet, neither can claim superiority based anything more than opinion.
Ironically, it could be asserted that creationist thought advances and evolves in much the same way science does.
I guess my point is that proof of evolution has no bearing on creationism as an entity. Obviously, a great number of people don't agree with that sentiment. Many will completely disregard empirical scientific evidence based on faith alone, while others see that same evidence as concrete in disproving something much larger in scope.
I think its wrong to assume that religion has "cornered the market" on creationist thought. Sure, it dominates, but there is also room for others. Others less bound by faith and more interested in truth and answers. Those that admit the unknown is much more prevalent than traditional arguments currently allow.

Kevin, Michigan
December 06, 2008 11:09am

I have to disagree that "religious faith is riddled with the unknown" and that its claims advance and evolve.

Religious faith claims one very simple answer that explains everything. And if that answer were to accept anything taught by the scientific method and thus advance, it would cease to be creationism.

Eric Schulman, Corona, CA
December 06, 2008 12:13pm

I think maybe I may have chosen poor words. I guess maybe "religion is riddled with the unknown" would be better. Understand, I am making the statement not as a follower of a faith but as an objective observer.
As far as the idea that any acceptance of science by religion would disqualify creationism, I would disagree. Christians ceased the opportunity to explain the Big Bang within the confines of the book of Genesis. Basically it was an attempt to affirm creationist religious doctrine with a scientific theory. That is evolution of thought, is it not?
I agree with your point about religious faith attempting to offer a simple answer to everything, however my point is that creationism cannot be confined within any single religious faith.
It find it easy for one to accept the posibility that science (including evolution) can exist within creationist thought.

Kevin, Michigan
December 06, 2008 12:42pm

Kevin, Michigan said
"I guess my point is that proof of evolution has no bearing on creationism as an entity. Obviously, a great number of people don't agree with that sentiment. Many will completely disregard empirical scientific evidence based on faith alone, while others see that same evidence as concrete in disproving something much larger in scope."

Okay, while it may be obvious to you, it is not to me. How are you defining Creationist? Are you making it scientific or are you trying to convert it into a philosophy?

If it is what I think you are implying, I want it both ways, so I am going to make it both ways, then your argument is so weak that you may as well not have one?

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
December 06, 2008 4:19pm

Joseph,
The only thing I said was obvious is that many people will and do not agree with my statement. It appears that you are one of them. I'm not trying to be philosophical, and I'm not not trying to convert anyone or anything. My "argument" consists of 2 things: 1) That evolution and creationism can exist simultaneously and that the two are not diametric in nature, and 2) That nobody knows the answers to questions concerning the origins of life and the universe.
Neither of those statements can realistically be disputed, yet you believe that makes my argument is weak.

Its not having it both ways, its admitting that I don't know. If the definition of creationist is confined to the "the story of the book of Genesis and the dispute of evolution," I understand why you feel that way. However, I take creationism to be much broader in definition. I guess I'm wrong so that's what makes my argument weak. Point taken.

I still don't think that has any bearing on the larger questions about creation of the universe and the genesis of life. My personal beliefs and opinions really don't matter. I accept the possibility of a god or higher being and I accept the possibility that there isn't, I also accept the possibility that scientific laws can exist within a "created" universe. I may lean in one direction or another as to which possibility I subscribe to, but that is pointless without any proof.

Kevin, Michigan
December 07, 2008 7:45am

Kevin

I believe that the reason for the misunderstanding is that you are using a very different definition of creationist than the people on this site are used to. Generally when someone is talking about a creationist, they are referring to a young earth creationist (or YEC). These people believe that the Earth is around 6-10k years old. The views of these people have been thoroughly refuted by modern science, and their current methods can be accurately described as manipulative and anti-information.

If you are speaking of creationism in the broader sense, you need to be more clear of your definition. Though theistic evolutionists believe that a god played a part in guiding or setting up evolution, they are hardly comparable to young earth creationists. I agree that creationism exists on a sliding scale with people giving more or less credit to what a god has done. Still, when the ideas of creationists are ridiculed on this site, it is almost exclusively limited to those who believe in literal translation of the bible.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, IA
December 07, 2008 1:08pm

Fair enough. I actually looked up creationism and I was surprised to see that the definition was limited to what you just described.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/creationism

I had always thought it to be broader.

Kevin, Michigan
December 08, 2008 7:24am

You are aiming at fairly easy to hit and damage straw men here--the really serious evolution questions do not involve same species modifications but macro evolution.
You should address that; that debate is alive and well among scientist.

mrs.chapin, USA
January 10, 2009 8:28pm

Mrs. Chapin,

You are wrong. There is no serious debate among scientists about macro evolution taking place. This myth is a lie perpetrated by the proponents of creationism/intelligence design and has no basis in fact. Creationists/ID'ers try to claim that macro evolution refers to one species turning into another. In truth macro evolution refers evolution over a long period of time. Anyone who say Kirk Cameron embarrass himself with the "crocaduck"" picture on Night Line a few years ago is familiar with how the creationist/ID'ers try to misrepresent macro evolution.

Craig, Washington DC
January 12, 2009 10:44am

The problem with evolution is that it has no answers as to how life began.
It had to begin somewhere with something.
It doesn't answer even the basic question as to why we can think ( how did thoughts start and evolve and what caused that?) and why do we know anything, if we do.
It allows for no difference between man and animal. There is.

Annelisefrench, PA
January 16, 2009 3:50am

The fact that we don't know the details of how life began is not a weakness for the theory. It is perfectly obvious to the most casual observer that life evolved over millions of years. There is a vast amount of data in the fossil record that clearly shows a the evolution of life forms over time.

The god did it nonsense of creationism is a weakness. There's no reason to explore the question if you have that made up answer. What ground breaking human advancing research is going to come from god did it?

Craig, Washington DC
January 16, 2009 2:12pm

Evolution does not claim to explain the origins of life. It explains how lifeforms, already in existence, change over time. Look to abiogenesis or panspermia for theories of how life originated on or came to Earth.

It's the same logical fallacy mentioned in the transcript you are commenting on.

Rebecca, Williamsburg, Va
January 16, 2009 7:31pm

What is the difference between man and animals if you allow for evolution?


And where did those "lifeforms" come from?
Abiogenesis? Panspermia?
Why not try aliens? That's what Dawkins thinks.
Now that's ground-breaking advancement research!

Annelisefrench, PA
January 16, 2009 9:10pm

Dawkins thinks no such thing and has said so repeatedly. That comes from the stupid hack job "Expelled" Ben Stein put together.

The short answer to the difference between man and animals is, biologically, there isn't one. The fact that you're threatened by that is of no importance.

Countries that don't inject cute little Bronze Agy myths into their science curriculum seem to function just fine. The we will all become anarchists and act like savages argument if we teach evolution is demonstrably false.

Craig, Washington DC
January 16, 2009 11:15pm

I don't care what you think of Ben Stein- no one was holding a gun to Dawkins head and made him say it. He said all on his own.
Clearly.

Seems to me for a website promoting skepticism, there would be more skepticism about life's origins being more than time+chance.

Biologically? What other difference can there be besides a biological one when all you have is time+chance and survival of the fittest? Where would something else have come from to separate man from animals? And what would that be?

The world existed just fine for CENTURIES without the cute little evolution theory myth being put forth in schools today. I am not refuting the idea that small changes can take place over time, but the changes required to get us from nothing nothing to a human being are nothing but conjecture.
Too bad skeptics aren't skeptical of that.

Annelisefrench, PA
January 18, 2009 11:01pm

In the interview clip, Dawkins was asked to talk about what some of the hypotheses (not theories) were for origins of life (not evolution).

Dawkins never said he was a supporter of the panspermia hypothesis. He clearly stated that we don't know how life originated (again, nothing to do with evolution). This is currently bustling area of research.

In addition, the science behind abiogenesis is far more vast than people merely speculating that time + chance = life. Just last week was a big news story where scientists experimentally tested the plausibility of RNA being the first self-replicating molecule.

www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090109173205.htm

Such hypotheses as abiogenesis lead to actual experimentation and advancement of scientific knowledge. I have yet to see any experiments which validate the creation "hypothesis" that aren't merely failed swipes at legitimate scientific hypotheses.

In addition, the case for common descent is far more deep than just "conjecture". I encourage you to read about the DNA evidence, particularly about endogenous retroviruses and protein functional redundancy. Both are extremely powerful lines of evidence which are predicted by the common descent hypothesis, showcasing how amazingly predictive evolution is.

www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses
www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#protein_redundancy

Predictive power is just one big difference between "conjecture" and an accepted theory.

Christian, PA
January 19, 2009 12:36am

It's sort of odd behavior if Dawkins thinks aliens spread life on Earth that he would go to all the effort to explain that he doesn't think that at all.

The world was okay without Evolution? Epidemimiology is based on the Theory of Evolution. You would rather live in a world that doesn't grasp things like evolved resistance to bacteria?

Is it that the world was okay without it or is it that your word is okay without evolution? What it sounds like you're saying is that you have your Bronze Age myth, you're comfortable with that no matter how demonstrably wrong it is. That's sad but fine as long as people who believe as you do understand that your views don't matter. You can't expect the rest of the world to stay in the Bronze Age.

Believe whatever you like but don't expect science to check with you before it moves on.

Craig, Washington DC
January 19, 2009 4:59am

If men are from monkeys why are there still monkeys?

Angela, Australia
January 19, 2009 4:25pm

If there is no intrinsic difference between man and animals, since after all, we are all related biologically (as stated above), then I would assume that no one should be eating meat.
Is this correct?

And quoted from Craig above:
"You would rather live in a world that doesn't grasp things like evolved resistance to bacteria?
Is it that the world was okay without it or is it that your word is okay without evolution? What it sounds like you're saying is that you have your Bronze Age myth, you're comfortable with that no matter how demonstrably wrong it is. That's sad but fine as long as people who believe as you do understand that your views don't matter. You can't expect the rest of the world to stay in the Bronze Age."

Bronze Age= Christianity?

I said that I accepted the idea that there are changes within an organism, (see my previous entry above) but the big myth in evolution is that there were enough changes with lots of time and chance to effect a change into another type of animal/kind/species.
A horse may have evolved into having different characteristics, but he still was a horse.

Dawkins can back-pedal all he wants. What I saw on YouTube sure looked like he thought it was a possibility. Why, anything but the possibility of GOD!
There are frauds in the halls of science, too. Don't be too sure that just because a scientist says so that it makes it true. Research has been promoted and dispersed based on whether it supports the bias of the researcher.

Annelisefrench, PA
January 19, 2009 10:31pm

Annelisefrench,

Your statement about not eating meat makes no clear sense. Lots of animals eat animals, and the DNA between humans and even PLANTS have similarities. I miss your point. But, if there is a special difference between humans and animals, perhaps it is the use of reason. Let's use it shall we?

I'm glad you 'accept' horses can change. How much can a horse change and still be a horse? What about a different population of horses, changing differently? The fossil record for the evolution of horse is extensive. How much evidence of change over time do you need? What more would you like to see? Or will there simply NVER be enough evidence to change your mind?

If YWHW, Wotan, Quezoquatl, or any other creator-being wanted to present evidence to change my mind, I'm more than open to it. They can manifest in the skies above me and perform a miracle. Until I see some actual evidence, God (any god) is not a scientific 'possibility.' It's either:
a) a position of faith, or
b) giving up on reason and science.

Morgan, Tracy, CA
January 20, 2009 12:13pm

My question is really not about not whether we should eat meat, but whether, because animals eat other animals, man could eat other men- in other words, why would cannabilism be wrong if all there is is biology? What makes man care when the animals don't?
The kids in my middle-age youth group believe that animals are smarter than man, especially the dolphins.
Just because man has higher reasoning abilities, there is no basis for saying it is wrong to be a cannibal, based on evolutionary theory. We are all related, share a common ancestry, and are just a higher animal form, and as has been said here, there is no difference between us and the animals.
We have been told because homosexuality occurs in nature, therefore, it must be natural. If that is true, then anything that man chooses to imitate from the animal world is just as valid.
There are people who refuse to eat meat because they believe we should all be vegans/vegetarians due to the fact that there is no difference between man and animals and we have no right to eat them or to cause pain and suffereing to them. The animals don't care... why should we? And on what basis, other than higher intelligence (which is questionable- I have seen animals that behave better than some people).

Annelisefrench, PA
January 20, 2009 7:52pm

Annelisefrench, I'm not impressed.

1. Evolution happens whether you like the moral implications or not.
2. Your moral implications of evolution are retarded, and no naturalist would accept them.

First, even your retarded logic contradicts itself because animal species don't imitate other species, so why should we?
Second, our society doesn't have to accept behaviors that increase pain and suffering just because some animals practice them.

Max, Boston, MA
January 21, 2009 2:12am

"Bronze Age= Christianity?"

The creation myth co-opted by Christians dates to the Bronze Age. Elements of it, first appear in the Epic of Gilgemesh around 2000 BCE putting it squarely in the Bronze Age. The whole myth is from the early to middle Iron Age though the precise date is hard to pin down. The fact that the earliest portions of the creation myth are in a wildly imaginative work of fiction should provide a clue as to the myth's scientific value.

Craig, Washington DC
January 21, 2009 2:13am

I still say the best way to argue with a creationist is with a length of 4x2.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
January 21, 2009 4:34am

Just what I thought. No basis.
Evolution has no basis to say why cannibalism would be wrong. It's not based on evolution- there is nothing that would make man any more valuable or have any more significance than an animal and upon your answers, that is exactly what you think. All you can do is say something is retarded, and that is based only on your opinion.

What makes you think I am here to impress? I thought this was a place to learn to debate....a creationist.

Max, maybe you should have a conversation with Marius about causing pain. Looks like he needs to evolve a little bit more.

Funny, I suppose the babies who die at the hands of the abortionist butchers don't qualify to be spared needless pain. They are less than an animal. They are pieces of tissue.
I don't see that here:
www.abortionNO.org

And yes, the argument has been given that because homosexuality occurs in nature, that it's okay for humans.

Evolutions has no answers for the dilemma found within each of us: that humans are capable of greatness as well as extreme cruelty.
Thank you, Marius.

annelisefrench, PA
January 22, 2009 10:24pm

None of the matters. Evolution is observable. There's nothing important about you have objections to it. It would be like objecting the the Law of Motion. Nature doesn't care that you think there might be some negative social consequences to what it does. If your concerns had merit societies that don't have a curriculum infected with Bronze Age myths would be collapsing. Sweden (as an example) is everything you fear. It's over 70% atheist or agnostic and they most certainly teach children evolution. If your concerns were valid the country would look like a cold version of a Mad Max movie. As far as I'm aware the country is doing just fine.

Craig, Washington DC
January 23, 2009 1:42pm

Angelina,
<If men are from monkeys why are there still monkeys?>
Evolution is a process of tinkering with current blueprints to better adapt them to their surroundings. If a blueprint is good enough for an environment then there is no point changing the organism. Some lifeforms have not changed a whole lot since they first appeared (take crocodiles, although they have changed too as environments have changed, just not drastically.)
I suspect the motivation behind your question is "If we humans are super-awesome, why didn't our ancestors also become super-awesome, like us?". The problem with that point is humans may not be super awesome. Sure we all think we are, but we have not really been on earth for all that long, and our continued existence is not guaranteed. Our blueprints might produce organisms that, say for example, polute the environment to the point where life for humans is unsustainable, and we die out. Secondly, even if we accept that humans are super awesome, it is likely to be because of our brain. Brains are expensive oragans to run, and the bigger the brain, the bigger the head, and the increased risk of birth complications. A species brain size thus is determined by their pelvis shape. So if a species does not walk on two legs their pelvis will be small, their brain will be small.
Finally, there is evidence that there have been bigger brained sapiens. These were probably super super awesome. But they probably became extint due to birthing complications.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
January 23, 2009 2:58pm

Annelisefrench, you're right, evolution doesn't say what's right and wrong. Neither does heliocentrism. Philosophers study morality, not scientists. But science does inform morality. For example, a philosopher says that it's wrong to inflict needless pain, and a scientist adds that plants and embryos aren't sentient and can't feel pain. A philosopher says that it's wrong to punish people just for being born a certain way, and a scientist adds that gays are born that way.

Science, including evolutionary psychology, also tells us about human nature. A moral system that's completely out of touch with human nature is destined to fail.

Max, Boston, MA
January 23, 2009 6:25pm

Annelisefrench, read about the naturalistic fallacy. It states that just because something is considered natural does not mean that it is moral. By the same token just because evolutionary principles do not give us a moral code does not mean it should be abandoned. Evolutionary theory attempts to explain the diversity and origins of life, it is not a ‘swiss army knife’ of explanations which attempts to explain absolutely everything explainable (unlike most religions). Evolutionary theory might demonstrate how some morals could have evolved, such as finding cannibalism repulsive. The success of a gene is dependent on how well it can spread through the gene pool. A cannibalism gene would not be successful because it would build organisms which eat other organisms, including those that carry the gene for cannibalism. The gene would stop its own spread throughout the gene pool by killing organisms which also carry the gene for cannibalism, preventing it from being transmitted into future generations. It is conceivable that a gene that builds organisms which avoids eating members of their own species would be more successful. This would ensure that organisms built with such a gene would survive to an age where they can send their genes to the next generation, as long as enough organisms in the local environment also possess the anti-cannibalism gene. If you want to find out more about how altruistic behaviours evolve, consult Richard Dawkins ironically named, The Selfish Gene.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
January 25, 2009 2:20am

Ah... annelisefrench... there is a logical hole you could drive a truck through in this arguement.

"My question is really not about not whether we should eat meat, but whether, because animals eat other animals, man could eat other men- in other words, why would cannabilism be wrong if all there is is biology?"

While it is true that animals eat other animals, cannibilism within species is rare.

The world isn't split into "animals" on one side and "people" on the other - there are potentially millions of species on Earth.

If for exampe, your question was "if llamas ate llamas, why can't men eat men", it might make a bit of sense (not much, but some) - but as stated it is just nonsensical.

As it happens, men DO eat other animals - and other organisms eat humans. This is how the environment works.

Pretty much everyone you know, or ever knew has been or will be eaten by something some day.

Brenton, New Zealand
February 15, 2009 3:00pm

Brian, I think you misunderstand the second law of Thermodynamics. The law expains why you can mix boiling water with ice water and get warm water but this will never happen in reverse as a result of random chance. Warm water will never separate into hot and cold water on its own. However, if we design a system with a stove and a refrigerator and power it with outside energy in the form of electricity you can get your hot and cold water back. The second law still applies because the larger closed system now contains a refrigerator and an oven. The entropy inside the system (i.e. the water) may decrease but the overall entropy of the total system has increased. You can always close the system by drawing a larger circle. The problem here is that the oven and refrigerator required an intelligent designer. In the case of evolution, you still have a closed system containing the earth and energy from the sun. Evolution still requires input from an intelligent designer to work. As far as your example of the deck of cards, shuffling will result in a random distribution of cards but if you show me a deck neatly sorted by suit from lowest to highest, I will be willing to bet the deck was sorted by an intelligent human being or by a card factory that was designed to produce them that way. Cards blown by the wind do not sort themselves.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
February 16, 2009 8:25am

Sorry Greg - that is a logical fallacy.

You are spot on with your 2nd Law description, but then you take it too far with the card analogy.

A deck of cards COULD (purely by chance) be shuffled to be in suit and rank order. In fact, that outcome is exactly as likely as any other order we might see in the deck.

However, we are programmed to see patterns - so we simply assume all other potential outcomes as "random", and if there is order, we see that as some evidence of interference.

In fact, there are many outcomes in a randomly shuffled deck that we would perceive as ordered - ascending and descending rank order, all in suits, etc...

Evolution is something like this - we see well adapted organisms - but there could be many other possible life forms that might have evolved (or survived past extinctions!) that are as likely as those we see around us today.

Brenton, New Zealand
February 16, 2009 11:38am

"As far as your example of the deck of cards, shuffling will result in a random distribution of cards but if you show me a deck neatly sorted by suit from lowest to highest, I will be willing to bet the deck was sorted by an intelligent human being or by a card factory that was designed to produce them that way. Cards blown by the wind do not sort themselves."

But if you have a whole load of randomised decks of cards, and the ones that aren't so sorted are discarded and replaced by the next one, then eventually one will come along that is improbably orderly in sequence.

The parallel isn't perfect because packs of cards have no mechanism for producing offspring decks that are slightly different from themselves, but then it was your metaphor so don't blame me.

Sam Samson, Bournemouth, UK
February 16, 2009 4:03pm

Brenton, how many patterns can you come up with to order a deck of cards that would not appear random? Ascending, descending, by suit, etc. There must be at least a few thousand ways? Maybe even a million. Hey, I'll grant you a billion or even a trillion. Now go check out www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/deck/ofcards.html The total number of ways you can shuffle a deck is 52 factorial which is a 68-digit number. Now subtract your one trillion patterns. You still haven't changed any significant digits! According to the website:

Imagine you could shuffle the deck 1000 times per second. Everyone on Earth (all 6 billion people) has their own deck of cards, and they're all shuffling them too, 1000 times each second. Now imagine everyone continues to do this for the next 10 billion years.

In all those shuffles you wouldn't have rearranged the cards even a fraction of the total number of possible ways!
I stand by original statement. A deck of cards sorted into any recognizable pattern you can come up with was sorted by a human. If you don't believe me, I would love to play poker with you cause I know I'll make some easy money.

So Sam, what exactly is the mechanism that the primordial goo had for producing offspring slightly different from itself? Is a stack of amino acids of nucleotide suits (A, T, G, and C) in a RNA or DNA molecule really all that different than a deck of cards?

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
February 16, 2009 10:00pm

It's interesting that the majority of arguments for evolution or for creationism believe that the true theory of their choice must explain -everything entirely- or is completely false. That's silly.

I also am amused that very few people will admit the possibility of a middle ground.

I'd also like to point out that the churches position on evolution is that God used evolution as a tool to create all things.

if someone pointed out any of this I'm sorry to repeat but I'm in class and didn't have time to read 500 posts :P

Matt Supple, cary, NC
February 17, 2009 9:08am

Evolution?
Sorry. I thought this was a poker forum.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
February 17, 2009 6:04pm

Matt,
I completely agree with you. I think that both evolution and intelligent design are necessary to explain the evidence we see in nature. I have arguments with fundamentalist Christians all the time and I agree their arguments are silly and easy to refute. But I also disagree with those who imply that science can explain everything using random chance and natural selection. The article that started this forum falls into this category. Many of his arguments go to far. For example he states:
"In fact, genetic algorithms (the computer software version of evolution), are starting to take over the world of invention with innovative new engineering advances that top-down designers like human beings might have never come up with. Bottom-up design is not only probable, it's inevitable and nearly always produces better designs than any intelligent creator could have."
This kind of thinking is overly idealistic. I spent many years writing software for genetic algorithms and various engineering applications and this statement belongs in a science fiction movie. "Eagle Eye" is one that comes to mind.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
February 17, 2009 8:50pm

The amazing thing is that the side that claims to be "scientific" has to make up an extraordinary amount of things in order to come up with one of the hundreds of versions of their 150 yr old theory.
Creation is simple. God created the earth, us, and all creation in 6 days. There's not much up in the air on the Creation side. Sure, there are a few intellectual weenies who try to be politically correct and go the "God started it and let it evolve" route, which is even more absurd then the laughable thought of evolution.
I understand many people are not comfortable with the thought they have to answer to a higher power, but maybe the humanist crowd can come up with something a bit more realistic then the cockamamie idea of evolution.
The true flat-earth society is full of those who think science solves so-called "mysteries" like the origin of life and cause for disease & infirmity.
All science truly does is begin to explain the wonders and complexity of God's creation. We (humans, creation, yes, you too) are so inferior to God's ability, wisdom, and power, which is proven every time we discover new species or determine a new level of molecular complexity.
How many still think the Appendix is a left-over organ from evolution?
If you give the circular reasoning dogma a rest and start using science to analyze life from a true scientific perspective, it won't take too long to start laughing at the absurdity that is the theory of evolution.

Ried Smith, Omaha, NE
February 19, 2009 8:38pm

Reid,
Your arguments are mostly name calling and unfounded claims. I am a Christian yet I am embarrassed to say you just proved the start of Brian's article where he says
"creationists do not base their opinions upon rational study of the evidence."
Do you honestly think an atheist would read your post and say, "Hmm. He made a some really convincing arguments. Maybe I should become a Christian." ????

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
February 19, 2009 10:11pm

> Creation is simple. God created the earth, us, and all creation in 6 days.

You have no evidence for that other than your very old collection of musing from goat herders.

People just like creation myths as an explanation because it's nice and simple. They are too intellectually lazy to try and understand the full complexities of reality. "God did it" explains nothing and is stunting to progress.

Steve Haigh, Nottingham
February 20, 2009 12:03pm

For fun I reread Genesis recently. It's such an obvious work of fiction it's an embarrassment that we could even be having this discussion in the year 2009. The geological evidence alone is clearly refutes it. Astro physics and astronomy don't help Genesis much either.

The flood myth is simply impossible to get around. Look at the diversity of life on this planet and its distribution. It's ridiculous to think you could get the animals in one place. You couldn't even fit all the land mamals on board (there are over 4000 species of them). Then we have to worry about all the insects, reptiles, and birds. That and the Flood story in Genesis is simply an abridged version of the earlier flood story in Gilgemesh.

This is really just intellectual laziness. People want to have this profound understanding of how the universe works but will settle but don't want to devout the time and energy required to get it. I fail to see how anyone can turn this level of willful ignorance into a virtue.

Craig, Washington DC
February 20, 2009 2:46pm

"The true flat-earth society is full of those who think science solves so-called 'mysteries' like the origin of life and cause for disease & infirmity."

Of course, religion has taught us more about disease than science has. For example, prayer never cures amputees because God hates them.

Max, Boston, MA
February 20, 2009 6:53pm

> The flood myth is simply impossible to get around.

Craig, if you aren't too "intellectually lazy" you can find a reasonable explanation of the Biblical flood account at:
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

At least you can see why you would not necessarily need to have all of the animals on board.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
February 21, 2009 8:35pm

Yeah, I've read it. It's just typical apologist back peddling. Nothing worth taking all that seriously. It's an indefensible position that's supported by creative biblical quote mining and tortured logic.

I found the bit about whole earth not meaning whole earth particularly amusing.

It's unfortunate you take this myths literally because you're missing out. The first two books of Genesis are really good coming of age stories. If you put the flood back into Gilgemesh (which is where it was taken from) it's a terrific tale about accepting mortality and living life fully. By insisting upon literalism you miss the entire point of the stories.

Craig, Washington DC
February 21, 2009 10:21pm

May I suggest a very intyeresting read: "God's Undertaker - Has Science Buried God?" by John C. Lennox

George Smyrnis, Greece
March 01, 2009 2:10pm

Greg,
So, the Biblical Flood was really a minor local flood that Noah survived by putting his goats on a barge and waiting it out.

Great way to defend miracles... making them NOT miraculous. I think I'll convert now. Or I'll wait to hear that Lazarus was just sleeping REALLY soundly.

Morgan, Tracy, CA
March 02, 2009 3:09pm

With 120 years warning, one would think "migration" might make more sense to avoid a flood than "build a bloody great big boat and wait for animals to show up"

Regardless of your world-view, a local flood makes no sense at all.

Brenton, New Zealand
March 02, 2009 3:25pm

WE HAD TO BE CREATED. THERE IS NO WAY NO HOW THE DNA/PROTEIN PROCESS IS GOING TO POP OUT OF A STERILE EARTH AFTER IT COOLS FROM BEING A BALL OF FIRE. NO MATTER HOW LONG ONE GIVES IT. HEY, I USED TO BELIVE IN THE EOHIPPUS AND THE TREE OF EVOLUTION, ETC. UNTIL I READ AND STUDIED THE BIBLE WITH SKEPTICISM. GOD CANNOT LIE.

GENE, JUNCTION CITY, OR
March 02, 2009 9:03pm

Gene,

Thank you for that well considered, well thought out contribution.

The evidence you have presented is... well, "absent" is the only way to describe it.

Oh, and FOR GOD'S SAKE STOP YELLING!

You will find a key near the middle of the keyboard titled "CapsLk".

If you press it, you can use big letters and little letters.

Ta.

Brenton, New Zealand
March 03, 2009 12:50am

Gene, all science trembles before your overpowering logic. Here's a hot tip for you: Loud does not make you right. Just a thought.

Craig, Washington DC
March 03, 2009 1:00am

Who says Noah's ark has to be a miracle? For those of you interested in evidence of a miracle, here's one:

Proteins are the building blocks of life. Proteins in turn are made up of amino acids of which there are 20 different varieties.

Protein of 100 amino acids = 10^130 possibilities
Protein of 500 amino acids = 10^650 possibilities
Protein of 27,000 amino acids = 10^35127 possibilities

# of atoms in the universe = 10^80
# milliseconds in 13.7 billion years (life of the universe) = 10^20

So even if every atom in the universe generated 1000 different amino acids every second for the entire life of the universe you would get 10^100 combinations.

That gives you one chance in 10^30 of randomly generating a small protein of 100 amino acids. Most proteins consist of around 1000 amino acids. Even if you generated a protein molecule, you still haven't created life.

Therefore, even the figure of 10 billion planets in the universe capable of producing life is completely insufficient to explain the likelihood of life in the universe.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 04, 2009 12:14am

Yeah sure, evolution is no different than an exhaustive search, or throwing a 20-sided die (icosahedron), with one amino acid per side. Just keep throwing it until the one right combination comes out. Then, forget about it, and start all over again. No reproduction, natural selection, or genetic drift or anything.

In another thread, I showed how a simple evolutionary algorithm takes 100 guesses to achieve the same performance as an exhaustive search of a million locations.

Max, Boston, MA
March 04, 2009 5:48am

"Who says Noah's ark has to be a miracle?"

Greg Peters

On the other hand, who says that Genesis has to be literal?

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 04, 2009 7:24am

Max,

The flaw in your argument is that a searching algorithm assumes that you know beforehand what you are searching for. Richard Dawkins even admits to this fact in his book "The Blind Watchmaker". On page 72 he admits that his evolutionary algorithm searching for the phrase "METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL" is misleading because "Evolution has no long-term goal. There is no long-distance target, no final perfection to serve as a criterion for selections." If you already know what a functional protein looks like, sure you can randomly generate amino acids and accumulate your target protein in a relatively small number of guesses. But evolution doesn't know what it is searching for, so your argument doesn't hold water.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 04, 2009 7:36am

The environment is what determines what works and what doesn't. The feedback is that poorly adapted species don't survive. Nature doesn't give the direction in which to evolve, but it does kill off those that evolve in the wrong direction. If the arctic fox starts growing thin black fur, it's gonna die. There's more than one way to survive in the Arctic, but this wouldn't be one of them.

Likewise, the only feedback to the evolutionary algorithm is that some samples survive and reproduce, while others don't.

Max, Boston, MA
March 04, 2009 8:47am

Max,

I thought we were talking about protein molecules. I have no argument with you that nature and the environment will accumulate beneficial changes in organisms that reproduce. Individual protein molecules don't procreate so no one yet has successfully argued against my evidence for a miracle.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 04, 2009 9:15pm

You're not providing evidence of a miracle, you're providing evidence that we don't know how life began. Yours is just a variation on the "we don't know so God had to do it" a god had to do it. The argument has no more scientific validity now than it did a thousand years ago when people thought a god caused illnesses.

Craig, Washington DC
March 04, 2009 10:22pm

Greg, I was talking about evolution, but I see you were talking about abiogenesis.
I'm no expert in biochemistry, but I'd expect large molecules to be progressively built up from smaller molecules, so it's still not a crapshoot.

Also, when you single out a specific protein, you commit the lottery fallacy. It's like saying that any given lottery winner had such a small chance of winning by chance alone, that it was a miracle. But the chance that SOMEONE will win is high.

If there really is something special about the molecule you've singled out -- like it's the only one that can self-replicate -- then you may have a point, but if you singled it out just because it happened to win the molecular lottery, then you should consider all the other molecules that could've formed instead.

Max, Boston, MA
March 05, 2009 12:04am

Craig,

Suppose for a second that God does in fact exist. Is there anything that God could do that you couldn't use your argument against it? Couldn't you always say, "I don't know how it happened. I just know that a god didn't do it." Furthermore, there is scientific validity in differentiating between what can be explained naturally and what may have information contained in it. Espionage, code deciphering, the search for extraterrestrial intelligence, crime scene investigation, and archeological identification are all fields that rely on the ability to detect information from randomness. You don't have to wonder if a watch has a designer. It is true that before Louis Pasteur, people didn't know that germs existed but I might also point out that it wasn't that long ago that scientists still clung to the idea of spontaneous generation of microscopic animals from non-living matter. The ancient Greeks even thought that maggots and mice sprang to life from nonliving matter. I find the idea of spontaneous generation of even a simple functional protein molecule just as naive. You have blind faith that science will someday find an answer even though there is no evidence to support your belief and no foreseeable path to a viable solution.

Max, protein molecules are highly specialized. Using your argument, instead of 10^650 possibilities, we can reduce that number by say 10^2 proteins, which now makes the odds 1 in 10^648.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 05, 2009 11:31pm

Greg, yes God could do some things that would be hard to refute. For instance, if Muslim intercessory prayer cured disease while Christian intercessory prayer didn't.

All those examples you listed (archeology, CSI, SETI), have a model of what's natural and what's artificial. Archeologists know that there's no natural process that could assemble stonehenge, but there is a natural process that could carve out the sandstone arches in Arches National Park.

Do Creationists offer a model of intelligent design? Is it similar to how humans design? Why is there so much genetic similarity between different species? Why are there vestigial structures?

Max, Boston, MA
March 06, 2009 7:33am

Greg Peters,

The burden of proof is on you. You have to demonstrate that your magic man in the sky did it. It has to be something that cannot be proven by other reasons.

Evolution has millions of data points to draw from, from fossils to DNA. Even if you try to deny the fossil evidence, we still have DNA. We can track where mutations cause new species.

Now prove your point. Construct an argument, give your evidence and post it.

Do not try to destroy our side of the argument. Until you can form a coherent argument, that is not proof of your argument. That is just chest pounding.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
March 06, 2009 6:58pm

Max,

I certainly agree with you that there are a lot of ways that God could be more persuasive evidence-wise. Creating rabbits in the pre-Cambrian would be a good example. Answering all Christian prayers and ignoring Muslim ones would be quite convincing indeed but would cause people to convert to Christianity for the wrong reasons. Kind of like a playboy model marrying an 80 yr old billionaire for his money. I believe God has no interest in coercing people to believe. However, I think the abiogenesis probabilities are sufficient proof of intelligent design. I'm not saying that proves the God of the bible did it. I haven't yet proved anything about the nature or character of the designer. When I get another 1500 characters I will offer a model of intelligent design. Now on to the question regarding vestigial structures. I believe they are the result of millions of years of natural selection. Render unto science what is science and unto God what is God's.

Joseph, your argument is not coherent enough for me to respond to. Sorry.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 06, 2009 10:02pm

I didn't say a god didn't do it; I said we don't know how it happened. The lack of evidence supports neither explanation.

As to there being no foreseeable path to a solution, that's simply no accurate.

Read this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

The article discusses ongoing research into the origins of life.

I'm curious, what would you say are the applications of your god did it hypothesis if you should ever get enough evidence to get it to the point of a theory? What breakthroughs in the natural sciences do you think this would lead to?

Joseph's argument seemed pretty straight forward to me. I'll summarize: Produce evidence of ID.

Craig, Washington DC
March 06, 2009 11:00pm

Craig,

Yeah, I've read it. I went back and read the abiogenesis article again to see if there was reason to think a solution is likely to be found.
Let me summarize it for you in terms the average person can understand. Some scientists speculate that life originated on earth. Some think that it orginated elsewhere. So and so proposed it developed below the surface. Some think the chicken came first. Others think the egg came first. So and so speculated that the ABC hypothesis might explain it but his theory was discredited by this other guy. I quote, "As of 2009, no one has yet synthesized a "protocell" using basic components which would have the necessary properties of life (the so-called "bottom-up-approach"). Without such a proof-of-principle, explanations have tended to be short on specifics."

I'll summarize: No evidence for abiogenesis.

I also think you can learn a lot about engineering by attempting to build a perpetual motion machine. If you want to put your faith in the hope that scientists will some day create a perpetutal motion machine, that is your perogative. One thing we can agree on is that researchers will learn a lot about biochemistry by trying to create life in the laboratory.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 07, 2009 4:19am

Obviously the answers would be short on specifics if the research is ongoing. That does not rule out future breakthroughs. Clearly there are possible avenues that might lead to an understanding of the origins of life on Earth.

Those things scientists are learning are not a result of creationism. Creationism is simply satisfied with a god did it explanation. What we learn from this research is a direct benefit of not trying to inject Bronze Age myths into science. What are the applications of the creationist hypothesis?

Craig, Washington DC
March 07, 2009 6:53am

:rotfl:

You should keep propagating your idea that creationists only have tired, old arguments. It's priceless ...

Grant Dexter, Taipei
March 07, 2009 10:33am

With the launch of the NASA Kepler planet hunter yesterday, imagine if we could actually send a probe to another earth-like planet. Now suppose this probe photographed a Stonehenge like formation on this far-away planet. Would that prove that intelligent life once existed on this planet?

Craig, you are correct when you say that "a god did it explanation" eliminates the need for further scientific research. My argument, however, is that you need to look at the statistical probabilities of an event occuring before applying research dollars to a wild goose chase. You say that "clearly there are possible avenues that might lead to an understanding of the origins of life." I do not think that is clear at all. I do not see anything on the abiogenesis wiki that indicates this is an area worth spending government tax dollars on. I think the money would be better spent on understanding how the genes work, how to cure genetic diseases, etc. There are lots of far fetched ideas scientists could do research on, but you need to at least show some reasonable possibilities before allocating research dollars.
One application of the creationist hypothesis is in the area of ethics and morality. Science is not a good tool for evaluating ethical issues. If life is the result of survival of the fittest, is it wrong to kill handicapped babies? Another application is meaning and purpose in life. If I am the end result of abiogenesis, then I am nothing more than a bag of chemicals.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 07, 2009 8:38pm

You already are a bag of chemicals. All studying abiogenesis does is figure out how they all came together. If I understand you correctly, you don't want anyone to research this topic because if they come up with an answer you have to redefine yourself. In other words, if you're the result of abiogenesis, you're not special, you weren't created specifically for anything and there's no one up there who has a plan for you.

Look at it as an opportunity for you to decide what gives your life meaning, and what purpose you want your life to have.

Craig, Washington DC
March 07, 2009 10:53pm

Craig, unfortunately you still do not understand my point. I will try again. I personally would be thrilled to see how such a complicated structure as DNA could come about naturally. As a scientist, I think that would be one of the most facinating discoveries of all time! I think such a discoverer would be worthy of a Nobel prize and I would buy every book that person wrote. It would make for absolutely fascinating reading. Such a discovery, however, would not require me to redefine myself at all. It would not disprove the existence of God. But I can understand your reluctance. If abiogenesis is not possible and God does in fact exist, that might mean you are special, you were created for a purpose, God has a plan for your life, and you are accountable to your creator.

Max, if you are still out there, I would still like to know if you think a Stonehenge-like formation on a far-away planet would prove that intelligent life once existed on that planet. Thanks!

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 08, 2009 1:47pm

With a stonehenge-like formation, it's hard to say. A far-away planet may have different environmental conditions like low gravity.
A Swiss watch-like object would indicate intelligent life.

Max, Boston, MA
March 08, 2009 4:47pm

Max,

Fair enough. So why is it then that a Swiss watch-like object would indicate intelligent life? What is your model or criterion for being so certain that this object indicates intelligent life while the stonehenge-like formation is hard to say? Craig, if you read this I would be extremely interested in your opinion as well.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 08, 2009 6:46pm

If I may...

A watch shows obvious design in that it is manufactured. The components are created from non-living parts and there is no logical way they could self assemble.

Stonehenge (to me) is also self-evidentally a construct, as there is no logical way the rocks can self-assemble in the way shown.

Now, I assume that your next question is going to be along the lines of "Ah! But a living organism is much more complex - why can't it be designed as well?"

If that was to be your next question, the answer is that living systems are demonstrably capable of self-assembly and reproduction.

They don't need to be tinkered with to grow - they just need favourable conditions.

And if we ever reach the stage where we can create self assembling and reproducing constructs, hopefully we won't lose the records of their construction, so some poor fool 10,000 years in the future doesn't have to have this same argument...

;-)

Brenton, New Zealand
March 11, 2009 7:06pm

Stonehenge is obviously manmade not only because stones on Earth can't self-assemble like that, but also because we know that humans build monuments, and Stonehenge is surrounded by burial mounds. We have a whole context on Earth that we wouldn't have on another planet.
On another planet, who knows, maybe the environment could assemble such a thing. But a wristwatch, no way.

The main point is that following Occam's razor, we should exhaust the known possibilities before making new assumptions about the unknown. Alien life is a big assumption. Intelligent life is an even bigger assumption. Existence of the supernatural is a huge assumption. At most, it would be a hypothesis that would still need to be tested.

Max, Boston, MA
March 11, 2009 8:41pm

Brenton,
Keep in mind that we are talking about abiogenesis right now, the orgin of life from nonliving chemicals. You are correct if you say that amino acids have been shown to self-assemble under the correct conditions. However, amino acids and nucleotides have never been demonstrated to self-assemble into DNA, RNA, or proteins. A living cell certainly has never been created from scratch in the laboratory. So your answer that "living systems are demonstrably capable of self-assembly and reproduction" fails to address the argument.
Max,
If we were to find a wristwatch type object on another planet, would that prove that intelligence of some sort must have existed to design and build it? You say that there is no way that the environment could assemble such an object, correct? So if such an object does in fact exist, what does that prove? Do you agree with me that intelligent design has been demonstrated? Don't get ahead of me. I am not making any assumptions about what the nature of the intelligence is, only that it is intelligent.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 11, 2009 11:38pm

Hang on Greg - you missed out the word "yet".

we have only been experimenting with this stuff for 80 years or so (and only for about 40 with any real idea of what we are doing), and in a relatively small number of labs worldwide.

This is a tiny amount of time to try to recreate what conditions originally led to life being formed on this planet. The natural "experiment" covered most of the earth's surface and took many millions of years to run.

It is chauvanistic in the extreme to suggest that we have tried everything yet, or even have a really good idea of what conditions originally led to the first living cell appearing on this planet.

we are still learning about the mechanisms of life as it currently exists. Learning everything about the past is going to take a very long time indeed!

Brenton, New Zealand
March 12, 2009 5:17pm

Brenton,

By your own argument then, you must be chauvinistic in the extreme. You stated that there is no logical way that a watch could self assemble. We have only just begun to explore other planets. We know very little about the conditions that might exist on those planets. Out of trillions of planets and billions of years to evolve don't you think it is possible that at least one planet is covered with watches? Gears could have evolved from rock crystals. Spiral springs could have evolved in the same way you claim a DNA molecule could evolve. According to wikipedia, watches evolved in the 1600s from spring powered clocks, which appeared in the 1400s. The technology we had coming out of the Dark Ages was sufficient to build a spring powered clock. So wouldn't you think with our modern technology we could create a single living cell in the laboratory under ideal conditions? Shouldn't we be able to construct a machine that would take amino acids and nucleotides and then carefully put them together in just the right way to build a cell? Under the microscope we can see exactly how a cell is constructed. Yet this seemingly simple task is not yet feasible even under the direction of the most intelligent human designers and most ideal of conditions. Your faith far exceeds any young earth creationist I have ever met.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 12, 2009 8:50pm

O...kay. On one hand we have me ("we don't know yet, and therefore we need to do a lot more work to find out") and on the other, we have you ("we don't know now, therefore we will never know, and it can't have happened anyway")

Whatever...

Brenton, New Zealand
March 13, 2009 2:58pm

Max and Brenton,

I don't see that you have any logical basis for asserting that a watch can not possibly self-assemble yet a DNA molecule can. It would make a lot more sense to be consistent and say that if DNA molecules can self-assemble, then it is very likely that there are planets that have wristwatches. Can you really claim that your opinions are based upon a rational study of the evidence? I think it is clear that you do not base your opinions on logic and reason, but rather on prejudice. You can't accept the idea that there might be an intelligent designer who created life on earth because that would have implications you don't want to accept.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 14, 2009 5:18pm

Greg, I will try to explain why the watch and a DNA molecule cannot be compared in the way that you want to compare them. When it comes to self assembly, DNA has shown the ability to replicate and self assemble. All you need to do is split a DNA molecule into two strands in the presence of nucleotides, and the nucleotides will automatically line up to make a complimentary strand. This is a massive difference from the parts of a wristwatch.

The gears, hands, and springs in a wristwatch have no conceivable way to self replicate. They have no biochemical properties (charge, pairing attributes, etc) that would allow them to complete this task. You are trying to compare apples to lug nuts.

Also, although we cannot create a living cell in a laboratory (a task far more difficult that I think you comprehend), we can easily replicate many parts of a cell. DNA can be quickly and massively replicated using PCR. Proteins can be replicated using bacteria and plasmids. Entire cells are easily replicated in labs around the world. As far as I know, there is no machine where you can put in a wristwatch and it creates an exact, working duplicate.

Research has given clues about how the first self replicating molecules could have come into being. Although there isn't a definitive answer for any of your questions, science is working on it. Saying we will never know is a lot like someone in 500 AD claiming that we will never know what makes people sick.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 18, 2009 9:19am

Steve,
Thank you for your response. Let me clarify. My argument is based on the complexity of the watch, not on the nature of the watch itself. Even so, a self-replicating mechanical system could conceivably be designed. Iron can be magnetized so it has a charge. You can easily design mechanical pairing attributes like nuts and bolts. A replicating machine may be beyond our current technology, but in theory I don't see why not. At any rate, such a system would be the result of an intelligent designer so it is a moot point.

We can design watch factories. We can design self-replicating software. Someday maybe we will even design a biochemical wristwatch. (Gives a whole new meaning to biological clock!) If you discovered any of these on another planet, you would immediately claim proof of intelligent life. A self-replicating system whether it be a molecule or a mechanical system is sufficiently complex to require an intelligent designer. The fact that we can replicate proteins or parts of a cell is about the same as saying a photocopier can duplicate a science textbook. It doesn't prove that the textbook could come about without the aid of an intelligence.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 18, 2009 10:34pm

Greg said, "A self-replicating system whether it be a molecule or a mechanical system is sufficiently complex to require an intelligent designer."

This is where the train jumps the tracks. You are making the assumption that because something is complex that it requires a designer, and that is incorrect. It is an argument from ignorance. Since you cannot think of any way to get a cell besides a designer, then you immediatly proclaim that there must be a designer. Just because you can't explain it, doesn't mean it can't be true.

Complex entities often form by natural means. Snowflakes are incredibly intricate and complex but we understand how they are naturally formed (unless you believe that a god individually makes each snowflake). There are also much larger complex structures that formed by natural means such as the Indian with the Ipod (http://www.dvhardware.net/article14548.html). I will admit that a cell is more complex than these examples, but I am just showing that complexity does not require a designer.

Even in your example above with magnetization and nuts and bolts, there is no self assembly. A magnetic gear will stick to a ferrous metal, but nothing will then cut out a new gear. Nuts and bolts are paired but placing them together in a bin is not enough to get them to screw together. You are picking and choosing attributes that make your example seem reasonable while ignoring the massive differences that make the example inadequate.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 19, 2009 7:54am

Steve,
The part that you are missing is that any random combination of ice crystals is still a snowflake. There is nothing that makes one special over another. Even atheist scientist Richard Dawkins recognizes this fact when he states "Any one of a very large number of ways of throwing rocks together would be labelled a mountain...[However] If you took all the cells of a swallow and put them together at random, the chance that the resulting object would fly is not, for everyday purposes, different from zero." When something is complex and has some particular proficiency such as the ability to fly or to self-replicate and not just any old combination of parts will do, then it has what we call "specified complexity" and it has the appearance of design. I like your indian with ipod picture. Now check out http://www.worth1000.com/cache/contest/contestcache.asp?contest_id=752 and look for the picture of the sleeping cat mountain. So do you really believe that specified complexity does not require a designer? At some point, you have to believe the picture has been edited in photoshop by an intelligent designer.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 19, 2009 10:38pm

Greg, worth1000.com is a site that constantly holds photoshop contests. Once again you made a mistake and assumed that because you found some photoshopped pictures, an intelligent designer explains all such phenomenon. Unfortunately for you, the Badlands Guardian is a real, natural geological feature. It is found east of Medicine Hat, Alberta, Canada and can be seen on Google Earth. No one had to photoshop that picture. That is exactly what an aerial photograph of the region looks like. Perhaps you sometimes insert an intelligent designer when none is needed to explain a phenomenon.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 21, 2009 8:50am

Steve,

You totally missed my point. I will try to be clearer. I am fully aware that the ipod indian picture is real and very much enjoyed looking at the google earth picture and afterwards found my house as well. I was not trying to suggest that someone had to photoshop that picture. You assumed that I made a mistake and that I was inserting an intelligent designer (ID) when none is needed. I made no such mistake. The point I was trying to make is that you can't extrapolate simple patterns in nature to prove that extremely complex patterns are possible as well. At some point, a picture (like the sleeping cat mountain) becomes so specifically complex that natural causes are ruled out. Perhaps another illustration will help clarify. Suppose I look up at the sky and exclaim, that cloud looks remarkably like a rabbit! I do not need to invoke ID in order to explain it. Now suppose I see a "cloud" that spells "Lisa will you marry me?" Now I am quite confident that ID was involved and there is probably a young man proposing to his girlfriend. The fact that nature makes patterns that look like rabbits and indians makes me no less certain of this probability. Your argument that snowflakes and ipod indians help prove that DNA could occur without ID seems to me just about as inane.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 21, 2009 9:10pm

Greg - the problem, as I see it, is that you are looking for evidence of intelligent design, but you are not exhibiting intelligent observation.

Your observation of clouds (and the other examples you have put forward) is simplistic - because we *know* that skywriting and watches and all of the other things you have mentioned are man made.

We also know that through completely natural means, animals reproduce, mutation causes changes in organisms, organisms evolve and ultimately go extinct.

We simply don't have proof yet how DNA was first formed, and as I mentioned several posts back - it could be a *very* long time before we do.

However, the chances that we will ultimately demonstrate that life could arise from non-living matter are very good - because pretty much *every* other prediction of naturalistic creation of life has been demonstrated scientifically.

Evolution works, our DNA is full of "junk" DNA that suggests we are at the end of several billion years of trial and error development, our cells contain relics of ancient DNA, we have structures that don't make sense from an engineering point of view, and all of the rest.

Brenton, New Zealand
March 22, 2009 4:27am

Here's a cloud that apparently spells out "Allah" in Arabic.
http://www.barakallah.com/images/clouds.JPG

Max, Boston, MA
March 22, 2009 9:48am

Brenton,

If you read back a few posts, you will see that Max was the one that brought up the watch example and that this hypothetical watch-like object exists on another planet. So it obviously isn't man made.

If the "we don't know yet" argument works so well for you, why don't you use it to explain junk DNA? I was just reading yesterday in the January 31, 2008 issue of ScienceNews that "Mining the DNA record has revealed that regulation of gene activity - often by DNA segments previously thought of as junk - is critical in shaping development."

Naturalistic creation has failed to predict some very surprising discoveries. For example, Darwin was not a fan of rapid transitions. In his view evolution acted through the relentless accumulation of tiny changes through vast spans of time. The fossil record, however, reveals exuberant bursts of innovation such as the Cambrian explosion. As you so often point out, there is much that we don't know. So I must disagree with you that nearly *every* prediction of naturalistic creation has been demonstrated scientifically. I think there is room for both theories.

And Max - Thank you for the "Allah" picture. That is awesome.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 22, 2009 2:46pm

Because we have some very good models of why junk DNA is formed, and remains in the genome.

Look up transposons for example.

And you have taken a simplistic view of the issue with your reference to ScienceNews.

Yep, it is dead right that not all "junk" is junk - but much of it is.

Also, Darwin had no idea about genetics. The main discoveries in that field didn't occur until many years after his death. Even Mendel's work on peas was published several years *after* Origin of the Species.

Oh, and the Cambrian "explosion" is believed to have happened over approximately 10 - 20 million years.

You can fit an awful lot of evolution into ten to twenty million years....

There is also good evidence of a very broad pre-Cambrian biota, so "rapid" and "explosion" don't really work as accurate descriptors.

Brenton, New Zealand
March 22, 2009 5:28pm

"The point I was trying to make is that you can't extrapolate simple patterns in nature to prove that extremely complex patterns are possible as well."

I would agree with that statement if you included the word "always". Sometimes you can extrapolate very simple concepts to include much more complex examples. The simple concept of erosion can be shown using a jagged stone in running water. Though this is a very simple example, the concepts displayed can be extrapolated to explain the formation of the Grand Canyon and the erosion of the Appalachian Mountains.

Also, you seem to be convinced that the first self replicating system was incredibly complex (please correct me if I am wrong about this). This is almost certainly not true. No one is proposing that there was primordial soup one minute and a paramecium the next. Single celled organisms that exist today are all highly evolved and much more complex than what scientists are looking for in a self replicating system.

Lastly, you fell into a trap that you accused me of in the previous post. You assume that because a function was found for some junk DNA, that all DNA is now useful. The fact is that most of that DNA is still random junk while some of it may have unknown functions. Also, on top of the Cambrian Explosion lasting several million years, this was a period where many organisms developed the ability to utilize chalk as an exoskeleton giving them a much higher chance of being fossilized.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 22, 2009 5:45pm

Brenton and Steve,

Did I really say that all DNA is now useful? Or did you assume that is what I meant? I apologize for what was apparently a very badly formed argument. I certainly believe that vast areas of the human genome are unused.

Steve, I give up. Do you really think erosion of the Grand Canyon is specifically complex? Do you really think a biochemical self-replicating system is simple and yet a mechanical self-replicating system is impossible to build? I'm not following you man.

Regarding the Cambrian Explosion: I'm sorry, I did not realize that scientists had all the answers and there is no question yet unanswered. Almighty science can explain everything and there is no possible way God could have anything to do with it. There, are you happy now?

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 22, 2009 9:25pm

Greg:

Is this what you do when you lose an argument? Why do you cry foul, throw a tantrum, and run away sulking?

Why do you get mad when the answers we have conflict with the answers you have?

We have the answers because we go out looking for them. We do not throw out hands up and say "god dood it" when we get frustrated. Instead, we go find the answers ourselves and build from there.

We do not accept that your god has a hand in the way life evolves for the simple reason that you cannot test it in a lab. Anecdotal evidence is not proof.

You try to use occam's razor --the simplest solution is the best -- for your claims. The problems is that your God is not the simplest solution for the problem.

Evolution is simple: Nature poses a problem, and life tries to find a solution for that problem. Those that can find the solution lives. Those that cannot dies.

That is the simple answer that explains the Cambrian explosion and everything else in the world. You need to make it complicated.

I reject your notion of God because frankly he is not a loving god, if he exists. The world is trying to kill us every day with disease, plagues, weather patterns, and even with wild animals. If he is so loving, why did he set up a system where he is trying to bully us into worshipping him? And even if we submit, he still does not stop bullying us.

Why do you play the victim? We do not agree with you and frankly, 95 percent of Christians disagree with you also.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
March 23, 2009 7:15am

What I find frustrating is that communication is so difficult. I am not mad that you have different answers. I just find the Grand Canyon argument completely unsatisfying. If you think the existence of the Grand Canyon and snowflakes proves DNA can evolve then I guess by your logic you can win the argument. I don't find it convincing at all. If saying "Science doesn't know yet" proves in your mind that I lost the argument, that is your perogative.

Joseph, you are using circular reasoning: Only things that can be tested in the lab are true. God by definition can not be tested in the lab. Therefore God does not exist.

To me, if God stopped the suffering of only those who submitted to worshipping him, I could see how that might be construed as bullying. Since Christians suffer as well, I don't see that as bullying.

I would guess that 95% of Christians are not scientists so it would not surprise me that they might disagree with me on some issues.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 23, 2009 9:00am

The snowflake example demonstrates that the molecular level has mechanisms to construct intricate patterns. By contrast, if you find a snowflake pattern carved out of wood, you'd suspect it's manmade.

A computer simulation still takes a whole day to grow an accurate snowflake.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090224163643.htm

Fractals in general illustrate that simple rules can generate complex patterns.

Max, Boston, MA
March 23, 2009 9:15am

Max, I could see how you might have a point if DNA molecules followed a pattern. Snowflakes and fractals repeat a simple rule to generate complex patterns. DNA molecules, however, have long sequences of nucleotides that appear completely random except for the fact that they perform some useful function. They are basically a cookbook or instruction set for building proteins. Not just any old sequence will result in a functional protein. If you look back at previous posts, you will see this argument illustrated as the difference between a cloud forming recognizable patterns and one spelling out an entire sentence. A sentence is essentially a random combination of letters that has information and meaning. The pattern ABC ABC ABC ABC, however, does not have meaning.

Joseph, how can you be sure a loving God would not tolerate certain short-term evils in order to obtain long-term benefits? For example, if we didn't die we also would not experience the joy of having children.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 23, 2009 12:39pm

Greg, it took an Arabic speaker to notice the cloud that spelled "Allah". Meanings are in the eye of the beholder, and it's easy to see meanings where there aren't any. I try to avoid this by focusing on whether something is physically possible.

Max, Boston, MA
March 23, 2009 1:51pm

For example, a wristwatch isn't artificial just because it tells time. Any periodic process tells time. But a single metal disk is probably artificial even if it does nothing.

Max, Boston, MA
March 23, 2009 3:06pm

People die so they can experience the joy of children???

Then why do bacteria simply split apart?

Do cuckoos know the joy of parenthood? How about sharks - in some species, the pups fight it out in the womb, and only the most aggressive survives. The other is eaten.

What about parasitic wasps? That lay their eggs in the flesh of other organism's children?

How about parts of the world where human children are born with AIDS, or malnutrition, or get murdered shortly after birth because they are the wrong tribe, or the wrong sex?

Or have massive chromosomal damage that means they are still born, or die shortly after birth. I wonder what lesson that teachs....?

And why do Christians and others suffer at the same rate? If it isn't bullying, it is certainly indifference.

As for God not being able to be tested in a laboratory, no. That is right. Actually, he could be.

Set up an experiment where god had intervened in the past (say.... a blind beggar in the street), perform the same acts (spit in mud, paste to eyes) and see what happens.

The outcome of the experiment could be used to provide a datapoint. Perform the same sort of experiment lots of times, and see what the statistics say.

There are all sorts of miracles that can be tested, and not all were performed by Jesus...

You were very keen to quote probabilities earlier in this thread, Greg. Why not conduct the same sort of analysis on the question of whether god exists or not?

Brenton, New Zealand
March 23, 2009 4:08pm

Brenton, your last post goes way off the topic of evolution. Despite what you think, any discussion on the existence of deities is philosophical and science cannot give a conclusive answer on the subject.

Greg, I think you are missing the point of my examples. The snowflake example was meant to show that complexity does not always require a designer. Extreme complexity can arise from natural processes. The Grand Canyon example was meant to show that sometimes (even often) simple concepts can be extrapolated upon to explain events many orders of magnitude larger or more complex than the conceptually proven points. Neither conclusively demonstrates that DNA was naturally created, but both show that some of your preconceived notions are flawed.

Once again I may be misreading your comments, but you seem to believe that the first DNA strand must have coded for a protein, or that the first protein needed to have a specific function. Neither of these beliefs have to be true. People often get caught up in comparing the first protein/DNA/RNA to modern highly evolved proteins/DNA/RNA.

Finally, I have never understood why YEC/ID proponents bring up the beginning of life when talking about evolution. Evolution describes how living organisms change, not how life could have come from non-life. It doesn't matter if abiogenesis, panspermia, or a deity is responsible for the first cell. Evolution only explains what happens once that cell exists.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 23, 2009 5:06pm

Steve, yes, I agree it does.

However, I found the statement "if we didn't die we also would not experience the joy of having children" offensive.

It is not in my nature to simply put up with statements of that kind without response.

Brenton, New Zealand
March 23, 2009 5:14pm

I'd guess that Creationists play "God of the gaps" with the beginning of life because the science there is less mature.

Max, Boston, MA
March 23, 2009 6:53pm

Steve, how do you envision molecular evolution working if the first protein had no specific function? There has to be some advantage for natural selection to act on. In order for evolution by natural selection to work, a random change has to occur that is significant enough to affect the chances of survival.

The science of evolution will never be developed enough to prove that every step along the way is small enough to have occurred by random chance. This is because the fossil record is incomplete and DNA is not preserved. Therefore it is impossible to completely prove or disprove evolution by natural selection. If we had a complete record of DNA through each generation we could analyze the probabilies of each mutation and know if ID was probable. Since we don't have the data we need, I find it futile to argue this particular point. The "God of the gaps" argument is one of the most misused arguments against creationism. If God did actually create something, wouldn't that inheritently leave a gap in our scientific understanding?

Max, meanings are not always in the eye of the beholder. A combination lock is a good example. There is only one combination that will open the lock and therefore that number sequence has inherent meaning. It is unique in that it is the only one that "works". Proteins are the same way. Only one combination of hundreds of amino acids will provide that particular function.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 23, 2009 9:48pm

Thank you for specifying molecular evolution since this is different from the theory of evolution. The only thing needed by the first protein is the ability to self replicate and the possibility of a mistake being made. This makes it possible for certain proteins to self replicate faster, last longer, etc.

The god of the gaps argument is often brought up because deities used to fill several gaps that are now understood in completely naturalistic terms. Disease, weather, crop success, and many other completely natural processes were previously explained by the existence of a deity. As science grew, these processes were figured out and the deity was no longer needed. Pointing to a gap today and claiming that science can never understand it is exactly the same as a man in 1000 BC claiming disease cannot be explained without a deity.

Finally I want to address this quote, "Only one combination of hundreds of amino acids will provide that particular function."

This is not true. In DNA there are literally millions of codon sequences that will produce the exact same protein due to the redundancy in the system. In a protein, the replacement of one amino acid with another doesn't always affect the function. If the amino acid is similar to the one it replaces (in size and polarity) and it is not near the active site or a critical fold or bond, then the function of the protein will change only slightly or not at all, with any change happening to reaction rate, not function.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 24, 2009 8:30am

Steve,

Thank you for your clarification. The first problem I see with your argument is that proteins don't have the ability to self replicate. I don't see any conceivable mechanism for this to occur. Second, you haven't mentioned any natural selection mechanism that advantageous changes could act upon.

You are correct that there are millions of codon sequences that will produce the exact same protein because of redundancy in the system. There are 4 nucleotides (A, T, G and C) of which 3 are needed to specify an amino acid. This gives us 4^3 or 64 ways to specify an amino acid of which there are 20 found in living organisms. This doesn't help you much statistically because there are at least 100 amino acids that have to be put together in the right manner to make a protein molecule. 20^100 is 10^130 possibilities which far exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. True, you could perhaps replace an amino acid with a similar one and not affect function, but again this doesn't help you much. It's like replacing all the C's with K's in a sentence. You might argue that even a poorly spelled sentence is still readable. It is fairly easy to simulate this with a computer program. Randomly generate letters and see how long it takes to generate a 100 letter sentence that makes sense even with variant spellings. You also have the problem of evolving hundreds of different types of proteins with just the right functions to get even the simplest conceivable cell.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 24, 2009 9:23am

No, no, no, no! You are continuing to compare the first existing proteins/cells with those that exist today, and are continuing to point out that science does not yet have all the answers which we have already said. I will try to explain this step by step.

The following link is to a short paper reporting on research done on a self replicating, protein like, molecule.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/tt/1990/may09/23124.html

Please don't claim that the molecule in question was "intelligently designed" because it is possible for such a molecule to form naturally.

The first self replicating molecule did not need to be 100 amino acids long. It did not need to do anything other than self replicate. Then mistakes in the replication could make variations on the molecule that could then gain unique functions. No one is trying to claim that hemoglobin randomly popped up out of the primordial soup.

With your DNA/sentence comparison you are making another grave mistake. Evolution is not a brute force, random generation method. After each iteration the sentence would need to be checked for grammar/correct spelling etc. Then the best would be duplicated with modification and checked again. How do you explain the nylonase bacteria without admitting that evolution can create the very things you claim that it cannot.

Finally, the simplest conceivable cell is a set of reactions happening inside of a phospholipid bilayer. It does not have to equal the simplest living modern cell.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 24, 2009 1:27pm

And a bilayer "cell" can split, creating two daughter "cells" - the very beginnings of a self replicating system...

Brenton, New Zealand
March 24, 2009 2:44pm

Steve,

I found an article that explains it better:

http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Julius_Rebek

The end of the section on self assembly addresses my question about competition and natural selection.

How do you explain the nylonase bacteria without admitting that evolution can create the very things you claim that it cannot.

You can find an answer here:

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/why-scientists-should-not-dismiss-intelligent-design/

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 24, 2009 10:04pm

The first article that you linked to actually strengthened my point. It talks about the ability of the self replicating molecules to mutate and sets the stage for a primitive form of selection. This is not enough evidence to declare that we know all the answers, but it does provide compelling evidence that directly contradicts some of your arguments (absence of self replicating systems and possibility of selection).

The second paper is a great example of post hoc rationalization. A bacteria develops the ability to metabolize a synthetic compound not present before the 1930's, and you explain it by saying the gene was designed to mutate (ie god did it). Obviously the gene had the ability to create this mutation, otherwise it wouldn't have in the first place. How is it logical to assume that the gene was designed that way instead of a fortunate accident happening in a unique gene?

I find it amusing that you are taking your argument from a website with the bacterial flagellum on the home page. The irreducible complexity of the bacterial flagellum has been shot to pieces. See the below video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko

Finally, I wonder what you believe can be gained in science by adopting an ID/YEC view. How is it helpful if every time something interesting is found, scientists declaire, "Wow, god did it" and stop investigating? Would immunologists pick flu strains out of a hat each year since only god knows which strains will be prevalent?

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 25, 2009 10:54am

Steve,

"directly contradicts some of your arguments (absence of self replicating systems)"

I don't appreciate you misquoting me. I have never argued for the absence of self replicating systems and in fact mentioned software as an example of one. Please do not put words in my mouth.

What is your basis for stating that a self replicating molecule can occur naturally without a designer? "Because I said so" is not very convincing.

I have never been a big fan of the irreducible complexity argument. All you have to do is show one instance of a simpler part and like you say, it's shot to pieces. Incidentally, the speaker in the video is Kenneth Miller who is Roman Catholic and has argued extensively that evolution is compatible with a belief in God. I happen to agree with him.

As to your strawman argument - everytime something interesting is found declaring "Wow, god did it" - I have this to say: It depends on what you find interesting. There are a lot of interesting things that I would not invoke ID for. Flu strains would be one.

I like this quote I found awhile back:
The perpetual motion machine inventor pounces on this and says "Such laws would have us give up trying to discover anything new! What if there were a flaw in these laws, a flaw that we could discover and exploit?"

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 26, 2009 10:44pm

I am not intentionally misquoting you. It appeared that you were arguing against the existence of simple self replicating systems that could spawn beneficial mutations. If you were not arguing against that, I apologize.

The fact that AATE is a relatively simple molecule causes me to believe that it could form under natural circumstances. Why do you believe that it could not?

If you believe that evolution and belief in a deity are compatible, then why are you arguing against evolution? Further, abigenesis and belief in a deity are compatible in the same way that evolution and deities are. Why focus on the origin of the first cell?

I wasn't setting up a strawman. I was asking a very valid question. What do you think could be gained in the world of science by including the theory of ID? What technological or medical advances could possibly come from the adoption of ID? How will it further our understanding of the universe? With ID, there is always some point where scientists can say, "god did it" and stop research. That point currently doesn't exist, and including that point seems to have no benefit.

No one claims that the theory of evolution in its current form is perfect or an unalterable truth. It is constantly improving as we gain more information. Theories do not command that you stop looking for answers. They dare anyone to find compelling evidence that contradicts them. As of yet, no such evidence has been found concerning evolution.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 27, 2009 8:11am

Steve, the difference for me is this: We can observe evolution occurring in nature (drug resistant bacteria, etc). We do not observe abiogenesis occurring in nature or in simulated early earth conditions. The Stanley Miller experiments showed how amino acids might be produced but I am not aware of any such experiments for AATE.

Furthermore, AATE has not been shown to mutate. If someday new evidence shows how abiogenesis could reasonably occur, I might change my opinion. Since science has such huge unknowns, I think it is a little unreasonable to expect a Christian to concede that all of life can be explained without God. Of course, I must also concede that it is unreasonable to expect an atheist to believe in God just because there are unanswered questions in science. Both theism and atheism are faith based beliefs. However, the extreme complexity of the DNA/protein mechanism is evidence in favor of my belief in an intelligent designer, although not proof.

What medical advances could come from the adoption of ID? None that I can think of. Now I have some questions for you. How does your belief that we evolved from primordial soup make you a better, more loving person? Does it increase your compassion for other human beings who are suffering? Why is killing a human being any different than killing a bacteria?

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 28, 2009 9:53pm

Now you are making assumptions about my argument. I would never expect a Christian to believe that all life happened without a god. I just ask that they do not bastardize scientific discovery in order to reconcile it with their faith.

I still do not believe that the complexity of the modern cell is evidence in favor of an intelligent designer. Until it is conclusively shown that the development of cell mechanisms are prohibitively improbable, these are just facts and not evidence for either side.

The fact that I do not believe in a god does not affect my morality. Though you may claim my contact with Christianity is what made me moral, I would argue that this is not true. Regardless of what part of the world people are from, what god/gods they worship, and what religion they follow, the same basic morality exists. Do not kill, steal, do unto others, etc. Empathy and group cooperation seem to be inherent in the human species. There is no need to invoke the name of god to teach a child morality.

That being said, it seems that you are in the wrong place for the discussion you want to start. This episode is about the arguments of young earth creationists and you seem to be more of a theistic evolutionist (feel free to correct me if I am wrong). The discussion you want to have is one about morality and philosophy. It wouldn't be a bad idea to join the skeptalk community and bring up this issue.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 29, 2009 3:16pm

My desire is to show that science and Christianity are compatible. Unfortunately young earth creationists are destroying their own credibility with silly arguments that don't fit the evidence. One of the worst arguments I have heard is that the fossil record was created by animals trying to escape the rising flood waters. Amazing how those flowering plants could out run so many reptiles!

I believe in evolution only in so far as it can be demonstrated that a slight modification is both beneficial to survival or reproduction of the organism and the probability of the modification occurring by chance is within the realm of reason. Modern genetics is not sufficiently understood and developed to prove both requirements in many cases. Merely showing a successive series of slight modifications to a complex organ is not sufficient. I therefore believe it is possible for God to have been part of the creation process in affecting some of the mutations that may not have been random after all.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 29, 2009 7:00pm

Inserting divine intervention into the theory of evolution is something that I do not agree with, but also can't argue against. Science cannot tell the difference between a mutation that occurred randomly and on that was purposefully inserted by a deity. It sounds as if you agree with the science of evolution but believe that a god gave the process a little push at certain points. That was my belief before I became an atheist.

I also must agree that Christianity and science can be compatible with just a bit of flexibility. The largest blow that science has ever been dealt was when religious fundamentalists declared that science was the godless religion, and the second largest was when staunch atheists began agreeing that belief in deities and science were mutually exclusive. So much division has been created by a masterful use of the excluded middle.

Honestly, I believe people have the right to think evolution is a lie, devil's trick, or whatever. I only get angry when they want those ideas introduced into public school curriculum, or believe that their faith proves science wrong.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 29, 2009 9:21pm

Steve, could you explain how you reconcile these two statements? “Science cannot tell the difference between a mutation that occurred randomly and one that was purposefully inserted by a deity.” “No one is trying to claim that hemoglobin randomly popped up out of the primordial soup.” I would not need to attribute a high probability event to a deity. It seems to me that the science of statistics could be used to tell the difference between what could be explained by chance and what would require a deity. I am also curious what caused you to become an atheist.

You also stated, “I still do not believe that the complexity of the modern cell is evidence in favor of an intelligent designer. Until it is conclusively shown that the development of cell mechanisms are prohibitively improbable, these are just facts and not evidence for either side.” If you apply this logic to a Stonehenge formation on another planet, you would be saying that this is not evidence of ET. I think most people would see this as positive evidence for belief in aliens. I don’t see how you would ever falsify the “we don’t know how it happened yet” argument.

I also am against Christians trying to force ID into the public classroom. However, I also find it upsetting when schools imply that science can explain the origin of life just because amino acids (“the building blocks of life”) can be generated in the lab. I don’t think most people understand the complexity of the problem.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 30, 2009 8:56am

I am not sure why you think those two statements are at odds with each other.

Statistics cannot be used alone to show which mutations are possible and which are not. When you are looking at evolutionary events you have to understand that very large numbers are involved. In a bacterial colony the size of a teaspoon, a one in a million mutation happens 1000 times per division. Concluding that something is improbable is not enough to determine that a deity was necessary for it to occur.

I would consider a Stonehenge formation on another Earth-like planet to be evidence of intelligent life. This is because the ordered arrangement and stacking of the stones is prohibitively improbable under Earth-like circumstances. There is no natural, small stepwise progression that can logically get a massive stone on top of two massive vertically standing stones. These stepwise progressions do exist in evolution and theoretically exist for abiogenesis. Though getting from A to Z may seem prohibitively improbable, each step (A to B etc.) is not.

I have taken many, many science classes, and not once was I told that science can conclusively explain the origin of life. Several times I was presented with research being done in the area, but it was always followed by the caveat that they don't yet have the answers.

How I became an atheist is a story too long and personal for me to post on this forum. If you really want to know, join Skeptalk and I will be glad to tell you.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 30, 2009 10:36am

Steve,

I find it easier to envision a stepwise progresson for Stonehenge than for a living cell. Through the process of plate tectonics and then erosion I can easily imagine how a massive stone could come to rest on two vertically standing stones. Given billions of years and billions of planets surely this has happened somewhere.

I don't understand why you say statistics alone cannot be used to determine which mutations are possible and which are not. I also don't understand what you mean by "a one in a million mutation happens 1000 times per division." Could you explain further?

I put a post in the Skeptoid "Religion as a Moral Center" if you care to continue our discussion on morality.

Also, could you tell me how I can join Skeptalk? Thanks!

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
March 30, 2009 10:26pm

You are going to need to be a bit more specific on the stepwise progression that would create two concentric circles of massive stones stacked on top of each other. Simply saying plate tectonics and erosion is not enough.

When I was referring to the bacterial colony, I was making estimates. A teaspoon sized bacterial colony has around one billion cells. That means that a mutation that has a one in a million chance of happening during DNA replication will happen about 1000 times in that colony on the first division. Even though the chances of the mutation happening in any single organism is incredibly small, the chances of that mutation happening somewhere in the population is actually probable. This is why showing that something is statistically improbable in an individual is not sufficient. When the entire population is considered over a period of time, the mutation becomes more and more probable.

In order to join Skeptalk, just go to the top of the page and click on the community tab. There is a Skeptalk heading under that tab that will tell you how to join.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
March 31, 2009 2:59pm

Steve,

Thank you for clarifying. I understand your point now. Yes, I agree that when calculating probabilities of a mutation you have to consider both time and space. Millions of years and billions of organisms need to be considered. Depending on the reproductive lifespan of the organism, this would be on the order of perhaps 10^20. From the ID article I referred you to earlier, CSI (complex specific information) requires 500 bits. This is 2^500 or around 10^150. So if the probability of a mutation is less than one chance in 10^150, it can't happen by natural means. You are correct when you say two concentric circles of massive stones stacked on top of each other cannot happen by chance. If you calculated the probability of a Stonehenge occurring by natural forces, it would certainly be less than one chance in 10^150 and therefore is indicative of intelligent design. So in order to explain a living cell, you have to build it up in small enough increments such that each stage can happen by chance. Because so many stages are needed to build such a complex system, you probably need each stage to have a probability of around say 10^20 or better. I am skeptical that such a little change would provide any significant functionality to the system.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 01, 2009 12:14am

Again, to get your 10^150 figure you are calculating from A to Z in one step. You use an ID article where they arbitrarily designate what they consider to be life, and then calculate what it would take to go from random to that configuration in one step. If you still don't understand why that logic is flawed, then I honestly don't think that I can ever explain it to you.

You said, "I am skeptical that such a little change would provide any significant functionality to the system."

This statement is countered by a little knowledge of basic organic chemistry. Many molecules can be significantly altered by making minuscule changes in their makeup. For instance, replacing a hydrogen atom that is near the active site of a molecule with a fluorine atom will often greatly increase the activity of the molecule. This is because the fluorine pulls electrons away from the active site making it more "electron hungry" and more reactive. These techniques are used all the time in pharmacology in order to produce different drugs within the same class. Just look into quinolones and fluoroquinolones for an example.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
April 01, 2009 9:15am

Steve, I completely understand the A to Z in one step point you are making. You don't seem to understand my point however. You assume that we are talking about creating a modern day living cell in one step which we both agree is impossible. We both agree that creating a protein molecule in one step is impossible. My argument is merely that going from A to B and then B to C and so on has to meet the following criteria:

1. Each step has to have a reasonable probability of happening by chance somewhere in time and space.

2. Each step must produce enough functionality that it can be acted upon by natural selection.

3. The steps each move in the right direction so that they will cumulatively eventually reach from A to Z, i.e. create a living cell.
Until all of these criteria are met, I will remain highly skeptical that it is possible.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 01, 2009 9:10pm

I understand your skepticism, but you also have to keep in mind the difficulties involved in studying this phenomenon. The study of abiogenesis is a slow moving process because it is such a massive undertaking. First they have to estimate what conditions were like on early Earth. Then they must find a way to accurately replicate those conditions (hopefully on a large scale). Then they must find a way to accelerate the process of molecular evolution without actually interfering with the system, because they don't have millions of years to wait around and see what happens. I hope you agree that is no small task.

Skeptically approaching a scientific field that is still developing (or any field for that matter) is never a bad idea. It is fine that you want more evidence before you are willing to accept the current theories about the beginnings of life. Still, it is a huge leap to go from "science currently does not have the answers" to "science will never have an answer because a deity did this". Science is always progressing and filling in the gaps in our understanding. It is insincere to choose one gap that is particularly hard to fill and use that as proof of a deity.

Finally, I hope you understand why people consider your logic a god of the gaps fallacy. You just picked an area where science does not have a definitive answer and claimed that god did it. If gods only exist in the gaps that science currently doesn't understand, then the role of gods is constantly shrinking.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
April 02, 2009 8:24am

Steve,

The flaw I see in your argument is that there are different kinds of gaps. For example, science currently doesn't fully understand the processes that connect an organism's genotype to its phenotype. In many cases this connection is expremely complicated and difficult to understand. However, I believe that this is something science will continue to unravel and this gap in our understanding will continue to shrink. I have no need to invoke supernatural explanations. In my view, there are a couple of areas that are more like my Stonehenge analogy. A person who is open to the possibility of aliens would accept such a structure on another planet as evidence for ET intelligence. A person who is not open to ET, however, would look for a naturalistic explanation perhaps invoking meteor craters to explain the circular formation. They might even come up with a plausible step by step process and argue that just because science doesn't have a definitive answer, doesn't mean we should jump to the conclusion that there are aliens out there. That is how I see your argument.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 03, 2009 7:55pm

You have a similar flaw in your argument. You assume that there are gaps that require supernatural explanations. You also assume that atheists aren't open to the existence of deities. Perhaps this is just the people that I know, but several people who don't believe in a god would love to do so. They just don't see any good evidence for doing so.

Take your above example. If someone who did not believe in extraterrestrials was shown a Stonehenge-like formation on another planet (assuming there are no special circumstances on the planet that would reasonably allow the formation to occur naturally), it is likely that they would begin to believe. Once again, I do not believe in aliens, but only because there is no solid evidence that would lead me to that conclusion.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
April 03, 2009 10:34pm

I also do not believe in aliens for the same reason as you. I assume, however, that we would both change our beliefs if solid evidence were found. Finding a Stonehenge-like formation on another planet might do it. So does that mean you would change your belief that there is no intelligent creator if solid evidence were found? If so, what would you consider solid evidence for a creator?

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 04, 2009 10:43pm

"If so, what would you consider solid evidence for a creator?"

Well, we already discussed a wristwatch, which has no natural assembly mechanism.
Or how about solid evidence of organisms evolving to adapt to an environmental change BEFORE the change happened.

By the way, even a creator wouldn't have to be supernatural. It could be aliens for all we know.

Max, Boston, MA
April 06, 2009 9:01am

Max,

The second law of thermodynamics tells us that the contents of our universe are becoming less ordered and more random. Left to themselves, things become disorganized. Things wear out. Working backwards, the law clearly points to a highly ordered beginning. This raises the obvious question: If the universe is becoming less ordered, where did the initial order come from? Since there is no natural assembly mechanism, it must be supernaturally designed and requires an intelligent creator.

Your aliens argument begs the question; it only moves the question back a step.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 06, 2009 10:43am

Greg,

It's not like the early universe was packed with DNA, flagella, and brains. It was just extremely dense, high-energy matter. Why was was it there? This gets into the anthropic principle, multiverse, and metaphysics. You can stick God in that gap, but it doesn't tell you anything since you can't test it.

"Your aliens argument begs the question; it only moves the question back a step."

You're asking me who created the creator? I was about to ask you that ;-)

The aliens could've evolved the way we currently think humans evolved. Can't say the same about God.

Max, Boston, MA
April 06, 2009 1:24pm

Skeptoid #65 has very good arguments against creationists' arguments against evolution, and creationists are silly to argue against evolution. They should stick to one truth: Even the smallest bit of matter or energy or whatever needed a creator. "God" IS the beginning and the end; everything in between is the "evolution" of His design. Let's see science and logic debunk that.

Harry, Washington, DC
April 07, 2009 10:06am

Your one truth contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

Max, Boston, MA
April 07, 2009 2:30pm

"The theory of evolution was originally developed to explain the evidence that was observed from the fossil record. So in this respect, every significant aspect of evolution has been exhaustively observed and documented, many times over." Really? Fossils say nothing about evolution, for data must be interpreted, and interpretations must be based upon warranted assumptions. The entire scheme is unwarranted circular reasoning. And it is not apparent who Brian has been debating about evolution, but the straw he presents as argumentation is not good arguing. Additionally, much of what he calls logical fallacies are actually placing the burden of proof upon evolutionists making claims about data, claims the data cannot produce without presuppositions brought to the data. The validity of such presuppositions must be proven as warranted for an interpretation of the data to have validity. This, evolutionists cannot do, and have not done. Brian creates logical fallacies by forming the creationist arguments in such a way to create them. There is enough straw in his supposed easy refutation of creationism for a hayride. Even if you had a boatload of supposed transitional figures (which you do not), correlation does not necessarily imply causation, nor does observed micro evolution necessarily imply macro evolution, more logical fallacies. Until you observe it, you are operating on faith in your unwarranted assumptions. Faith it is, Brian.

Craig, Philly
April 07, 2009 7:13pm

Max, your statement that "it doesn't tell you anything since you can't test it" makes me wonder how you test the multiple universe theory.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 07, 2009 10:39pm

Possibly with this thing:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laser_Interferometer_Space_Antenna

There's a hypothesis that Big Bang was caused by "colliding" universes, and we can trace it back by looking at the radiation given off in the process. Listen to the interview with Michio Kaku 30 minutes into the podcast.
http://cdn4.libsyn.com/skepticsguide/skepticast2009-01-15.mp3

But even if it weren't testable, it would be easier for me to accept the existence of more universes than the existence of God because I already know that one universe exists.

Max, Boston, MA
April 09, 2009 11:29pm

"Your one truth contradicts the first law of thermodynamics, which states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed."

law of thermodynamics isn't as sure as you state it. Why don't you people really invetsigate in stead of parroting each other and the stupid text books?

Pindar, Holland
April 10, 2009 6:46am

Wow, there's a Nobel Prize for Physics and probably a Field's Medal here for you. What, experiments have been done to create or destroy energy? That would pretty much change the world and make the discoverer rich beyond the dreams of avarice.

Craig, Washington DC
April 10, 2009 9:26am

If natural selection were true, Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true, humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true, humans at northern latitudes would have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos with skin that is half way between white and black. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

Gustavo, Idaho Falls, Idaho
April 10, 2009 10:24am

And Greg, at the end of the interview, Michio Kaku explains how the multiverse concept also resolves the very real Schrödinger's cat paradox as well as time travel paradoxes.

Gustavo,

Was that a parody of an ignorant Creationist, or are you for real? How do you explain the diversity of skin color? If you think that humans at northern latitudes would be better off with black skin, why did God give them white skin?
Explain this:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/01/080130170343.htm
"A team at the University of Copenhagen have tracked down a genetic mutation which took place 6-10,000 years ago and is the cause of the eye colour of all blue-eyed humans alive on the planet today. The OCA2 gene codes for the so-called P protein, which is involved in the production of melanin, the pigment that gives colour to our hair, eyes and skin."

Max, Boston, MA
April 10, 2009 12:30pm

For every Creationist saying that evolution is too improbable, I have this to say: A ten-by-ten computer chip can learn by itself to distinguish between two tones in half a thousand generations, starting with 'blobs' of ones and zeroes, and interchanging code to improve itself. It's 'hardware evolution', and it is relatively new. NASA did some supercomputer experiments, and made new antennae that are infinitely more powerful than whatever we humans developed. My point is: our mind cannot comprehend every way a system can evolve. Chaos theory, a completely unrelated field that does not recieve flak from religion, in this way confirms another segment of evolution.

Joseph, Norman
April 11, 2009 3:07pm

Max,

I also find it really easy to believe that there is a giant machine out there spewing out universes one after another each with their own unique set of gravitational constants, rate of expansion, ratio of matter to antimatter, etc. Of course most of these universes either collapse or devolve into pure radiation. But since there are potentially an infinite number of universes spewed out by this really nifty machine, anything is theoretically possible. Sure makes you wonder how anyone could believe in God doesn't it?

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 11, 2009 9:55pm

Greg,

Who said anything about a giant machine? Is that what your God used to make the universe?

If you reject the multiverse, you just may be rejecting theories from which it naturally emerges: quantum physics, general relativity, string theory.

Read this:
http://cerncourier.com/cws/article/cern/31860
"At first glance, the multiverse seems to lie outside of science because it cannot be observed... This way of thinking is not really correct for the multiverse for several reasons. First, predictions can be made in the multiverse..."

Max, Boston, MA
April 12, 2009 6:17am

Max,

How else do you explain the fact that the existence of a universe as we know it rests upon a knife edge of improbability. Altogether, there are at least 15 physical constants whose values are just given, yet are necessary to be precisely what they are in order for the universe to exist. The chance that all of these constants would take on the values necessary to result in a stable universe capable of sustaining complex life forms is almost infinitesimal. And yet those are exacly the parameters that we observe. In sum, our universe is wildly improbable.

Belief in God does not mean that I have to reject the theory of relativity or quantum physics. Theologians have said that God is outside of the confines of time long before science discovered that time is relative.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 12, 2009 9:42am

Now you are trying the odds Greg?

Does not matter what the numbers are because we are here. That means it happened, so the odds immediately drop to 1:1.

You are looking at the outcome and trying to extrapolate a series of events from it. What you are overlooking is that outcome is the same whether it was designed or randomized.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
April 12, 2009 1:38pm

Greg, you gave a decent explanation a couple of posts back, minus the universe-spewing machine.

If quantum physics implies a multiverse, and you reject the multiverse concept, then you reject quantum physics.

If you're going to compare probabilities, then you need to put a number on the "prior", or overall, probability of God's existence.
If you toss a coin 100 times and get 100 heads, what's the probability that the coin is double-sided? Seems high, but if you examine the coin and verify that it's fair, then that probability drops to zero.

Max, Boston, MA
April 12, 2009 1:44pm

I think most of would agree that the probability the universe exists is for all practical purposes 100%. The question is this: did it happen by chance? Since there is an extremely small window of parameters that will result in a universe capable of supporting complex life, it is worth calculating this probability. If the probability is high, then we feel comfortable with the chance explanation. If the probability is say 1 in 10^500 then it makes more sense to wonder if there is a more plausible explanation. If a person wins the lottery 5 times in a row, do you just shrug your shoulders and think "lucky bastard" or do think there might be something more sinister going on? Any probability you assign to God's existence is arbitrary. I think what happens is that some people have already arbitrarily assigned the probability of God's existence to close to zero.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 12, 2009 3:48pm

The odds that all of those things happened, whether or not an intelligence made the universe and us, is still 1:1. We are here, and that is all that matters in this debate.

Why waste anymore time on it because the odds of a loving intelligence making us are so small that random chance is just as likely. It does not show love to let human evolution take the long route. It would really be like allowing bacteria to grow up in your house and not really noticing it ever doing anything. That is not love, it would be more like in difference.

We are here because of the law of large numbers and nothing more. We are here because of a series of one in a million chances spread out over the 14 billion years that scientists can accurately guess the universe being here. We are lucky to be here nothing more or less.

Here is a quote from Dawkins that sums it up:
"Certainly those unborn ghosts include poets greater than Keats, scientists greater than Newton, but in the teeth of these stupefying odds, it is you and I in our ordinariness that are here."

Joseph Furguson, Brawley Ca
April 12, 2009 6:00pm

Max,

Since you reject the universe-spewing machine, are you aware of any other hypotheses to explain how multiple universes with different physical constants might come into existence? Even if the number of universes exceeded the number of atoms in our unverse it would not be enough to make the odds remotely plausible.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 12, 2009 10:07pm

I think that at the root of creationism are two emotions, arrogance and fear.

Arrogance, in assuming that we mere humans can know so much, despite being able to analyze and control so little. Some of us claim to have a personal relationship with an omnipotent being which created the universe, yet we ourselves haven't yet even set foot on a heavenly body beyond our next-door neighbor the moon.

Fear, because of the very real possibility that this life is the only shot we get, and that we, our loved ones, and everyone we will ever know, will at some point (barring breakthroughs in stem cell research which extend life spans indefinitely) die.

Evolution at least starts out without an emotional element. Evolution doesn't involve loved ones, brotherhood, nor unconditional love. It's simply observing what happens in the game of life over time, more or less impartially. Religion, and creationism in particular, are clouded by emotion and an overriding desire for something to be true, which could very likely be untrue.

Don't call me Spock, I don't have anything against emotions. It's just that emotion is an intrinsically human thing (as far as we're aware anyway), it gets in the way of knowing the truth of things. Creationism isn't science, it's religion at worst, pseudoscience at best.

Alan, Gainesville, FL
April 13, 2009 7:56am

Greg, you know Douglas Adams' puddle analogy? A puddle in a pothole thinks, "What are the odds that this pothole fits me so perfectly? It must've been designed for me."

"Are you aware of any other hypotheses to explain how multiple universes with different physical constants might come into existence?"

Sure, here's one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaotic_inflation

"In this theory, the peaks in the evolution of a scalar field (determining the energy of the vacuum) correspond to regions of rapid inflation which dominate, creating 'bubble universes,' making the structure of space fractal on the very largest scales, likely at scales larger than the observable universe."

Way more cool than a machine, isn't it.

Max, Boston, MA
April 13, 2009 7:59am

The observations about universal constants are a creative use of post hoc rationalization. I have run into these arguments before, and they were no more convincing those times. If any of the constants were off, if anything happened differently, we wouldn't be here to discuss the universe. No one knows how many universes (if any) have been created and collapsed upon themselves or spread out into infinite nothingness. Our universe seems finely tuned to support planets and therefore life, but if it were not finely tuned to do so, we would not be here. It is circular logic that gets you nowhere and is not evidence of a creator. Countless numbers of spawning universes using brute force, random physical constants is eventually bound to come up with combinations that work. We do not know enough about these events to determine the difference between random and divinely guided, and this makes it arrogant to claim that existence itself is evidence of a creator.

Steve Loeffelholz, LeClaire, Iowa
April 13, 2009 8:54am

the fish for example. We are told by evolutionists that a fish wiggled out of the sea onto dry land and became a land creature. So let's examine this idea. OK, a fish wiggles out of the sea and onto the land, but he can't breathe in air. This could happen. Fish do stupid things at times. Whales keep swimming up onto the beaches where they die. Do you think the whales are trying to expedite an multi-million generation plan to grow legs? That concept is stupid, but let's get back to the fish story. The gills of the fish are made for extracting oxygen from water, not from air. He chokes and gasps before flipping back into the safety of the water. Why would he do such a stupid thing? This wiggling and choking continues for millions of generation until the fish chokes less and less. His gills evolve into lungs so he can breathe on dry land, but now he is at risk of drowning in the water. One day he simply stays out on the land and never goes back into the water. Now he is lizard. If you believe this evolutionary nonsense, you need psychiatric help.

Gustavo, Idaho falls Idaho
April 13, 2009 10:04am

Thanks for the laugh, Gustavo, but South Park is still funnier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OO_gvrqU7vI

Oh, and a whale is not a fish, but point taken.

Max, Boston, MA
April 13, 2009 12:32pm

Max,

After reading that article on chaotic inflation all I can say is if you understand that, you are a lot smarter than me. It is way above my head.

Greg Peters, Idaho Falls, ID
April 13, 2009 11:16pm

Greg,

your much smarter than i'am and i have came to a conclusion that evolution is simply childish and iv'e finally grown up and for you gustavo your right i think i need to go get psychiatric help.
Thank you all for makig me realize the truth!

Max, Boston, MA
April 14, 2009 10:05am

Nice bit of sarcasm, "Max", but get your own identity.

Max, Boston, MA
April 14, 2009 5:30pm

Max,
It's sad that you think you have a NO PURPOSE IN LIFE BEING A PRODUCT OF CHANCE. BUT YOU DO HAVE A PURPOSE GOD WANTS YOU TO FULFILL THIS, AND NOT WASTE ANY MORE TIME ON EVOLUTION. you have probably thought a reasonable person would never beleive that God raised from the dead or did miracles and let alone claim that hes the only way to god! but any reasonable person would also make sure that he or she understood the FACTS before jumping to conclusions. I challange you to do this to really do this! not just blow it off. and if you come up with something you dont think is right I WILL PROVE YOU WRONG!

Antonio, Baja cali, Mex
April 14, 2009 8:56pm

NO ONE WILL WIN AN ARGUMENT SO STOP WASTING YOUR TIME ON THIS ITS POINTLESS WE ALL HAVE ARE DIFFRENT BELIFS AND IM PRETTY SURE MOST OF US WONT CHANGE ARE MINDS. GOD BLESS YOU ALL.

Faith, shelly, New York
April 16, 2009 10:51am

Thanks Brian. This is a really well-written article!

However, I do find that debating creationists is usually futile. There is so little common ground from which to get purchase that it is like a zero-G boxing match where no punches from either side ever hit home.

Mike Torr, Southampton, UK
April 16, 2009 5:16pm

yeah, it basically comes down to what you'd RATHER believe, not whats the most likely scenario

randomthought, all over
April 21, 2009 7:23pm

Science has no answer to what there was in the beginning, at least religion makes a guess.

Steve, Nassau
April 25, 2009 7:58pm

Science has no answer to what there was in the beginning, at least religion makes a guess.

Well, science is really stupidity.
but try to give some smart illusion.

a well, same with religion.

Take a close look at both of them and you will find out that science is but a thinly veiled religion.

I know I know

Maybe start investigating in stead of rejecting out of hand!

Pindar, London
April 25, 2009 10:57pm

All I have to say is www.icr.com. They have alot to say that is totally different from what these articles say about creationists if you have an open mind to go read or listen to scientists who explain in detail why they support and agree with creation. No lists of names, no defensive attitudes nor how to battle with evolutionists.

Deborah Lasell, Lake Tahoe, CA
April 26, 2009 5:22pm

@Steve

I think you will find that scientists DO have theories about how "what there was in the beginning". The thing everyone should note is that these theories are based on evidence and study, while the "guesses" religion makes are not.

@Pindar

To quote this very article:

"Something that cannot be tested and falsified, like the existence of gods, is therefore not a science."

This demonstrates why you are incorrect in stating that science is "a thinly veiled religion". Not to mention the fact that science only asks you to observe, not to believe.

Chris, Sydney, Australia
April 26, 2009 10:06pm

Well, Deborah I have read the articles over at the website and I dismiss them out of hand.

On order for me to dismiss them means that I had to have at least read them first.

Now are you going to show your open mindedness and read some of articles at talkorigins.org? I mean that it is only fair that you read about the debate from people that know about it first hand.

There is no such thing as an evolutionist. Why is is that this is the only context that it is ever applied to. I buy into the theory of relativity, but you do not call me a relativist. I accept gravity, but I do not get called a gravitationalists.

Get this as well, Darwin's theory of evolution did not take over the biology field for the last 150+ years because from 1890-1935 it fell out of favor with biologists. There was no outside proof at the time about how one species evolved from one for to another.

In 1935, Darwin came back into favor because that year DNA was first discovered.

The point of that tangent is that Evolution did not dominate academic thought for a quarter of that 150 years period.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
April 26, 2009 11:25pm

A well-written article, Brian. I do find debating with Creationists rather futile though. We have so little common ground to start from that it's kind of like a zero-G boxing match in which none of the punches ever really hits home.

That point about being wrong-footed by someone who doesn't even know the standard arguments reminds me of an experience I had at school. I got roped into a chess match even though I was a mere novice (I was a good mathematician, so they thought I'd be a good chess-player - flawed logic!) My opponent was of moderate ability, and I nearly beat him. He told me afterwards that it was because I was making moves that were so bizarre that he didn't quite know what to do with them...

Mike Torr, Southampton, UK
May 01, 2009 12:03am

Not to mention the fact that science only asks you to observe, not to believe.

Impossible!

You can't observe if you don't 'beiieve' in a theory. Objective science(religion) is impossible

Try: theory guided perception

Pindar, Argentina
May 01, 2009 10:43am

How To Argue With An Evolutionist:
Brian Dunning’s rant against creationism is succinct, provocative, and quite convincing. Too bad that they are not true. He has used the age-old ruse of demonizing the opposition in order to assault him. While Evolutionists don’t de-humanize the creationists, they love to use ridicule, mockery, and avoiding-the-big-questions in their weaponry. That’s too bad. Brian is not a dimwit. I totally agree with him on other things. Most evolutionists and atheists are smart in a whole number of ways. Creationists are not necessarily smarter, but not dumber either. Science is science and both sides agree on a lot of this science, just not the important principles. Brian has posted about 18 paragraphs in which he attempts to nullify the creation arguments. He fails dismally on nearly every count. I’ll try and tackle them one (paragraph) at a time.
Mr Dunning thinks that creationists are anti-science. Yet his own arguments confuse and mislead everybody, and he avoids the central part of the Evolution vs Creation debate altogether. Being a confessed atheist, he uses the same obscuration and avoidance that all anti-creationists do. He is convinced that what he says is true and what we creationists say is nonsense and unfounded. He suffers from what is called “cognitive dissonance: the inability to believe what you’ve been programmed not to believe, no matter how compelling the evidence”. So sad, considering how Brian is so cognitive on a lot of things.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 01, 2009 5:23pm

If you spend an hour at Talkrigins.org instead of conservapedia.org Joe, you will discover all that you will ever need to know about evolution.

These arguments you are trying are not new. They have been tried for well over 150 years, but they have not worked.

Do not misunderstand your need to have a god in your life with a god actually being there.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
May 01, 2009 8:01pm

How To Argue With An Evolutionist #2: Debating with an evolutionist is actually easy. Just ask them to explain the standard principle of where life began and give one single piece of provable evidence. They immediately fall flat on their collective face. They draw their 6-gun and fire different ammo every time, but it’s blank ammo and it won’t hurt you at all. Here’s a quick verbal body-slam for them: where did the first cosmic matter come from? Watch the evolutionist squirm without an answer! Ask it again, plain and simple: what came before the Big Bang? The evolutionist always falls back on that old avoid-the-obvious statement: “it’s not related to biological evolution.” Hmmm. Not related? We, umm, started from an original basic species (they say), which started from what? Which… started from what? How? The silly wrong-headedness of their arguments is totally based on theory and innuendo, not on science. Creationism is pure science, evolution is pure bunk. Everything has a beginning but the poor wobbly evolutionist cannot explain the First Beginning.
Our challenge (as always): If the current complexity of life-forms originated from some ancient prime species, which originated from ancient protein components, which originated from ancient matter, then from where did the First Stuff come from? It’s a valid question, and I’d like a directly related, valid answer, please.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 03, 2009 5:56pm

Is Joe a troll or really screaming at the wind? At the risk of taking the bait...

Response to "what came before the Big Bang?" and the general theme of your question.

Answer: Irrelevant to the validity of evolution. All scientific theories have limited domains, just like theorems in mathematics; there are realms where the theory of evolution is not defined and is not meant to be defined. That is not a weakness to the theory of evolution. It is a necessity. It is in recognition that we cannot explain everything with a singular idea. Attempting to invalidate evolution theory by citing a lack of explaining the "First Stuff" is analogous to attempting to invalidate Newton's Law of Gravitation by citing that the law does not explain where mass comes from. Newton's Law of Gravity assumes that matter already exists and does not attempt to explain the creation of matter. Similiarly, the theory of evolution assumes that life already exists; it does not explain how the life first came into existance. That's an interesting question to which there is no consenus as of yet to my knowledge. Nevertheless, this issue is irrelevant to the validity of the theory of evolution.

You may characterize my arguement as being dismissive and reject the validity of evolution requiring the assumption of life a priori. Fine. To me, this is evidence that you are agruing against an idea that you do not fully understand.

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 03, 2009 10:03pm

What came before the Big Bang?

Well, according to http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html#BBB, everything was in a standstill. Not even time was in motion. After the big bang, we started to have motion.

How did life began?

Lightening strikes the primordial Earth, and that cause amino acids to form. The amino acids got together and the first bacteria moved around.

Before you say it, water is not the same as oxygen. I know that amino acids cannot survive in a pure oxygen environment, but they can survive in water.

Scientists have created amino acids in a lab using the conditions that appeared on the primordial Earth. They made amino acids in the lab.

Is it a god that did it? Or was is a fluke? The real answer is that it does not matter because all it needed to have happen was at least once. We are here, so that is proof it happened.

Besides, you are looking at the end results and trying to figure out where to put in your god concept. Reality works without a loving god looking at us. I just wish that you realize it.

John McGee, Imperial, Ca
May 04, 2009 12:41am

Erik, thanks for your reply. Sadly, you gave me the predictable reply, playing the old Avoid-The-Question game. I'm not a troll - really a bit meek and cautious - and I let the wind scream at me, and love it. But...You misunderstand the conflict/controversy of this topic. Either the cosmos was specially created, or happened without a deity, by reasons we don't know. Science is science, no matter what. As for relevance, it sure IS. By backtracking, you have to explain where matter which formed living things came from, where the cosmos began. Otherwise, your evolution of everything really doesn't matter either. We're here, so what's the big deal?
John M. -your description of primordial beginnings is what I studied. Lightning, amino acids, lab tests...I read Science Digest for many years and they never offered a good explanation of how many times those primordial amino acids needed forming before life began. No single-celled life was created in any lab. No mammalian organs, no diverse species, no human prototype. It's not sufficient to say "it happened once, that's good enough." Ie, creating a primitive N-gap or micro-transistor is'nt enough to devise a modern computer. Aren't even you looking at the same end results and trying to put in your "reality works" concept?

At least special creation explains the Beginning; all of observed science falls in place okay. Cause and effect, cause and effect...
Try Walt Brown's book "In The Beginning". He knows about all those sciences.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 04, 2009 8:41am

bravon Joe B. I like what you have to say.

Gustavo, Idaho falls Idaho
May 05, 2009 11:15am

Joe, forgive me for calling you a troll. Just as you identified my response as the "predictable reply", I personally identified your criticism as the "predictable criticism" which has as much validity to me as my response did to you. As such, it appeared to me that you were just trolling for a response. After searching other shows, I see that you have commented multiple times on different subjects (my response to you was my first on this web page). My apologies for the incorrect accusation.

I believe I understand the conflict/controversy, or at least what you perceive it to be. I agree with the dichotomy you describe: the cosmos (and by extension everything we see) was created via an outside force or it wasn't. I acknowledge this is one of the basic conflicts in the philosophical views of the universe. However, I fail to see how this applies to the validity of the theory of evolution. Evolutionists do not claim to be able to say what formed the cosmos. As I said before, that is outside the scope of the theory. I only play the "avoid-the-question game" because I fail to see how that particular was has any relevance to the topic at hand. Perhaps we are not addressing the same question.

Do you or do you not accept the fact that the theory of evolution is only meant to describe how life changes over time? If you do not agree with that, it would appear to me that you do not fully understand what the theory of evolution is meant to be used and where it can't .

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 05, 2009 11:26am

Erik, no need to apologize - I sometimes do troll for things. Go to Skeptoid #73 to see my recent posting and challenge there...
Yes, I do agree that evolution describes how life changes over time. I don't agree with the time spans that are claimed. Those time spans are always being adjusted to fit the questionable aspects of the theory. I also don't agree that you can observe microevolution and ascribe macroevolution to it. It's like finding a few needles in the proverbial haystack and concluding that one day the haystack will all be needles. Or better still, a straw in the the haystack etc.
What I mean (and what all creationists are saying) is that a Creator put everything in place (including creating all of the sciences) and that is what we all see, through that science. Is it a far stretch of the human imagination to say this? I don't think so, and it doesn't negate science in any way, right?
One last thing, Erik; I believe evolution has to look at the whole picture, not just biological changes in front of us. Everything came from somewhere, everything is related. Albert Einstein looked for a unified theory, and he certainly didn't dismiss a God in that theory.
I understand evolution from Darwin and Wallace and his supporters from then to now. Please don't try to avoid the whole picture by looking at just a part of it. Creationists want your explanation of The Beginning simply to "force" you to admit the real possibility of a deity who doesn't cancel science.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ont, Canada
May 05, 2009 2:35pm

"No mammalian organs, no diverse species, no human prototype."

And here students is a perfect example of "moving the goal posts argument". Joe argues that there needs to be some kind of explanation for how life got started. He then cites some research on abiogenesis which explains (to a certain degree) how the whole thing got started. THEN he dismisses the whole field of abiogenesis because no fully formed human being has ever been created in an abiogenesis experiment (duh!!!!!!!) Abiogenesis is an ON GOING area of research. This is a fertile area of research with many theories about how it all got going. The fact that the field has yet to find a definitive answer YET does not logically entail that one needs to be a Creationist. It's perfectly alright to believe in Creationism if that is your bag, but NOT YET having an explanation for a thing does not logically entail adopting an anti-materialist position (like Creationsim) if materialism is your thing.
And can I say a thing about the terrible computer analogy.

"creating a primitive N-gap or micro-transistor is'nt enough to devise a modern computer"

This analogy is weak. A computer (and its components) do not reproduce, possess a metabolism etc., so it is difficult to see how any type of computer could ever evolve into another type THEY DO NOT REPRODUCE. Many components of cells do reproduce and replicate. DNA, RNA, mitochondria and chloroplast are all able to replicate or reproduce.

Bronson, Sydney, Australia
May 05, 2009 3:05pm

The way I see it, Adam and Eve is an abiogenesis story. Adam came from nothing, the dust on the ground, as one can tell from reading Genesis 2:7.

While the ones that embrace reality see that life evolved from simpler forms of life, such as bacteria, you would rather have a magic man do it.

Why is the creationists version of abiogenesis better than sciences one?

We both agree that life came from nothing. While science is content with saying we don't know that answer yet, you are content to think that magic man done it.

We can prove ours in a lab. We are working on that problem everyday. We do not trust what we see: we are looking for the answers.

All that the creationist is doing is trusting the Bible is correct. You are not looking for answers in the real world, just some dusty old book.

Jakob Ambrose, Holtville, Ca
May 05, 2009 9:19pm

Some responses:
"I don't agree with the timespan that are required". The age of the universe is 13.69 billions years old (plus or minus 130 million years). This was calculated via measuring the cosmic background radiation, a hypothosized and then discovered consiquence of the Big Bang. E. coli have been observed to undergo drastic biological changes in twenty years. Butterflies specifically tailored to eat bananas have been discovered in Hawaii despite the fact that bananas were introduced to that region during the colonial periods (this is known due to the tails of locals). What exactly is wrong with the time span?

You differentiate between micro and macro evolution. I'm sure you've heard the response that "there's no difference between the two." You've heard tha before because that's the correct answer; there's no difference in a proposed mechanism. Nature doesn't give a damn where we draw the line from one species to another. Thus, if you accept micro-evolution (which we have observed), what prevents you from accepting macro-evolution? Remember, there's no magic barrier when comparing a St. Benard to a German Sheppard than comparing a St. Benard to a lion, whale, or any other organism. They're vastly different in structure, but they are still made up of the same basic building blocks and, at a cellular level, are extremely similar.

If you want to continue this dialoge, I suggest the attached forum. No length constaints. I'm Mad Badger there (new account)

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 05, 2009 10:44pm

BRONSON: I don't accept abiogenesis - even you admit it's still a theory being worked out at different levels. And what's this "anti-materialist position" I am supposed to belong to? I agree that the computer analogy is poor; analogies aren't my strong point. Another evolutionist, somewhere herein, posted a comment that said that modern computer chips can now recognize themselves and can upgrade on their own; ie "mechanical evolution", he said..very bad analogy!

JAKOB: Adam & Eve are not abiogenesis. Even science agrees that something doesn't comes from nothing, and dust is Something. What is this "magic man"? Your mockery of God? Creationists can prove our arguments in a lab even more than you can. We do trust what we SEE. Am I striking a nerve? My Bible is not dusty, and neither is my science.

ERIK: The "13.69 billions years old" world is just not supported by any evidence of Earth's geology. I don't trust any radiation tests, for good reasons. E. coli is still E. coli, and butterflies are still butterflies, bananas or not. Micro is within a species; macro is one species into another species. Again, no observed proof. You're hanging on theory alone, not science. Dog, whale, lion - all different species. Monkey and man share 90% of chromosomes, but last time I checked, they cannot interbreed. Same building blocks? Not quite.

Erik, I accept your offer to continue on the forum here (JREF)... I am registering as hereisjoe username. Thanks for your time and input.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ont, Canada
May 06, 2009 6:51am

Excellent! I started a thread called "Skeptoid episode #65" (I had another thread, but I misspelled the title and I don't want the thread to have that as a heading). I'll post my response to you in that new thread and hopefully we can continue there.

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 07, 2009 11:29am

How To Argue With An Evolutionist #3. Brian talks about “standard arguments for creationism”. You would think that he hates standards. In fact, it is probable that he really hates the simple and valid argument of special creation because it doesn’t have to be adjusted in any major way.
Creationism makes a blatantly clear claim: the world came into existence due to a special, planned cause. Cause-and-effect is good way to look at something. My computer works because it was conceived, planned, created, sustained, improved, and used widely. And it has an observable history, with easily re-producible experiments to validate it. A creation has a creator.
Evolutionism makes a blatantly clear claim: the world (from an unknown Beginning) surrendered up life from inanimate matter, and this life adopted a variety of species, many of which are derived from previous species, and that this process is still ongoing. A large portion of modern evolutionary theory will not dare to touch on this life-from-dead-matter thesis without offering a plausible explanation, let alone a provable one.
Creationism, too, can offer rebuttals from the scientific consensus. We should be clear, though, on what is a scientific fact and what is a guess, a conjecture, a proposition, an idea, a theory…

Evolutionists think they can divide and conquer - divide biology into tiny observable changes and "conquer" the whole universe with a theory. They are intellectually terrified of explaining a Beginning.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ont, Canada
May 07, 2009 2:10pm

"They are intellectually terrified of explaining a Beginning."

No , they are terrified of anything that attacks their idiot dogma's!!!

Pindar, austria
May 08, 2009 8:00am

We're not afraid to explaining a "Beginning". We're just comfortable with saying that, just because we can't explain something completely (and particle physicists are indeed working hard on this question) doesn't mean that something needs a supernatural reason to exist.

Why is it so difficult to see that biologists are not properly equiped to explain how the universe came into being? It doesn't make sense to require that they do that whenever they form theories that explain their particular field. You want an answer to how it all began? Ask a particle physicist, not an evolutionary biologist.

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 08, 2009 11:22am

wat is SUPER natural?

telepathy exist! mind over matter exist! ESP exist!

and all provable! Well... not for skeptics offcourse ;)

let's see

and why has that idiot of a Brian
removed his article about the constitution!!!!! Is he afraid when he shows his true colors!!!!!

Pindar, Germany
May 08, 2009 12:06pm

What am I thinking right now?

Joseph Furguson, Beawley, Ca
May 08, 2009 2:10pm

1.
Pindar, Austria - is that as in opposition to YOUR idiot dogmas??? Or do you just enjoy calling people idiots? Perfect example of "ad hominem" argument...

2.
Erik, I'll get around to meeting you in the Forum.. Incidentally, why is evolution restricted to biology? Why not geology, cosmology, planetology, physics... anything to do with the origins of matter and energy..?

3.
Joseph, it's just a thought, mind you, but I'm thinking you may not want an argument, no matter how enlightening on both sides. You may want only to pat backs in agreement... just a thought...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ont, Canada
May 08, 2009 6:39pm

I just read this whole thread and I feel like I can not leave it without making some points:

1) Science does not equal religion. Religion is faith based, believing something that can not be proven. Science is based on testing and, well basically guessing. Also, science has no agenda, nor any emotional attachment. It just is.

2) Evolution is the most probably answer for the origin of species.

3) Please remember the Bible was written by ancient men whom did not have the same understanding of the world. Saying Genesis must be true, or is an attack on science is like saying a light-bulb should still have fire in it, because fire causes light.

4) Let's rejoice in Darwin and stop calling people "retarded." Darwin had a lot of compassion for the human existence and some of you are doing him a disservice.

5) Logical fallacies on the side of evolution hurt the development of Science in the world, almost more than logical fallacies advocating for Creationism. Evolution is not about disproving religion any more than History is about trying to solve algebra. Further, what's up with the guy trying to argue that "zero" disproves "God." I got mad about this and I'm a disappointed atheist.

The problem with arguing with a Creationist is that all Creationists feel that evolution must be an attack on their faith. Because of this they will always create a new set of benchmarks that must be proven in order for them to reject evolution.

Michael, Worcester
May 08, 2009 8:38pm

Pindar, and easy one for you - you mentioned that ESP exists and is provable.

Please:

a) demonstrate it exists

b) is provable

c) provide proof.

Thank you.

Brenton, New Zealand
May 08, 2009 11:26pm

"Those are the standard arguments." No, nearly all of these are the populist arguments. They are not the standard arguments of scientists who believe in creationism. Those that are close to what an informed creationist believes are not properly stated and so are little more than straw-man attacks.

JT, Pocatello, ID
May 09, 2009 9:08am

Pindar, and easy one for you - you mentioned that ESP exists and is provable.

Please:

a) demonstrate it exists

b) is provable

c) provide proof.

Thank you.

Offcourse I can 't do it here
But just read:

"The conscious universe"
by Dean Radin

http://www.amazon.com/Conscious-Universe-Scientific-Psychic-Phenomena/dp/0062515020

It is full of proof, but I know you still are going to dismiss it.
(with GREAT circular reasoning no doubt!!!)

but well, it is not only for you eh?

some people might be open to this info

O yeah, be very quit if you haven't read it yet!

btw a whle chapter in it about the stupidity of skeptics, very very good read ;)

Pindar, Greenland
May 09, 2009 12:05pm

Joe - The reason why evolution must be restricted to biology is because that's the realm where it was designed to be applied. When Darwin first proposed the theory, it was specifically meant to be explain the varity of life that we see all around us; it made no attempt to explain where those anaimals come from. Over the past two hundred years, biologists (and more recently geneticists) have been working to flesh out the details behind in this same field, yet it's still only directly applicable to explaining how life forms change over time. It does not, nor will it ever, explain where that life originally came from. Like I keep saying over and over again, evolution assumes that life already exists. The theory of evolution is not meant to explain anything other than how life changes over time. Any attempt to do so would be an innapropraite application of the theory. An analogy would be to attempt to use Newtonian physics to describe the atom. Any attempt ends in failure because Newtonian physics is not design to deal with the atomic world; that is what quantum theory is meant to do. Likewise, it is impossible to use quantum theory to describe the macro-world. To do that, use Newton.

Most scientific theories have clearly defined domains. When applied outside of thid domain, they usually don't work. This is not unique to evolution, hence there should be no explectation that evolution can explain where everything came from; that's outside its domain.

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 09, 2009 12:32pm

Realy wanna know why 'evolution' was INVENTED?

1. it is a thinly veiled ideology from the mysterie religions from freemasonry. It's PURPOSE was to DESTROY spirituality!

2. please read:

In the mind of men.Darwin and the new world order.By Ian taylor

I know I hear the stupid aggressive fascist boots from the mind controlled skeptics!


they even don't know they are stupid!

Pindar, Belgium
May 09, 2009 1:14pm

LOL. Pindar, you're so silly.

Don't forget the tinfiol hat the next time you walk out the door.

Erik Nelson, Madison, WI
May 09, 2009 1:52pm

Pindar, sorry - I suspect there is a language issue here.

I am not going to go out and buy a book on the off chance that it provides the proof you hope it does.

Why don't you summarise some of the arguments for us.

Provide a simple example.

Something that can be readily verified without me waiting 6 weeks for a box from Amazon to show up...

Brenton, New Zealand
May 09, 2009 6:02pm

I am not going to go out and buy a book on the off chance that it provides the proof you hope it does.

well, that just shows!!!

I told you so , and proves my point again!

skeptics are the most stupid people on earth. Those rigid idiots won't do a thing that MIGHT change their belief! like reading a dangerous book.

You really think you don't have to work for it yourself?

You must be bloody mad!

Pindar, Spain
May 10, 2009 12:12am

I'm going take a bit of this, Pindar. I have never seen proof of ESP, Psychic Powers, Alien Visitation, Government Cover Up of any such event, and proof of a New World Order. I have come to the conclusion that Science and Critical Thinking are the best ways to tackle the world around us. A hold a BA in English and a MFA in Writing. What I would ask you to do is recommend one book that will change my mind, one book that will make me believe that skeptics are the most stupid people on earth and that I am bloody mad. If you can find one title (under fifteen dollars, I'm not paying more), that will do this, I will buy, read, and discuss the title with you.

Michael, Worcester
May 10, 2009 8:46am

I'm going take a bit of this, Pindar. I have never seen proof of ESP, Psychic Powers, Alien Visitation, Government Cover Up of any such event, and proof of a New World Order. I have come to the conclusion that Science and Critical Thinking are the best ways to tackle the world around us. A hold a BA in English and a MFA in Writing. What I would ask you to do is recommend one book that will change my mind, one book that will make me believe that skeptics are the most stupid people on earth and that I am bloody mad. If you can find one title (under fifteen dollars, I'm not paying more), that will do this, I will buy, read, and discuss the title with you.

Well, ok, try 'the conscious universe' second or third handed

that you put a limit on such a book is very revealing offcourse!!!!

speak to you in a few weeks


probably not

Pindar, Frnce
May 10, 2009 12:18pm

Pindar,

I put a limit on the book because I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on any book.

Michael, Worcester
May 10, 2009 2:02pm

I put a limit on the book because I am not willing to spend hundreds of dollars on any book.

How dumb can you be! I am not talking about hundreds of dollars!

your puting words in my mouth , just liek all idiotic skeptics do!!


just by it, read it, convince yourself! No one else can do that!



O yes? really?

ok then for cognitive dissonance!

Pindar, Argentina
May 10, 2009 8:45pm

Pindar,

I think you mean "buy it," which I can't without an author's name, or even better, an ISBN. The rest of your post, I can't begin to understand. By the way, you seem to move a lot. Any reason for that?

Michael, Worcester
May 11, 2009 9:43pm

I loke to travel! ;)

And it seems you haven't read this very well, in one of the above posting I refer to an Amazon.com adress for the book.


see ya

Pindar, austria
May 12, 2009 7:16am

I have an argument , as a "creationist"; if all living creatures are a result of evolution , where are all the creatures in between, why have there been no evolving creatures for the last 2000 years, where are the no "evolving" creatures in the making now, why can't we see any stages of any being? the way we see plants grow, for example, and by the way lack of fossils is so true, that even the fossils that were the real deal turned out be a hoax.
Good program

Waleed, Jeddah
May 12, 2009 9:37am

"where are all the creatures in between"

Between living creatures and extinct creatures? They're mostly also extinct.

"no evolving creatures for the last 2000 years"

All species are evolving at all times.

"lack of fossils is so true"

No it's not.

"that even the fossils that were the real deal turned out be a hoax"

They weren't the real deal.

Max, Boston, MA
May 12, 2009 12:36pm

Max,
You are not helping Waleed.
The lack of fossils are like the lack of gold nuggets in my back yard...

Species are not evolving all the time. No species has ever been observed to evolve.

Evolutionists really planted hoax fossils to try and validate their insane theory.

Stop spreading the lies. Get your head out of the dark place where it's stuck!

Waleed, these guys will never owe up to the truth. An evolutionist has the science but no God - and can't explain it. We creationists have the science and God - and it's all explained.

Try this site for great evidence and arguments:

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ont, Canada
May 12, 2009 6:53pm

Look up an experiment call the Michigan E Coli Experiment. This is a new strain of bacteria that evolved to eat citrate, a medium that bacteria cannot normally eat. This was something that was observed in a lab and by humans. The scientist that conducted the experiment even has the transitional forms preserved from its glucose eating ancestor to the modern strain. This experiment took 18 years and 20,000 generations to complete. With that many generations, you can throw out the notion of adaptation because evolution is the correct term.

Want an explanation of evolution? Simple: Nature presents a problem, like cold weather, and life, through DNA, creates minor changes in the individual animal, like slightly thicker fur. Those that can survive good enough get to mate and pass their trait to the next generation.

Evolution does not care about how life began. All it covers is how life changes from one form to another. Evolution is specific to that issue.

Just because you need a cosmic dictator watching over you does not make him real. Yes, cosmic dictator is the correct term because he wants obedience or he will send you to hell. This world is not the work of a loving God because of how many things out there that can kill us.

It is clear that he favors fish and insects more than he does humans.

Joseph Furguson, Beawley, Ca
May 12, 2009 9:31pm

How did plants evolve to using effective methods of seed dispersement? How does it evolve when the use of the change is only seen after the seed is separated from the plant?

My point is that there are so many inconsistancies in evolutionary thinking that it baffles me that nobody says, "Hey, maybe we are totally wrong about this. There must be another explaination" But no, they continue to search for answers to assumptions and theories built on theories(which is not scientific) and end up back where they started with more theories and zero proof. You would think that a scientist who is interested in results would question his theory after 100 years when there is still no proof.

Justin, Hammond
May 13, 2009 6:36am

I humbly suggest you listen to the mp3 at the following website for TRUTH on this subject. Creation vs. Evolution.

http://www.asna.ca/media/creation.html

This lecture exposes the doctrine of Evolution as a great error which is not based upon science at all, but upon a false atheistic faith and erroneous fabrications.

In Christ,
Kassiani

Kassiani, Franklin, TN
May 13, 2009 8:59am

The problem with saying there is no proof, is that there is proof, and you have it inside of you. How do you explain the way people breed cats and animals, if not through fostered and accelerated evolution, or rather selective breeding? Mankind has altered many species through a process known as 'domestication', but apparently, evolution does not occur and species never change-that is what it sounds like you are saying. 'Zero proof, zero proof, zero proof...' is that all you have to say? Why don't you come up with some evidence that can stand on its own two feet without some old book to lean on? You don't haven the science, you just have the God.

A friend of mine said that the difference between science and creationism is that a scientist has more than one source of primary evidence; if I were to ask you to continue backing up your claims, but without the Bible's aid, then you would nothing but anecdotal evidence.

In the computer world, data is more reliable when it has a feature called 'redundancy'. You notice how whenever you scratch a CD, it can still play? The player automatically fills in the blanks with its own algorithms, and even though pieces are missing, the CD still works. This feature sets compact discs, DVDs, HDDs, and non-volatile SSDs apart from volatile storage like floppies, cassettes, and records--it can still function by inferring what should be in a hole. If we scratch your Bible, you don't have a backup, no more evidence. Our experiments do.

Joseph, Norman
May 14, 2009 6:51pm

Kassiani, there are hundreds of thousands of Christian evolutionists, including biologists Kenneth Miller, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Francis Collins, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck, Gredor Mendel and paleontologist Robert T. Bakker, to name but a few. Also, the last three popes, and the entire Roman Catholic Church, supports evolution. I don't think you can get away with saying evolution is based on "false atheistic faith".

Best wishes, Eric

Eric, Winnipeg
May 14, 2009 6:58pm

It absolutely baffles me that creationists come tot his site, and challenge the scientific veracity of evolutionary theory, yet they readily accept gravitational theory, Electronic theory, and even quantum theory (basic atomic structure).

The only reason that they cannot accept it is because it goes against their god man

Jay, Salem, OR
May 15, 2009 12:13am

Asking me to prove that God created the universe is like asking me to prove that Shakespeare wrote "Hamlet". There is lots of historical evidence of this, but it takes some measure of faith to believe it. So, telling me we need to prove God exists is irrelevant. I can't prove it to you, but you can find proof for yourself. God reveals Himself to anyone who wishes it.

I suppose I will answer one question since I expect answers from you. Domestication is hardly evolution. You cannot breed one kind with another. All you can do is change one kind a little at a time. Hundreds of years later you may have many different kinds, like dogs, but you will never come up with a chimpanzee.

Finally, don't tell me I don't have science if you can't at least address my questions. A scientist requires proof to build on his next theory which is based on his previous one. Which is not taking place with the study of evolution. I do not require scientific data to have faith in God, that's the whole point. If there was proof, I would not need faith, and I would not have a choice to believe in Him. That is what He wants, for us to choose Him. But, based on your feelings about faith, it sounds like all you believe in is what you see, but then again, how do you know that what you see is real? If you believe what you see exists, you must have some faith. And that same childlike faith that you've always had is all the faith that God asks from you right now.

Justin, Hammond
May 15, 2009 12:42am

First of all, Justin, your view on evolution is fundamentally flawed. Evolution does NOT take one species and turn it into a completely different one, and I have no clue where you even got this clearly incorrect information. Evolution is the process by which genetic material of a species is changed slightly over a large period of time, which eventually leads to substantial changes over millions of years. Domestication is ironically a very good example of evolution in action, and completely falsifies your argument. Secondly, faith has no basis in reality, it is simply how the brain perceives the world/universe, yours is not based upon observed fact, but, upon anecdotal evidence backed by "authorities" of such anecdotal evidence.

Stuart, Tulsa
May 19, 2009 3:34pm

Mr Furguson, your argument of the Michigan E Coli Experiment is ludicrous. You totally confuse adaptation with special evolution. I know the crap I was tought in high school - evolution tries to teach that species changed through the ages, plain and simple! You don't even know your own theory, man. Ie,take your agrument as far back or as far forward as you wish to go, and where are you? In an inexplicable quagmire. You evolutionists avoid the Beginninmgs because your warped theory cannot explain it. Creationism explains all of science.

And you, Stuart - you don't know the theory either. All you run on about is tiny changes but you never think them through to their illogical, improvable ends.

Of course creationists accept gravity theory - it can be easily observed and proven. Sciences have proofs, evolution doesn't explain to0 me the lack of moon dust. And don't try and say you don't know what I am referring to, matey!. Billions of years and only a sprinkling of moon dust up there! C'mon! Billions of years and only the rarest occurences of any meteorites in the earth's crust? 4 to 5 billion-year-old earth and yet volcanoes spew a cubic mile each single year into the atmosphere? Do the math - there's not that much mass in the planet! DNA in 150-million-year-old dinosaurs? Spiral galaxies with billions-years-old arms that are not deformed? C'mon!

It's a far younger universe than you think. Science supports all of this, evolution does not.

Go back to school, guys!

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ont, Canada
May 19, 2009 7:02pm

Thanks, Joe. Stuart, I do have observed fact in Scripture. The Bible is full of observations of God in action. It's not too different from your fossils other than mine makes sense. You are pulling puzzle pieces out of the ground and guessing; I have the complete puzzle put together in order, and it's been in the hands of men the whole time, and has been preserved. Archeologists are digging up ancient pieces of Scripture which just confirms what we have had for thousands of years. Faith comes in when God says "trust me". To me faith doesn't come into play when it comes to the existence of God. I see it as fact based on evidence.

Thank you for trying to "clear me up" on evolution. I was just trying to simplify the process so you could see how ridiculous the whole idea is. I wasn't claiming that from one generation to the next a species would evolve into another.

Lastly you biologists believe whole heartedly in your theories, but ignore the physics aspect of them. Science's idea of the origin of the universe is even more ridiculous than evolution. But you must be a believer in that because science said it! Thanks again, Joe.

Justin, Hammond
May 20, 2009 5:17am

How To Argue With An Evolutionist #4. Brian defines fact and theory correctly, but he attempts to say that evolution is both. I agree with some concepts in evolution (changes within a species etc) but Brian says that “changes have been observed in the world” to support one species becoming another species etc etc. What world would that be, Brian? And what change, from beginning to end? Creationism does indeed accept microevolution. Are you confusing it with macroevolution? Even the origins.org site fails miserably to explain this. You want it both ways by crying that fact and theory mix together. A theory is not a fact. I too once believed in evolution until I saw how there was no evidence for its biggest claim: origin of species.
Brian, you claim “But the state of our explanation does not affect the observed fact that species evolve over time.” Again, exactly what change are you talking about here? A single clear example, please, of one species becoming another species. Who observed “in the world” the spectacle of a before-and-after species change?
You see, the controversy here has never been the observed things of the natural biological world (we all actually agree on them), but rather the claim that all of it started from natural processes outside of a creation platform. Creationists are not anti-science. It is the actual facts of our world that evolutionists misconstrue, because they fear to admit the possibility of a creator.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario
May 21, 2009 5:47pm

I'm amazed at how unskeptical skeptics are toward evolution.

Seems Brian is not familiar with the creationists' views on this.

http://tinyurl.com/o4d2cd

Tasman, Australia
May 25, 2009 6:34pm

Joe Boudreault wrote on May 19 that "4 to 5 billion-year-old earth and yet volcanoes spew a cubic mile each single year into the atmosphere? Do the math - there's not that much mass in the planet!" He didn't do the math. I did. The radius of the earth is about 3000 miles. Let's see how many cubic miles that makes.

N[(4/3) Pi (3000)^3, 20]
1.1309733552923255658*10^11

Let's see how many billion years it would take, at 1 cubic mile of volcanic output per year, to get to where there's not that much mass in the planet.

%/10^9
113.09733552923255658
Aha! The earth would have to be 113 billion years old before his claim would get to be illogical for another reason on top of the arithmetically wrong reason he gave.

The other reason it's an illogical claim is that volcanoes can perfectly well shoot out magma that's been shot out before, covered, and recycled deep into the earth. It's not like a given atom, once belched from a volcano, must forever after remain in the rock it started in and never get buried deep in the earth.

Doug, College Station
May 25, 2009 9:43pm

"You evolutionists avoid the Beginninmgs because your warped theory cannot explain it. Creationism explains all of science."

Your brand of ignorance is breathtaking, sir. Could you name one vaccine created with "creation science"? Could you? I'll wait.

Nope?

Still nothing?

You don't deserve flu shots in your current state of denial.

The bible cannot teach us anything about the natural world because it was penned by bronze age ideas. Most of those ideas were way off the mark. Does the bible correctly predict germ theory? Of course it doesn't. Deuteronomy explains in great detail how sin is responsible for disease. If an all-knowing god inspired the hand of man to write the bible, wouldn't it have mentioned something to the effect of creatures too small for the eye to see multiplying in great numbers, causing man to fall ill? That would have taken hundreds of years to prove correct, but it would have been correct.

I hope Canadians as a whole are better educated than you. America has fallen behind, but I fear the whole continent may be to blame.

I pity you.

Claude Shannon, Petoskey, Michigan
May 25, 2009 11:39pm

I believe in God, but I'm not a young earth creationist. I have no problem with microevolution (e.g. the mutation that causes sickle cell anemia also protects against malaria), but I'm not yet convinced about macroevolution. I want to be reasoned with, not argued with. Debate talking points used to beat people down "with a quick verbal body slam" don't do it for me. Neither does using the straw man of creationism just because it's easier to tear down than intelligent design.

An autopsy can sometimes determine if a death was by natural causes or if it was murder (which is death by intelligent design). But it isn't always easy, especially if the victim has been dead for millions of years. There's a temptation to claim the evidence says more than it does when there are no eyewitnesses to contradict you.

Religion can be defined as "a system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith." Religion does not require belief in a "superbeing", as Brian claims. The study of evolution is a field of science, but the “worship” of evolution can be a religion just as nature worship can be a religion. If a true believer clings to evolution with an "ardor and faith" that goes beyond science, it becomes a religion.

The claim that evolution disproves God is going beyond science because science cannot prove a negative. And the claim that atheism is not a religion because it’s a negative faith is like claiming you’re not doing math when you use negative numbers. It's still a belief system.

Louis, Saratoga Springs, Utah
May 26, 2009 3:09am

Atheism is not a religion. There are no tenants, no holy books, or no leaders within atheism. Sure there are outspoken atheists, but that does not mean we have to listen to them. Any religious person has to listen to their leaders, believe their holy book is true and follow whatever tenants their church dictates. If you do not, you place your spiritual future on the line. Atheists do not have that burden.

Atheism is the neutral position. It basically says until you can prove the existence of your god by a means that cannot be explained by other phenomena, I am going to assume your god is not real.

Considering how many gods have existed in the world, of which yahweh is one of them, the neutral position is to assume that a God did not create life on this planet. I know it makes you feel uncomfortable thinking that this planet just happened, but that is what all the evidence points to.

Lastly, if a God did created this planet, which one? Why do you favor your God and not Brahma, Zeus, Odin, or Vishnu? How come it was not ceiling cat, her pinkiness, or the Flying Spaghetti monster? Why did any of them create the universe instead of Yahweh.

In the weight of all the other possible deities that could have created the world, the neutral position is to assume that none of them created the universe. If the evidence that your god created the universe changes my mind, then I'll be swayed.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
May 26, 2009 8:37am

Doug, I apologize. Your math here is more accurate than mine, but these are pretty big statistics nonehteless. The percentage and/or ratio I should have quoted was "the mass of the earth's sediments", not the whole earth. The volume of the planet is usually given s about 260 billion cubic miles. Volcanoes would emit well over 4 billion cubic miles in 4.6 billion years, if the rate was constant over time. Maybe it was much greater, or smaller. Just the same, barely a quarter of sediments are from volcanoes but at 1 cu mi per year, it would amount to 10 times the total sediments now present. Most volcanic debris is not re-emitted.

I was hoping you would have picked up on the point that geological activities such as we witness would acrue a vastly greater amount of evidences than what actually exist. And there are numerous other geological items that defy an ancient Earth. Ie the level of meteoric dust that evolutionary theory should have given us by now, or moon dust, or erosion, or the Earth's rapidly declining magnetic field or the temperature patterns and degree of heat withinnthe core.

It's worth thinking about, wouldn't you say?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, Ontario, Canada
May 26, 2009 5:32pm

Louis,

Not to signal you out, but one question I would ask you is if faith should be proven? As a professor of critical thinking, one of the first lectures I give is different types of thought. Logic is based on evidence and a conclusion that explains all of the evidence provided. Faith involves a conclusion based on personal reasons that cannot be proven or disproved. If faith needs to be proven in order to be believed, I wonder if it is truly faith. For myself, as a disappointed Atheist, I have come to the conclusion that there is probably no God, but does that mean that my personal beliefs should be yours?

My big issue with the Creationists is that not only does it try to turn Science into something it cannot be, but that it seems to be a backdoor method of establishing Christianity as a national religion. However, it is not a mainstream form of Christianity, but a fringe belief. It's fine if people want to believe that the word of God is the reason for us being here, but that should never be brought into the realm of schools, where we must keep a multicultural respect for all beliefs. Not just Atheists, but also for Jews, Hindus, Muslim and anyone else whom may have a problem with fundamentalism. Failure to do so will result in an alienation and discontent by though outside of the belief.

Last, theology is one subject, biology is another. Often times I wonder if this argument would even occur if it was Literature versus Math.

Michael, Worcester
May 26, 2009 8:49pm

Though I found your presentation of the "standard" rebuttals to the "standard" Creationists claims solid, what I don't like is the usual sketics' assumption that readers should simply accept what they say. One of the main criticisms I have of the Creationist literature is the determined effort to dissuade believers from investigating things for themselves by reading the real scientific literature.

Anyone who has not read the real scientific literature certainly should not simply accept your "standard" arguments either. Aping standard rebuttals is just as shallow as aping standard Creationists' objections to evolution. Knowing the rebuttals is one thing; knowing the evidence that supports the rebuttals is another.

Readers or listeners who find these rebuttals new and useful should also take your excellent summaries as pointers to topics for deeper study. People who fall in the believers camp but have not personally investigated the science in the scientific literature rather than in books by biblical apologists and polemicists should do the same.

Science is not about belief or faith but about confidence in evidence-based knowledge. So the person who defined religion as beliefs held with ardor and conviction falsely claims relevance to science. Knowledge is mutable; new evidence changes confidence levels, but belief and faith remain moot for assessing science however germane people find them for other realms of thought. Scientists test evidence repeatedly.

Glenn Oehms, Duluth, GA
May 27, 2009 11:15am

Unfortunately for the author's argument, evolution is NOT scientifically verifiable, and therefore, definitely not a fact.

Not only has (to the best of my knowledge) no one ever observed one species evolving into another species in nature, no one has ever made it happen in a lab either.

Gravitational theory can be tested, evolutionary theory (the part that explains the apparent creation of new species) cannot be tested at this time.

I'm afraid the creationists are right on this score. At the present time, evolutionary theory is just a scientifically unverifiable theory.

Dave Surls, Canyon, Ca
May 27, 2009 9:24pm

Dave,

I'm not sure if you are understanding what a theory is considered in science. A scientific theory has certain burdens of truth, however these burdens of truth do not discount it completely.

Glenn,

On a personal level, I agree with you. Science has a different level of understanding and proof than theology has, but I wonder if it is even worth the trouble to argue against something like theistic evolution in the contest of the church. What I'm more concerned with is the political motivation of establishing creationlism as a subject in public school. It is a horrible practice. First, I never hear about a creationlist arguing that the world was created from a giant egg, as perhaps my misreading of Hinduism claims the creation of the world. Creationlism seems to be a backdoor to establish fundamentalism as a national religion, and while I am no longer a Catholic, I find these some what disturbing.

Thank you Dave and Glenn for your contribution.

Michael, Worcester
May 27, 2009 10:39pm

Look up the Michigan E-Coli experiment and ask those researchers if they have not witnessed one species evolve into another in a lifetime.

Basically, from 1989 to 2006, Dr. Lenski, an evolutionary biologist, witnessed a strain of E. Coli evolve the ability to eat citrate, a medium that e coli has never been able to live off of. They prefer Glucose.

This is not adaptation because it took 20,000 generations for the E. Coli to develop this ability.

There you go, an example of evolution that has been witnessed by humans. And unlike the Farm Fox experiment in Russia, this one happened without human intervention.

Here is the link to the experiement's home page: http://myxo.css.msu.edu/ecoli/

Now are you going to stop spouting whatever nonsense you get from Answers in Genesis and do some real research?

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
May 27, 2009 10:47pm

Sounds like an interesting experiment, and if they can ever make Escherichia coli evolve into an entirely new species, they'll have demonstrated the possibility that one species can evolve into another species.

However, that phenomena has not yet been observed, as far as I know. Therefore, if someone is arguing that the theory that one species can evolve into another species is just a theory, and not a demonstrated fact...they're correct.

Dave Surls, Canyon, Ca
May 28, 2009 1:12am

Yes, Dave, you're correct; thanks for your comments. J. Furguson doesn't understand evolution at all. E Coli are still E Coli. Go back to school, Furguson.

Seems that evolutionists cannot bear the thought that a God is behind the science they look at. It doesn't invalidate the science in the least. I'd wager that most creationists study the sciences much more carefully and are willing to look at all possibilities therein, but that evolutionists aren't willing to tackle a creationist point of view regarding any and many scientific principles. I offered this challenge before, and on other sites in this forum: tell me where man came from? Prove it.

Michael Denton, in his book "Evolution: A Theory In Crisis", argues sucessfully against transitional fossils (re the historic development of evolutionary thought), which plagues the world today. He illustrates how genetics, design in nature, molecular biology and homology do not support evolution. And Denton is NOT a creationist, just a keen scientist!

Phillip Johnson ("Darwin On Trial") says "these scientists have clung to the theory out of fear of encouraging 'religious fundamentalism' and in the process have turned belief in Darwinism into their own religion."

Creationism SHOULD be taught in schools - it deserves to be taught every bit as much as the unproven theory now being taught there. It would never pressure people to accept a deism, just to consider it, that's all. We've needlessly considered Darwinism for ages.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
May 28, 2009 8:20am

Artificial speciation has been observed in lab conditions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation#Artificial_speciation

Anyway just because you guys feel religion is true doesn't make you experts in a particular domain of science. So you should keep your mouth closed about that particular domain of science out of respect for knowledge and truth. Because it's really arrogant and reflects poorly on you if you proclaim your ignorance publicly.

Anonymous, Seattle, US
May 29, 2009 4:05pm

So, Mr Anonymous (ashamed to give your real name?), you think that Christians or “religious” persons can’t be experts in a science, eh? Creationists are ignorant, you say, and should keep their mouths shut in regards to the sciences? Out of respect of knowledge and truth, here are some names for you to ponder – every one of these men were/are Bible believing, with a respect for their God:

Roger Bacon. Nicole Oresme. Johannes Kepler. Rene Descartes. Nicolaus Copernicus. William Turner. David H Levy. Robert Boyle. John Napier. Galileo Galilei. Blaise Pascal. John C Poyani. Gottfried Leibniz. Joseph Priestly. Myron Scholes. Isaac Newton. Michael Faraday. Carolus Linnaeus. Saul Bellow. Adam Sedgwick. Len Adelman. Linus Pauling. Louis Braille. Thomas Edison. Masatoshi Koshiba. Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. Sergei Brin. Alexander Graham Bell. Charles Babbage. Sidney Altman. Albert Einstein. James Clerk Maxwell. Gregor Mendel. Rudolph A Marcus. Louis Pasteur. Max Planck. Lord Kelvin. Robert Koch. Johann Guttenberg. Orville and Wilbur Wright. Neils Bohr. Edward Teller. Freeman Dyson. Bill Gates. Osamu Shimomora. Wilhelm Rontgen. Christian B Anfirasen. Melvin Calvin. Walter Gilbert. Irwin Rose. Herbert Hauptman. Paul Berg.

Those last half-dozen or so were Jewish Nobel laureates, to name but a few. History tells us that the vast majority of great thinkers and inventors were Christians and Jews. Bet you’re glad most of THEM didn’t keep their mouths shut, eh?

So who's arrogant?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
May 29, 2009 6:38pm

Joe,

You forgot Charles Darwin, a noted theist. On the other hand, your half-dozen Jewish Nobel laureates do not necessarily believe in a Creationist world view. But, what the heck, I think you made a good point. From now on, I will be teaching Creationlism in all of my science classes. However, I will be teaching my students that the universe was vomited by a giant turtle, as told to us by the prophet Stephen King. I think this will fulfill all of your requirements. Students will have an alternative to Darwin, as well as a chance to consider a supreme being, the turtle, and his arch enemy the spider, played by Tim Curry in the made for tv movie.

While I'm being somewhat off-face here, I would like to ask Creationlists why it is only the Judea-Christian fundamentalist view that is being advocated over Evolution? Also, why is it that when science proved that the sun is the center of the galaxy, the earth is round, and rain is not caused by giant flood gates opening up in the sky, people where just able to reconsider their religious believes (the Catholic churches problems with Gallieo notwithstanding) and move on?

Michael, Worcester
May 29, 2009 9:32pm

Joe,
Though 'anonymous' is hardly innocent here, there's things wrong with the list:

-None of their theories are based on biblical/religious texts
-You have listed many people who are confirmed to have nothing but contempt for organised religion and doctrinal belief
-I can see little evidence that any of the names that i recognised subscribed to what is termed 'creationism' (not to say they dont believe god created the world, but would never have accepted it was done in 7 days).

William, UK
May 30, 2009 6:20am

Michael,
Would there be some elephant dung in that turtle vomit you are going to teach? I understand that four elephants stand on the back of a giant turtle...
Apparently you miss the point here: Almost all of the great science we know about came/comes from men and women who believe in a God, Darwin included. But that's just the problem with you, isn't it? You don't give a hoot about even a remote possibility of deity. You're just a mocker. Well, let's see - Piltdown man and archaeopteryx were faked, so I don't give a hoot about darwinism, which is crap.

FYI -the sun is not the center of the galaxy, the earth is not round (it's eliptical), and where in balzes did you hear about giant floodgates in the sky? Certanly not the Bible...

William, William, picky, picky...
Organized religion and doctrine has no bearing here - these people saw what evolutionists saw but had the common sense to interpret something different and more accurate. You too are missing the point.
Tell me, what notable atheist scientist gave us a great contribution? I'll name a hundred Christians and Jews in response. Mr Anonymous should watch-his-mouth...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
May 30, 2009 8:03pm

Joe,

Do not tell me I don't believe in the possibility of a deity, tell me how the possibility of a deity has anything to do to validate or invalidate evolution. If there is a God, do you not think he would not be capable of creating a world where evolution is possible? While I understand your defensiveness, skeptic message boards are over run with militant Atheists (as well as my last post was a little rude towards you, I will admit that), I do not understand why Creationlism as understood that God created a world, can not live with the possibility that Evolution can be the explanation of how the world was created. Darwin did not title his work "The Explanation of Life." However, I can not accept Creationlism being taught in a science classroom. Theology is one subject, Science is another. Honestly, would you like me to teach your sons or daughters about Theology in my Science class room? Wouldn't it be better for you to teach them beliefs that you hold to be true, that are important to you?

Finally, and I do not want to appear to condescending or rude in this final question, is why does it matter so much to Christians? I have read the Bible several times. It seems that Christ spoke in allegories, why isn't possible the divine revolution in the Old Testament can not also be written in an allegory? Does the absolute truth of the work disprove the TRUTH of the work?

Michael, Worcester
May 30, 2009 8:43pm

Michael, to answer your question there is no indication of nor purpose for Genesis 1 to have allegorical meaning. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth." does not sound like it has a hidden meaning. When Christ spoke in parables and allegories, He was usually talking about the kingdom of heaven or prophecy, then later explained to his disciples the hidden meaning. Then there is the more obvious answer. The Gospels of the New Testament simply tell us what Jesus said and did; Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not use allegories to describe Jesus' actions. Just as Moses never used allegories to describe Creation or the History of the world before Israel's kingdom. Nice try.

Two questions, why did you read the Bible several times? And does that mean you picked it up several times, or you read it through several times?

Justin, Hammond
May 30, 2009 10:49pm

Michael, it isn't my intention to bring theism into this discussion. We creationists likely just want to point out that the world is much younger than you think and the reason for that is that God is in the picture. I know of another theory, put forward by one of America's foremost geologists (a scientist!) in which not a single Bible verse is alluded to and yet which proposes a great flood cataclysm throughout the earth's geological strata. Interested? It is proposed as a theory for everybody's consideradion, not as a fact yet. It's quite an intriguing theory.

You are right about the possibility of God being the creator of evolution - I once considered that idea, until the huge number of inconsistencies came to my attention. It's like Justin says here: the Bible should be looked at in the literal sense unless some other sense makes more sense...Genesis is not an allegory. I don't know how many times I must state this, but creationists look at the same facts as evolutionists do. Any open-minded examination of those same facts show that the earth is very young. Deism or no deism, that's the truth. If you want to pursue this in a larger format, do you want to go to the Forum? One other skeptic backed off when I presented him with my facts - a familiar pattern, I find...

This matters to Christians because watching atheists try to destroy God is both sad and darkly funny. We do care about the Truth, and we have looked at Darwinism in all it's (not your) silliness.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
May 31, 2009 3:51am

I have no idea what you mean, as I have seen no evidence that any of those you have mentioned refuted Evolutionary theory.

However you are also implicitly racist in some of your statements, which only occured to me after your post. A large part of the most useful and practical human technologies, theories and ideas came from pre-christian cultures or the islamic world (or China). Any reasonable anthropological account could inform you broadly of the spread of cultures and knowledge over the past several millenia.

As for atheist scientists I could name several but it would be pointless. Theory did not come from faith. It did not come from biblical scripture. I can think of no scientific principle that establishes the existence of a power beyond natural law. This is a stupid point to continue along as all it is based on is 'anonymous' and his fairly simple, uneloquent hostility to faith. If you wish I am safe in the knowledge I can find a similar statement arguing that scientists should keep out of religion somewhere.

I am afraid I am missing your point, as I see none other than 'some scientists are religious too', which refutes what anonymous said but by no means supports any of your other claims.

Justin - 'allegory' probably comes into the notion that God created the world in SEVEN days, and the means by which it was made, rather than the simple declaritive you refer to

Will, UK
May 31, 2009 5:42am

William, the thred of these last few posts goes back to the statement made by one Mr Anonymous (who has kept his mouth shut so far) regarding me as a Christian/religious person who cannot be an expert in any area of science (re-read his blog above)!

Brian Dunning called this podcast "How To Argue With A Creationist". Maybe he should have called it "How To Converse With A Creationist". I think the word Argue is too strong. I think we all shoud stick to the topic and exercise critical (but friendly) thinking. Agreed, guys?

I thought it interesting to "rebuke" Brian et al by illustrating how it would be possible to "argue" (ie converse) with non-creationists. Let's strive to do it gracefully, intelligently, and open-mindedly.

I am interested in discussing the time factor in evolutionary theory. Religion (the existence of a God) enters in simply because if God is real and did what he said he did, it reflects on the science and nature we all see around us. The two really are compatible. The world around us is exactly as we all see it. The interpretations of Why is perhaps different.

William, please tell mne in what manner I have been "implicitly racist". What do you mean by "a large part of the most useful and practical human technologies" coming from the pre-Christian world..? The computer you are using right now? The car you drive? Electricity? Satellites?

And... you can't 'scientifically' discount God, no more than a Ford car can discount Henry Ford...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
May 31, 2009 7:41pm

Ok Joe,

If Creationlism wants to argue the world is younger than the evidence as understood by Science (I hate using the term "Science" like that), than I would like to ask how does Creationlism account for two pieces of evidence. First, if the Universe is younger than we have speculated, why is it we can see star light from stars so far away. The speed of light can not be disputed to my knowledge. Second, how do you account for the planet Venus. Venus had a smilier make up to earth, but lacking a magnetic field was altered by solar winds. It seems to me that while Creationlism is a conclusion that explains some of the evidence, it must discount certain hurdles that are presented. The belief of an older world seems to be the best conclusion given our current understanding.

Michael, Worcester
May 31, 2009 8:54pm

theres a couple new creationist arguments. like dna being based on digital code, there for someone smarter then us made it. the reverse dna gets the codes for the amino acids and etc ect. basically its really fuckin complicated. try to explain that one cause i dont want to deal with it. then again oh wait i forgot i dont give a shit, cause dont base my religion or my science on you assholes

andrew, san diego
June 01, 2009 6:32am

Will, read Genesis chapter 1. It it very clear when it describes each day as the "evening and morning." We don't have any reason to believe that a "day" really meant a million years. The only possible time gap would have been between verses 1 and 3. Genesis doesn't say that God created light immediately after He created the heaven and the earth. There is no evidence of an allegory.

Justin, Hammond
June 01, 2009 8:09am

It seems like Evolution and God is always contrasted. Does has to be that way?
Why cannot God be behind the Evolution?

Stefan, Stockholm
June 01, 2009 2:24pm

Stefan, because our information about God creating life is in Genesis, and Genesis is clear that God created all living things in a four day span. So if you say that God is behind evolution, meaning that God created the first living organism and let everything evolve by itself, then you are not talking about the God of the Old Testament. You might as well be talking about Zeus.

Justin, Hammond
June 01, 2009 6:57pm

Thanks, Justin. But here's some science, Michael. I’ll answer your first question first, OK?

The speed of light is not unchangeable, as most people think. Many experiments have shown that light in fact has decreased in speed. First, we know that something happened right after the event which evolutionists call the Big Bang and creationists call the original moment of Creation. Exactly what was the state of the universe? Was matter and energy the same then as now? Secondly, was starlight traveling at its current speed of 186,000 mps then as it does now? If so, light from a star millions or billions of light-years away took that long to reach us, hence the universe is that old. On the other hand, if it traveled much faster in the beginning and slowed down over time, the universe is very young because the light reached us a lot quicker.
This is in no way impossible. Astronomer Barry Setterfield of Australia measured light and found it has decreased. Other scientists measured it with the same methods, years apart, and found a decrease. M. E. J. Gheury de Bray, in “The Velocity of Light,” Science, Vol. 66, Supplement x, 30 September 1927, noticed this too. He also published this in Nature, 24 March 1934, p. 464. See also P. T. Pappas and Alexis Guy Obolensky, “Thirty Six Nanoseconds Faster Than Light,” Electronics and Wireless World, December 1988, pp. 1162–1165.
No scientific law requires the speed of light to be constant. Even Einstein had doubts.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 01, 2009 7:27pm

Joe,

Setterfield cherry picked his data, it has been refused by the ICR and AiG, hardly two groups trying to advocate an old earth model. However, the end of your post is spot on. Einstein did have doubts about Physics. But isn't the purpose of science to doubt itself? Why else must scientists repeat experiments over and over again?

Suppose that Setterfield was correct...This would explain why starlight could reach Earth even the stars are millions to billions light years away, but it fails to explain all of our understanding of the universe. Setterfield tried to overcome these problem by introducing new evidence. Anytime an explanation needs to introduce new evidence to over come a hurdle, we must rank any conclusion as a result of that evidence lower.

Michael, Worcester
June 01, 2009 8:04pm

Michael,
You hardly offer a counter-argument here. Einstein's formula E=MC2 was based on scientific observations that have been superseded. He knew that, and did the best he could, which was impressive. Have a closer look at his Second Postulate...
Setterfield and others have used the apparent discrepancies between atomic clocks and orbital clocks. If atomic clocks are correct, the orbital speeds of the planets are increasing by comparison. If orbital clocks (timings of celestial bodies, for examle)are correct, atomic vibrations and the speed of light are decreasing, though gravitational pulls are constant.
A US Naval Observatory scientist, T.C. Van Flandem, demonstarted that atomic clocks are slowing relative to orbital clocks.

By the way, could you please explain how a "new evidence" introduced would be reason to rank a conclusion as lower? After all, the problem with light speed is that it has universally thought to be always a constant. Have a closer look at Gheury de Bray's reasoning.

There is also the problem with red shift in starlight. Troitsky, the Russian cosmologist, also validated Setterfield, independently (sort of how Wallace 'validated' Darwin...). And Planck's constants regarding the properties of the atom have been shown by statistical research to support both of them. There's a lot more of this out, worth looking at.

You should also think abgout the similarities in the shape of most galaxies, ie the spiral arms in many of them. Same age?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 01, 2009 10:48pm

http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides/

This is a great article. Dr. John Sutherland was able to, using conditions that appeared on the early Earth, create RNA out of nothing. This is important because you need rna to have life existing. Yes science is one step closer to disproving the claims of a certain group of creationists. In other words, Abiogenesis is possible because it was created in a lab.

The test was repeated several times to make sure there is no chance that it was contamination.

Remember all those claims that Abiogenesis is impossible? Well, even though the detractors claim that their version of abiogenesis is more likely, the scientists did not give up and keep trying things out. Now because of their diligence and unwillingness to put faith in scripture, they are slowly eroding away one more creationist lie.

I look forward to reading the spin doctoring, moving the goalposts and whatever other logical fallacy you need to to preserve your belief that imaginary friend in the sky dood it.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
June 02, 2009 9:54am

...you mean as opposed to that big lie thought up by that old bearded fart on the Beagle?

Just a matter of time when Sutherland will be shown to have doctored his books!

...Piltdown Man?

...Archaeopteryx?

...4.6 billion year time frame?

ALL Fakes.

Of course, we can easily date Evolution: 150-year-long Great Logical fallacy!

Abiogenesis is impossible, because you can't have genetic codes 'evolve' out of non-code materials.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 04, 2009 4:54am

Kind of what I expected you would do, Joe. You were confronted with evidence that contradicts your world view and you react this way. You get angry, try some ad hominum to discredit the guy that did that, and you cling to your beliefs. Had you even bothered to read the report? No of course not because if you did that, it might cast doubt in your beliefs.

I love that, you bring up all the examples that were proven to be fakes by other scientists, as though it would cast doubt on the science itself. Hate to disappoint you, but unlike what Kent Hovind wants you to believe, Science proved them wrong. Yes your examples proved that science is self correcting. Thank you for proving the greatness of science.

I am going to tell you this this discovery was made 5 years ago and like any good scientist, he redid the test a few more times to make sure that it was not a fluke. On top of that, he asked a few of his colleagues to do the test just to make sure that it was not a mistake. Now before you try to move the goalposts and concoct this elaborate conspiracy, know this, none of the people asked were atheists.

You say that Abiogenesis is impossible, but you believe in a form of it. "Magic Man done it." Yet you do not try to prove that magic man did it because you know it is impossible. All you do is try to disprove evolution because you know there is no proof that magic man done it. That is weak.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
June 04, 2009 11:38am

Contradicts my world view? It's so flimsy it doesn't contradict anything but reason itself! Read the report? Your Brandon Keim article is full of obscurisms like "could", "scientists think", "might have", "perhaps" and (I love this one)"one might imagine...". Happenstance lab resultS do not a life-form make.

I got angry? Heck, I wonder what reason I'd have... oh, let's see, you insult me by calling the God I worship as "magic man" or "the bearded guy upstairs" etc. THERE'S some true ad hominum for you.

You're a childishly petulant and hostile skeptic. You are unwilling to asign any scientific intelligence to a creationist viewpoint. Name me one book you read by a creationist and I'll name five I've read by evolutionists, and I concede THOSE had a lot of good observations in them. You think the supernatural is impossible - yet you cannot disprove God. That's what is weak about you. Mr Dunning asked for critical, civilized thinking, not the "attack-the-Bible-guy" dung you liberally fling around.

Here's the deal: you try and prove to me, FIRST, that there is such a thing as billions of years, and we might have a discussion. You prove you are capable of being graceful, thoughtful, and open-minded in two directions, and we might be in for some talking. Short of that, I have nothing to say to you, and it seems that nobody else does either.

Time you showed some real smarts, Mr Furguson, and tackled the Big Questions. God gave even atheists intelligence.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 05, 2009 5:08am

I completely agree with Mr. Furguson and the article, but as the discussion in the comments shows, you can argue with a creationist, but it's pretty pointless.

Tom, Sapporo, Japan
June 07, 2009 4:20am

Tom, did you happen to notice that the article by Dr Sutherland (which I read three times) did not in any way show us one species evolving into another species? Hmm? Let alone that a controlled lab test doesn't reflect what happens in nature..(ie in the seas)? Or that allegedly synthesized RNA in any way means conclusively that life-giving DNA and living creatures come out of that process?

So... what's this "pointless" thing you refer to???

If you are up to the challenge, name me a book by a creationist scientist which you have read...maybe there's a point or two you missed...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 07, 2009 1:37pm

Hi Brain!

I have been exploring your website and it's very interesting.

A while ago, I was having a discussion with a cristian (your podcast on the "how to" really helped a lot) and he referd me to this website: 100prophecies.org
I'm curious what you think about it because i have a hard time understanding what they are saying.

Laurens Verhoeff, Steenbergen The Netherlands
June 07, 2009 2:35pm

Laurens,
I assume you want anybody to reply here...
I looked at that site and it appears that it is a normal Biblical prophecy site. If you have difficulty understanding what is there, it may be because you have some difficulty conceiving of prophecies from the Bible in general. I say this in the kindest of ways. I'm a Creationist and a Bible prophecy believer. But I am also an observer of the world around me, and science is a big thing with me.

This particular website and blog is for antbody who wants to look into the controversy between evolution and creationism. More than likely, you will encounter a lot of negativity from the evolutionists here because they are fiercely hardcore about their beliefs (us too)and usually don't give much leeway to a creationist viewpoint because they somehow have the idea that a creationist cannot possibly understand ordinary science. I challenge all of them to look closely at the world around us and see that creationism has indeed a lot of support with scientific evidence. It depends on what you are willing to see in front of your eyes, and what you are willing to allow your mind to reason with. Mr Dunning's essay here is very biased and lopsided, although his other essays are fine.

So if you want to know more about evolution vs creation, this is an OK site to discuss it civilly and intelligently. Try not to have pre-assumptions. Be open-minded. Evolutionists like to avoid the tough questions concerning "tons of time", by the way.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 09, 2009 8:04am

Joe, there is no controversy. On one hand, there is the pre-scientific version of creation, on the other, there is the post enlightenment understanding of the origins of the universe and all it contains. Including you, Joe. One uses observable evidence, one uses faith in some supernatural ideal. We as a species no longer require to attribute thunder to the rumblings of some supernatural stomach. We understand it now. We didn't then. Controversial? Hardly. Were we to unlearn all that has transpired since the enlightenment, we would not be discussing this , because we would likely be dead from some nasty disease, or be cutting out the hearts of healthy young men on our bloody, stinking altars of lies, fear, ignorance and superstition. It that controversial, Joe?
I suggest that you might consider joining the Amish. At least they maintain the appearance of avoiding the hypocrisy of shunning the benefits of science.
Sometimes ignorance has an excuse, but willful ignorance, and the peddling of such is beyond the pale.

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
June 13, 2009 8:01am

Marius,
Believe it or not, I pretty much agree with everything you are saying here. Man is a horrible creature, isn't he?

However, you are not going to get away that easily, throwing an unfair charge at believers like me. I am very, very tired of the mindset which you possess, accusing creationists of not being in any way competent in science. Think again, if you can. You obviously lump everybody with a belief in God under the same umbrella, and in that you are seriously wrong. I'll state this truth for you: science (that which we know about thus far) will prove only one world, not several worlds. You do not hold a monoploy on the reality of that world.

Therefore, I throw back into your face the very last sentence you are throwing at me above, because you are as guilty of that 'ignorance' as anybody else is. Now, are you willing to discuss, or just to accuse?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 13, 2009 8:13pm

Joe,

I don't understand how you can say Evolutionists are avoiding "tons of time." If you are still arguing as before, that the earth is younger, and therefor evolution can not have enough time to take place, you seem to be contradicting yourself. Furthermore, what is all this business about man being a horrible creature. That has nothing to do with Evolution. Evolution just is, it has no thought, no emotion, no empathy, but instead is what it is. By believing that Science can be personified has have humane characteristics, we are stepping out of the realm of the real world and into the realm of space opera.

I think this question will be wasted, but may I ask you Joe if you do or do not believe that the human perception of the universe has changed over time? (I promise you it isn't as off topic as it seems)

Michael, Worcester
June 13, 2009 10:14pm

Isn't science a way for us to understand a thing, and is not the thing itself? We do make tons of progress using science, but then again, fire was discovered long before we put together the periodic table.
"Faith in some supernatural ideal" doesn't exclude people who hold that kind of belief from practicing, using and enjoying the comforts science has brought us. But if we all died and somehow humanity was reborn with a blank intellectual slate, it would still have the same universe to deal with. It wouldn't have science though.
As far as cutting out hearts on altars, I don't think that has been an issue for us on a large scale for quite some time, insofar as it related to some kind of attempt to appease God. Besides, a lot of people who did that were very concerned with more than one, maybe dozens of Gods. In spite of and because of science though, we can do lots of things with the human heart we once couldn't have guessed. Transplants, bypasses, and the like are all tremendous steps. Also, by splitting the atom, we can incinerate hundreds of thousands of hearts just like that. Physics, medicine and all fields really have been furthered by science. We use it however we please within the physical laws of nature that have always been there- for our own agendas.
Evolution, as it was taught to me, explains how the universe came to be. That is what is is meant to do. I have to say, I don't have enough Faith in evolution to believe it.

Bobby Marcum, Mustang, Oklahoma
June 14, 2009 1:47pm

No Joe, I accuse.

Marius vanderLubbe, nullabour plain, Australia
June 14, 2009 5:49pm

Goodbye, Marius!

Michael, your question is not wasted. Yes , I do believe that our perception of the universe has changed over time. I will even defend vigorously the thesis that science has done this. Where have I ever defied science? By suggesting, like millions of others, that there is a deity behind all the science we know? Wow! Fatal flaw, you think??

When I say 'evolution', I am referring to the whole cosmos, not just to biology on earth...

There seem to be two general theories behind the beginnings of the universe as we seem to know it. The Big Bang theory, and the Special Creation theory. It is possible to reconcile the two into one theory. Nothing wrong with the Big Bang, so far as science sees it. Not a great deal of evidence for it yet, but I'm certainly not hostile to the concept. A singularity (the cosmos within, say, a centimeter sphere) suddenly exploding and expanding rapidly into the current universal form. Red shifts in light seem to support this. AND... God said "Let there be light" and the Big Bang takes place.

The difference is, with only a big bang, how do you explain what was there before the singularity happened to explode? How to deal with Nothing, Then Something? With God, it's explained. Plus, after God's big bang, we still have all of the cosmos and everything in it which you, me, and the other fellas see all around us. OK, another few adjustments on the time factor, but that's what we should be discussing, don't you agree?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 14, 2009 7:19pm

So Joe, is the account of creation as written in the king James Bible the literal and actual truth, and all other explanations of the origins of the universe wrong?
Can snakes speak?
If god is so all powerful and wise, why create atheists? Who created god and who created that entity, or is it turtles all the way down?

Marius vanderlubbe, nullabour plain, Australia.
June 14, 2009 8:14pm

Marius, the account of creation was written in old Hebrew, so no, it's not literally identical to the KJV. But the meaning is clear in both translations worded differently or not. It says "God created" by speaking. The account gives us no play-by-play of how it happened after that, and honestly, for those who read the Bible, it probably isn't really a point of interest anyway. Those interested in minutia should read a relevant book. Of course, what you said about the account being the actual truth? I believe it is. Are all other explanations of the universe wrong? How can all of them be right? Or even more than one of them? Atheists and atheism are the result of men thinking, because they can. God has nothing to with it. It's part of the way we have been made to make our own decisions, belief systems, and go from there. God made that ability to choose, not our choices. Your ability to ask questions is your choice, and you are using your will to ask them, nothing else.
Joe- you cover the concept of the unknown process which unfolded the cosmos after God willed it to. In a document recorded to bond a relationship between God and man, it would be a colossal waste of time (especially then) to have to go into arbitrary details. So red light can tell us that it probably happened one way, and that is completely compatible with creationism. It comes down to something Roger and Hammerstein wrote for Julie Andrews. That's where we aren't going to agree with evolutionsts.

Bobby Marcum, Mustang, Oklahoma
June 15, 2009 7:11am

Bobby, do you believe that your god is omnipotent and omniscient?

John, New York
June 15, 2009 7:36pm

Marius, I thought I asked you to go away from me? Your arguments seem to me to be mockery, not honest, sincere questions. However, Bobby took the words right out of my mouth - yes, the Bible is literal and actual truth, and God didn't create atheists, atheists 'created' atheists. The greastest glory of creation is that God gave us free will, to do right or wrong, to chose life or death. He meant that in the eternal sense. If Satan appeared as a beautiful serpent back then, speaking intelligently and beguilingly, that's good enough for me. I've heard of stranger things. There may also be some allegory there as well, but the lesson is that disobedience and sin is dressed up as something attractive...

God would not create confusion - it's His way or no way. Other creation myths have to be wrong if God is right. You believe or do not believe because you made choices, nothing else.

Now - as this podcast was about the sciences in a creationist perspective, why not be graceful and open-minded enough to consider that we creationists do have some valid points to make too? I certainly concede a lot of truths to evolutionaary theory, IF it has hard reproducible experimentation to back it up.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 15, 2009 8:05pm

Joe, I would be more than willing to accept your 'valid' points if they were based on more than just faith. Until they are scientifically tested and proven points they shouldn't be accepted by any skeptic. That's just the very nature of being a skeptic.

If we accepted whatever points someone else made on the basis of their own faith, we wouldn't be very good skeptics, now would we?

John, New York
June 15, 2009 8:13pm

onsider valid creationist points?? Man, snakes do not talk. If you accept that one did at one time, then what does that say about your critical thinking? It says that you are very much lacking in it. Original sin is the original flaw in your logic. you belive that, then your building of belief is on some shaky foundation, Mon ami.
So, how about The flood? Where is all that water now? Another question. is every other faith destined for the fires of Hades, just because they do not follow your particular brand of piety?

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
June 15, 2009 8:16pm

John,
"..Until they are scientifically tested and proven they shouldn't be accepted by any skeptic..." Right on; that's what I expect in return from evolutionists. They have faith in their theory, but can't seem to offer reproducible proof. I have belief in the science I SEE, not the science that is 'guesstimated'.

Here's a question for you: can you accept the challenge of proving one way or the other whether the universe is young or old? If it's young, evolution is out; if it's very old, evolution may be in but not necessarily so, and neither would special creation in an ancient universe.

Let's stick purely to known sciences, OK? Marius can even join in here if he is open-minded enough.

A point (regarding the Great Flood): wooly mammoths have been found in Siberia and Canada, buried, undecayed, with unfermented grasses and seeds in their mouths and undigested foods in their stomachs? How did this happen? Add to this amazing find that tropical plants have been found in Siberia, fully intact? Think carefully on this before leaping in. It has a huge bearing on the Genesis flood.

(Oh, Marius, you have a huge misunderstanding of God's power ie snakes in Eden, but let's stick to understandable science here, please...)

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 16, 2009 7:45pm

My points still stand, despite your dodge, Joe. Nice argument from ignorance with the mammoth, by the way. Just because you don't know how something occurred, god did it.
That about sums up creationism all over. Understandable science? Joe you have been rolling rough shod over science since you first praised the lord. science is all about the observable, the repeatable, and the testable.
belief is about accepting something as truth, despite a lack of, or contrary evidence. Do not think for a moment that your belief system is compatible with science. It isn't.

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
June 16, 2009 8:05pm

Marius, yours is the biggest dodge game I ever heard of. Typical of an evolutionist. I ask you a question based on science and nature (how the wooly mammoth was frozen intact, undamaged) and you dodge it in spades. Give me an answer or shut up!

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 17, 2009 8:29pm

Joe, that's the beauty of the scientific method and what differentiates these times from the stone age.

In the stone age, we would simply just assume it was god and move on. In this, the scientific age, we apply the scientific method and develop a hypothesis - which is then tested, revised, and tested again until we achieve a well studied theory.

"I don't know, but I can find out" is always a better answer than "I don't know, it must be some supernatural power. Leave it at that."

John, New York
June 17, 2009 8:34pm

Have you considered, Joe,that the mammoth was zapped by Marvin the Martian with his freeze-o-matic?
That is every bit as likely a scenario as a biblical flood. How was the mammoth frozen? As I wasn't present at said event, I cannot tell you for sure. There are several thousand better and more likely explanations than "god did it" or "the flood". Let's rule out the most likely ones first. How about this one?

1-Mammoth was caught in a super cell down draft, that transferred frigid air from higher altitudes.
Or this one.
2- It died and fell in the mud, which froze.

etc, etc, etc, etc.
Its not that hard, ey Joe!

Natural things are by their nature, natural, and occur all the time. When a tree falls over in the forest, we don't have to assume that some invisible lumberjack was responsible. It probably just fell over. I hope you like my answer, Joe. As you can see, I haven't done as you asked and shut up. I do apologize for any inconvenience I might have caused yourself and any invisible pals you might have.

Marius vanderLubbe, nullabour Plain, Australia.
June 18, 2009 12:38am

John, and Marius,
Science is science, I will never deny that. Leave deity and Marvin the Martian and 'magic man' (some evolutionists idea of God) out of this, OK? Marius, your Martian scenario is NOT likely at all. A Great Flood and rapid burial is more likely. You actually hit on a more correct idea when you say "mammoth was caught in a super cell down draft..etc". Now you're starting to THINK! Good!
So...what might have caused this super cell down draft, huh? It would have to have been very rapid, very sudden, and it would have to be world-wide and catastrophic, too. Tropical foliage frozen in Siberia..? mammoths were not arctic species, they were tropical species, like elephants.

A gigantic planetary cataclysm would explain this sort of thing. It would obey all the laws of physics and geology. It would involve plate tectonics on a massive scale, it would include huge artesian water releases, it would involve wild weather in the extreme. It would be explainable by all of the known sciences. It would be a real version of a great flood. World mythologies already conrtains a lot of references to such an even. It is science and it shows its evidence in the planet itself.

It did not involve invisible pals or stone age mentality. It is a (admitedly) a theory called the hydroplate theory.

That's not that hard, eh, Marius?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 18, 2009 6:57pm

I would suggest that Marvin is far more likely than "god did it".
Though unlikely, marvin breaks no known laws of science in his mammoth mission. It could be done.

Great flood?? Fail, Joe. The planet is 4.6 billion years old.
Even people of greart faith accept this.

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
June 18, 2009 7:31pm

So, Joe, how about all the asteroids crashing into the Earth? That one single story does NOT prove the bible correct - especially given that there is a logical scientific explanation for a worldwide flood that does not require the hand of a diety.

John, New York
June 18, 2009 9:12pm

So, let's see...
I mention some buried, instantly-frozen mammothjs, and all you guys can come up with is a mammoth fear of the possibility of a deity being behind a great flood..! And here I was, thinking I had asked you all to leave deity out of all of this.

You are both more deity-phobic (my term, can't thonk of what esle to call this insistent backtracking to a God behind it) than I thought.

I ask a simple question, I get fear and aversion and side-stepping od the question.

Have you guys ever even HEARD of the hydroplate theory? It's based purely on known sciences. Too scared to look at it? It's a logical scientific explanation for a great flood, John, and you need not fear God in it. Just have a look, and tell me what you think...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 21, 2009 5:36am

Creationism, BY DEFINITION, requires a deity. You are trying to avoid this significant little tidbit when it cannot be done. Creationism without a supreme being is evolution. Therefore, to discuss creationism we MUST address faith in a supreme being.

So, here's what a quick google of "hydroplate theory" found (2nd link):

"Brown is a young-earth creationist, so the cracking of the earth's crust and the ensuing flood must have happened only six or eight thousand years ago, and within the space of a few weeks (i.e., forty days and forty nights!)."

"First, the crust must be absolutely impermeable to the water. There must be no earthquakes before the flood since the first crack in this sphere would allow the water to escape. This means that there must be no meteorites before the flood. And heaven help mankind if he ever were to have drilled into the crust for curiosity's sake."

"There must absolutely not have been any elevation differences. The effects of a load on the top of the crust can be seen from using an elastic sheet solution to the load."

"As a water surface passes the point at which it turns into vapor, it will, within one second, be pushed 577 x 814 = 469,779 m. This is a velocity of 469 kilometers per second. There would be no flood since none of the vapor would remain on the earth. The earth's escape velocity is about 11 kilometers per second. Any object that exceeds 11 km per second leaves the earth and never returns."

Science vs Creationism, Science wins

John, New York
June 21, 2009 3:26pm

The hydroplate theory (hypothisis, actually) hold about as much water as the moon being made of cheeze. We now have evidence that the moon is not a giant fromage, and we now have evidence that the world is not 6000 years old. Understandable rationalization 500 years ago, and if you are under 5 years old, but alarming coming from adults. Let us not waste further bandwidth on this childish concept, Joe.

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
June 21, 2009 7:51pm

John,
"The moon IS made of green cheese - Neil Armstrong called me last Friday evening amd told me so."

Well..... that's as good a rebuke as the ones you offer, for, Pete's sake!

Avoid...avoid...avoid... you evolutionists are horribly afraid of science proving you wrong. Which it can easily do...

Walter Brown knows more about geology than you, me and Marius combined. You won't even look at his science - you just stick to an unproven hypothesis, while Brown at least gracefully gave realistic alternatives, all purely scientific. You can't even answer a single scientific question directed at you by a creationist mind, without pouncing on the "God principle" which we asked you politely to leave out of it. It proves your God-phobia.

Shame, you rebuke Walter Brown, who honestly could not get a competitor for his theory in a debate because, as he said, evolutionists fear to debate the truth. You couldn't even be decent enough to name a creatuionist scientist's book you have read, because you probably never did read one. Instead, John, you throw out quotes by somebody else to do your feeble rebuking for you. You don't have the integrity or grace to look and think another viewpoint out for yourself.

Marius:
I agree - let's not waste further bandwith on your childish concept.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 22, 2009 5:15am

Joe, explain to me how we can discuss creationism without addressing it's requirement for a supreme being and I'll leave it out.

Bottom line (again) is that creationism argues that not only did the supreme being create the earth, but he/she/it molded it over time to what it is now. This REQUIRES that any discussion of creationism address this belief in a supreme being - most notably, the christian god. A religion/god based entirely on faith. YOU are the one avoiding the issues here.

You're right, I don't know much about geology. But I can assure you that I believe the page I read (given that it's written by a noted geologist and creationism believer and posted on a creationist/christian's website) based on what I do know of the world around me. And, I'd like to add this here: given the amount of science that agrees the earth is billions of years old - and the crust floating on a layer of water is just outlandishly ridiculous...I'm betting you haven't even bothered to see if the hypotheses you claim to agree actually hold their snuff. You just bounce from one religious buzz-hypotheses to the next (C.S. Lewis is a dead give-away).

I love your ad-hominem attacks, though. Keep em up, they're really starting to convince me to throw science away and blindly accept your religion and whatever crackpot hypotheses it presents to allow itself to remain viable into the future (ironic that religion mutates to survive, much like the evolution you claim not to believe in...)

John, New York
June 22, 2009 6:18am

Sorry Joe, you seem to have made an error.
The childish concept I was referring to was not actually mine.
It was Walter Brown's.
I will try to make such distinctions clearer in the future.

Have you consulted any good geology texts? Heres a good one for you to start with.
http://www.amazon.com/Geology-Introduction-Physical-Student-Technology/dp/061826857X

Any one want to make a wager that Joe gets a mention from Brian in the next "Listener Feedback" episode?

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
June 22, 2009 7:13am

Yes, John, I accept that a Creator made the universe. The implications of that can easily be discussed without referring to any deity. We just stick to the science, believe me. First: I never said that an alleged creator molded the world and still controls what happens? I’m not discussing the Who and Why of creation, just the How. Smart creationists just want to talk about science we do know and what that actual science might be saying. I’d love to offer a ‘parable’ or illustrative example by which I could show you how close our two views are. We can pick a scientific point and banter it back ad forth, open-minded and gracefully. Ie I have never disputed Darwin’s observation or many of his conclusions. I’m amateur at some things - I just don’t accept that the scientific community at large is always correct in their conclusions regarding evolution. I think that you unfairly slight Walter Brown in his proposals of an alternate view of earth geology. Brown is gracious, if anything, in what he says. By the way, I used the reference to CS Lewis in regards to religion and morality on another podcast – Lewis himself never admitted to being a scientist either. Secondly: I apologize for any comment I’ve made that sounds ad-hominem. Can you express your opinion on a scientific topic which we can agree to discuss, and leave any deity out of it, plain and simple? Your phrase “science that AGREES” doesn’t necessarily mean it is “science that is true”.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 23, 2009 2:08pm

Joe, I fail to see how we can discuss creationism without addressing it's biggest flaw - that it requires a creator. In my opinion, any attempt to discuss creationism without addressing this flaw is the sign of someone who is in denial.

I know, you're going to tell me that I'm the one in denial of a supreme being. But the reality is that I'm not so much in denial as unwilling to put faith into an ever-hypocritical blind-faith-based religion.

And before you claim that science is hypocritical - keep in mind that NO true scientist has EVER claimed to know all the answers.

I find the claims of Brown to be laughable. No geologist (except for perhaps a creationist) agrees with Brown - and no person who looks at his claims and applies common sense/logic can agree with his claims.

Here's how I see it:

Your faith/religion requires you to deny evolution, so you scramble for the "best" mix of religion and science and then damn the science that disproves your religion based hypothesis, while accepting the evidence (oft produced by the same scientists, mind you) that supports your religion-based hypothesis. This is why Dawkins doesn't give creationists the time of day - because it's a nonsense created by religion in support of religion, not in support of science.

I know because I used to do the same thing. The problem with any religion is that not any one of them stands up to the scientific method, nor even to simple logic (when properly applied).

John, New York
June 23, 2009 3:19pm

John,
Your "ever hypocritical blind faith-based religion' also spplies to evoltion.

True science is not hyporcritical. If Brown is laughable, so is Darwin and his supporters. Brown has more science to prove his claims than has Darwin. Do you want to pick a topic?

Religion is "man reaching up to God." Christianity is "God reaching down to man." My 'religion' doesn't require me to think outside of science. Athiests HAVE to leave out God; Christians don't.

John, it is evolutionists who scramble for the "best" mix of pseudoscience and belief to disprove other science, and damn the science that disproves their hypothesis. Its' accepted heresy in support of a common theory.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 23, 2009 7:05pm

Really, Joe? That's what you think?

The entire scientific community is wrong about evolution? The accepted and time tested and proven theory of evolution was cherry-picked together?

I think I'm done here, Joe.

You refuse to admit that religion has tainted the science you subscribe to.

Atheists don't have to disprove anything - that's the beauty of it. Science doesn't have to disprove anything. On the other hand, Creationists and theists MUST prove there is a god and he/she/it is responsible for the world around us.

Let's go back to Brown's "scientific" hypothesis on creationsim - you recall, the ones that don't stand up to physics, geology, etc. Who's making up wild stories now, Joe?

Darwin found evidence that species evolve/adapt to fit their habitat. That was all he found, and that was all he presented. He did not present "crawl out of the primordial ooze and change from one species into another."

When you're tired of blindly following along behind your religious scientists (again, religion and science are diametrically opposed), maybe you can open a book by Dawkins and see what the evolution fuss is all about (or are you going to call him an "intellectual idiot" and refuse to acknowledge that he is a leader in evolutionary theory).

John, New York
June 23, 2009 7:48pm

I read some of the above and thought I'd watch a little Walter Brown Hydroplate theory video. It sounds interesting but I have a few questions.

Why did all that underground water wait over 4 billion years to burst out? Why did it happen so late in Earth's history? Where did it all come from? How did it get there in the first place?

Evolution is an observable fact and there is a theory to explain it.

Gravity is an observable fact and there is a theory to explain that too.

If you don't believe in EVOLUTION than you needn't take ANTIBIOTICS the next time you get sick and don't get a FLU VACCINE next year.

It is sad how little the average person understands how far reaching the theories about evolution are in our modern world.

Evolution goes far beyond the animal kingdom because that is just one kind of evolution.

Bill Petry, St Peters
June 28, 2009 9:36am

John,
Again, you’re a poster-boy for Ad Hominem. “I’m right, so you must be wrong...”! Discredit the other side but don’t answer their questions directly...

As for “Darwin found evidence that species evolve”, you have so far not told me what that evidence is. I stated many podcasts ago on this topic that I am not interested in microevolution, but in conclusive evidence showing species change (macroevolution, a different thing, by the way). And hence, going back further, evidence that man evolved from some simpler creature etc. Proof, proof, proof?

It is you, John, who follows blindly behind your false cult of evolution, which I can prove is false, if you are decent enough to pay attention. Let’s make a deal: I will read any book by Richard Dawkins you can recommend, with a completely open mind, if you will read all of Walter Brown’s “In The Beginning” before making any more judgments. Never mind other people’s opinions – what do you think?

OR... you can practice the classical response of evolutionists and back off with your further Ad Hominem attitude...

Bill, I will respond to your question later if you wish...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
June 30, 2009 2:52pm

Obviously, John, atheists don't have to PROVE anything either.

Justin, Hammond
June 30, 2009 8:12pm

lol

John, New York
July 01, 2009 12:02am

John, if you like to continue with your silly June 23rd post stuff above, then so can I. It's a bit tedious, But:

Darwin indeed believed that all species originated from something very simple in the primordial soup. If you think he didn't, then he was a total madman, not worthy of even five cents worth of attention by anyone. What darwin utterly failed to prove was species change of any kind. If you think he did (tell me how???) then he was a deluded fool who should have listened to his wife and become a farmer or regular nature journalist.

Yep, Dawkins is a leader alright. The blind leading the blind, falling into a ditch of primordial soup up to their side-blinkered sideburns.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 01, 2009 5:55am

If you look at several recent National Geographic issues you can read all about how species change over time. The piece about the guppies in the April issue you will find particularly enlightening. Thousands of biologists, paleontologists and other life scientists have demonstrated conclusively how species evolve over time. It's also disingenuous to use the phrase evolutionists because that implies that there is some scientific debate about the merits of evolution in the scientific community. There is not.

If creationists wish to be taken seriously they need to do some science. One pre Cambrian bunny rabbit is all it would take to disprove evolution. Just one bunny rabbit. If paleontologists can find a nearly complete history of the evolution of whales in the Indus River Valley, finding one pre Cambrian bunny rabbit anywhere on the planet shouldn't be too hard. C'mon just one bunny. That's all we're asking and you can scrap evolution. It doesn't even have to be a bunny, any modern mammal will do.

Craig, Washington DC
July 02, 2009 5:32pm

Micro- and macroevolution are the same process. Microevolution is just speciation on an individual level, rather than the population level. Differences in individuals, isolated over time, produces greater and greater morphological discrepancies between populations. Given enough time, these discrepancies will be so great that speciation can be said to have occured. Microevolution translates well into macroevolution, the only difference is the timespan needed to define each "stage."

Tyler, Saint Paul
July 05, 2009 10:13pm

Tyler,

"...the olny difference is the timespan needed to define each stage..."

That's the problem - you can't define that timespan. want to discuss it further, scientifically?

Craig: your 'bunny in the Cambrian' is really funny, considering there is no proof of the age of your cambrian. it is all a mammoth guess, not science. "suppose", "maybe", "probable", "assuming" ... your theory is full of it. If evolutionists (or whatever you wanht to call yourselves these days0 want to be taken seriously, YOU need to pay attention to some science.

bone-picker...bonepicker - that's not proof.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 06, 2009 8:06am

Oh yeah, you're wrong about that. There's good research on the dates of the Cambrian rocks from Australia that was published in 1998. No guess work involved. Most of the published peer reviewed work by paleontologists and geologists puts the date at about 570 million years ago. The "explosion" itself took place over a period of about 30 million years. So, if creationists are right and scientists are wrong then we should see modern and pre Cambrian fossils co-located somewhere on the planet. The fact that proof isn't good enough for you does not mean that it's not proof. Where is the creationists science. What's the research, published in peer reviewed articles?

Craig, Washington DC
July 06, 2009 2:42pm

"OH yeah, you're wrong about that."

Funny and sad how you immediately begin with the typical evolutionist Ad Hominem attack. "Joe just dosen't know etc"...

I do not trust the peer-reviewed accounts of anything as fail-safe, because most of the ones you will quote are already biased and loaded in the direction of your beliefs. Most of the ones I would direct you to are likewise for me, so what to do? We don't wanht to keep falling into logical fallacies like Appeal To Authority (whose authority?) or Observational Selection (whay to look at and what to not look at) or Anecdotal Evidence (oh, somebody ELSE said so?)...

I simply study it myself and make my conclusions from what MY senses tell me directly. Then I may look at other unbiased (I hope) sources of science etc to see further. Again and again I complain that we are all looking at the same science but interpreting it differently. There can only be one true interpretation.

Sorry, a Cambrian age of 570 million years does not do it for me. Start with normal erosion of the planet, or the huge errors that crop up in radiometric dating, or the inconsistent 'constants' of both light speeds and other observed radiations, and you will have to conclude that dating methods are far from the mark.

Where do you want to start? want to go to the Forum instead..?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 07, 2009 8:43am

So you're saying there's not vast amounts of peer reviewed research about the Cambrian period out there? There is. It's not as if there some huge argument about it.

"You're wrong" is not an ad hominem attack; it's a statement of fact. There just isn't this scientific argument happening about the age of the Cambrian. There's some quibbling over 530 million or 570 million years but no one is making a serious argument that it's earlier. This is just another Wedge Strategy argument designed to sneak magical thinking into our science classes and intellectually impoverish our children.

Craig, Washington DC
July 07, 2009 12:31pm

Look, Joe, I would continue our discussions...but I'm getting fed up with you calling "foul" with whatever your fallacy buzz-word is. Just because you claim there's a fallacy doesn't mean there is.

The point of the matter is simple: There is scientific evidence (indeed, nearly the entire scientific community agrees with the theory of evolution) that has shown to withstand attack time and again. Evolution doesn't require blind faith. This is, again, the difference between religion and science.

If you choose not to believe that, then you are lying to yourself. There is no real argument against evolution. There is only conjecture from the people who require evolution to not be a scientific theory so their personal beliefs may last.

What makes your particular creation story more accurate than any other religious creation story?

And if you want to believe that I'm attacking you here, I'm not. I'm simply pointing out the holes in your belief system that your logic skips over to allow you some peace when you go to sleep at night (I know, I know...ad hominem...).

It's not fallacious to point out an error in someone's beliefs when the debate is discussing that belief system. It's sort of required, Joe. We're not discussing the health benefits/risks of eating an apple a day, we're discussing a hypothesis based on religious beliefs rather than solely on scientific evidence. We cannot discuss creationism without discussing your personal belief in a god.

John, New York
July 08, 2009 2:36am

Perhaps Joe might like to go to the jref hosted forum to discuss this further, as he is taking up an inordinate amount of space here to say "god did it" repeatedly?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
July 08, 2009 8:11pm

John, I'm really a bit curious about something...
IF a creationist simply has NO argument for his/her idea, then why are you bothering? IF Brian really didn't want us to think about this topic of evolution vs creation, why did he bother to post this item, or anything related to it? If our side of the debate is useless and crazy, why has the subject consumes more space than any of the others? IF you and your colleagues have all the truth and we have none of it, just what are you doing? You obviously don't think we can be 'enlihgtened', and you refuse our entrance into a scientific debate (without mention of God anywhere) by waving away anything we present, no matter how purely scientific it is.

In effect, you are all standing around patting each other's backs and snickering, right? Strange how you keep dragging my belief syatem into this but ask be to ignore yours.

You want science? You can't take science unless it is strictly on your terms. I'm not the one who posted a logical fallacy podcast on this website.

Craig, I see that you don't know how to listen, or to read. I never said there were no peer-reviewed researches. I said I didn't trust all of them as being fail-safe, just like you would never trust my research sources. That's not debate - that's a hardnosed stand-off.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 09, 2009 6:43pm

"In effect, you are all standing around patting each other's backs and snickering, right? Strange how you keep dragging my belief system into this but ask be to ignore yours."

If you dont want or expect to have your position questioned, I suggest you post on a christian forum. They exist, apparently.

Herein lieth the problem, Joe.

Science is not about belief.
it is about the best possible explanation for x based on the best available evidence. Belief is the acceptance of something as truth, despite absent or contrary evidence.
It is patiently obvious that you are laboring under a misapprehension of what science is.
There is no good science, or no bad. There is only science, and unfortunately, that does not have any room for imaginary beings like the Tooth Fairy, Santa, Satan, Bugs Bunny or Jesus Christ.

I looked in the forum Joe, and you were not there.

Marius vanderLubbe,, Nullabour plain, Australia
July 09, 2009 7:52pm

Hey, thanks, Marius, you just proved my point! You actually described the terms by which I operate: "there is only science". I guess that went way over your head the last dozen times I mntioned that. But you're so busy finding inventive ways to be insulting, you can't see through your own deceptions.

Just as Craig doesn't know how to listen or read correctly, you don't know how to look correctly. I'm in the Forum as hereisjoe. But of course, that's just a bigger arena for you to go loudly and rudely and carry a bigger stick. And science is only science in your books, not in mine, and we all know that you're not capable of letting anyone else in YOUR door to an even playing field.

So here's the problem, marius: it's your attitude.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 10, 2009 3:35am

What are your research sources? Who peer reviews the work? Where are the published? At the moment there's nothing you're bringing up that warrants serious consideration when compared to the vast amount of data on the transition of life forms, the age of the Earth, or pretty much anything else. You really don't seem to understand the enormity of your task here. Evolution is so well documented from so many sources that it's going to take some pretty spectacular evidence to even get your foot in the door. Like say one pre Cambrian bunny.

Craig, Washington DC
July 10, 2009 1:41pm

Joe, to add to what Marius and Craig posted:

The problem is that your "science" is based on belief in a higher being. "My" science isn't. The reason we continue to post is not to lend credence to your argument, but an attempt to point out the logical fallacies in your belief system.

As Craig mentioned, all it would take is one pre-cambrian bunny to throw a wrench into my "belief" system. We're waiting...

Dan Brown's hydroplate "theory," that you yourself have proclaimed is solid scientifically, has been shown to be bunk when approached with real science and you STILL refuse to acknowledge that any holes were poked in his "theory" - pretty big ones, ones that make the entire "theory" impossible. Rather than refute those points, you simply claim that there's more to the "theory" than just what was refuted, strawman anyone? But, I forget, you're a man of science, right Joe?

No one here is chuckling to themselves and patting each other's backs. We're beating our heads against the wall trying to explain to you how your beliefs and "science" are unproven. You are fighting science with quasi-science, and then accusing your opponents of using fallacies when your beliefs and science are shown to be lacking...

John, New York
July 10, 2009 9:33pm

Joe says;
"Hey, thanks, Marius, you just proved my point! You actually described the terms by which I operate: "there is only science"."

Err...no, but I believe that you may have missed mine.
You cannot apply the label "science" to "God did it".

Well I have found hereisjoe on the forums and his one post.
Thanks for the tip. I look forward to your continued posting. Feel free to start a thread in the Skeptoid forum.

"..science is only science in your books.."
No Joe. Not my books. They were written by others. And I think you might find that it is I who am in agreement with them, not vice versa.

Faith is faith Joe. You are welcome to it, as long as it doesn't scare the horses.
Please try not to confuse matters of science with matters of faith.
Oil and water, chalk and cheese.

As for my attitude, Joe, well thats just your opinion.
Unless of course your neck is cricked from all that cheek turning?
I hope not.

So if snakes once had the ability to put their serpentine thoughts into words, when did they lose this ability, or is this reticence a calculated decision?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
July 11, 2009 12:36am

Craig, if this is just a forum for tossing around “peer-reviewed” quotes, then I wonder what you yourself think, in your own words. You really don’t understand the enormity of your deception. Nothing documents evolution (I do not disagree with micro-evolution). Don’t talk fossil records -they don’t impress me, but observable science does.

John, even you are proving that you don’t read things very accurately. Dan Brown wrote “The DaVinci Code” (not a book I believe in, tho I read it). Is that how you read your evidences..? Walter Brown wrote about earth’s geological upheavals etc. He is one of America’s foremost engineers, with extensive knowledge and experiences in the mechanics of geology (PhD from MIT), a professor in math, physics, earth sciences, and computer science. I think that says a lot more than you or I, right? Who is it that has successfully de-bunked him? Why would you say he is discredited? If you actually read his book, tell me (give examples) of how you think he is wrong. Don’t just quote verbatim some slob who doesn’t want to listen to good scientific hypothesis. Brown proposes his ideas as theory based on science, just as evolution is also only theory based on science. Why would you be so afraid of that proposal? Show me (in your own way, with your own words) his “fallacy”.

And Marius, tell me where I have said “God did it, that settles it..”..? Hmmm??? You drag out that point, not me, just as you pose silly questions about unicorns. What’s with you?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 12, 2009 6:25pm

Your whole position is god did it.
How many days was the world made in?
What did the snake say to eve?

Marius vanderLubbe,, Nullabour plain, Australia
July 12, 2009 8:18pm

That's okay fossils impress scientists. I'm not aware of any step in the scientific method that's called "check with Joe".

It's odd that you've decided to simply ignore the most glaring and obvious evidence of evolution. It must take a lot of effort to look at the Indus River Valley whale fossils and dismiss them. If you want to talk about deception that's a huge bit of self deception right there.

Craig, Washington DC
July 12, 2009 10:24pm

What's so silly about Unicorns, Joe?
Tell me what do you think of the proposition that an army of them dug the Grand Canyon,then masterminded the planting of all the many transitional fossils in the relevant strata?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
July 13, 2009 12:54am

Come now, Marius. That's silly. We know that it was god that did that, not invisible pink unicorns...

John, New York
July 13, 2009 2:20am

Pink Unicorns digging out the Grand Canyon? That's crazy talk. The teachings of the one true god, Google, tells us that someone asked it the question, "What is the Grand Canyon?" That question caused Google, through the holy search engine, to make the canyon exist.

Google is better than any made up god because it exists as WE know it. We know it exists because we can got to it's alter and ask it questions. It always has the answer.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
July 13, 2009 9:53am

How dare you question my faith.
Unicorns did it.Prove that they didnt.
Your google God is a heresy.

Marius vanderLubbe,, Nullabour plain, Australia
July 13, 2009 5:42pm

Craig, I'm not aware of any step in the scientific process that says "an evolutionist said it, so that settles it".

Gotta go... the vanderlubbian virus is messing up the web waves again...and it is mutating towards a distinct Furgusian strain...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 18, 2009 5:08am

For one who is so sensitive to use of the ad homme, you are remarkably adept at the same, Joe.

My Unicorns are far more powerful than your god. They live on the moon, and eat whole stars.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
July 18, 2009 7:06am

"How to argue with a creationist"

I suggest saying "Sure, whatever makes you happy", followed by walking away. You will achieve the exact same result, but much sooner and with much less frustration on your end.

Alcari, the Netherlands
July 18, 2009 12:46pm

Keep talking, Marius. You're proving my point.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 18, 2009 1:18pm

And what exactly is that point, Joe?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
July 18, 2009 3:38pm

They aren't evolutionsists. There's no such thing as an evolutionist. They are called scientists. Evolution is a theory that is backed up by science. It would be just as wrong to call a physicist a gravityist or a special relativists.

Craig, Washington DC
July 19, 2009 1:17am

The creationists can pull out all the science they want to prove their god exists or disprove evolution, but in the end the belief system is based on faith, the belief that an idea is true in the absence of facts or proof. In other words, a feeling. The point for the science minded is that it serves no purpose to make a rational, logical argument to make your case. It can be an amusing intellectual exercise but don’t lose sight of the fact that it’s pointless. However, I will say this. Science believers prove that evolution is real with rational thinking and logic. But science is rational. So they are proving the validity of their system of thought by using their system of thought. The snake is eating his tail. Just because something is logical and makes sense doesn’t make it TRUE. Just because it’s provable doesn’t make it true. Wasn’t there a time when science proved that a bee shouldn’t be able to fly? Bees didn’t drop out of the sky waiting for science to figure it out. Funny image though, buncha bees sitting in fields, drinking tea, idle chitchat on an extended coffee break.

Gnawer of the Moon, Los Anchorage, AK
July 19, 2009 12:06pm

The bee thing is a myth. They didn't "prove" that bees couldn't fly. Using only fixed wing physics they couldn't figure out how they did fly. They've since figured it out.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 19, 2009 1:11pm

I’m just saying that science is not the only way of making sense of the world. It answers a lot of questions and has allowed us to master much of the material world but allow for the possibility that the big answers might in fact require a different framework. Science and spirituality are not necessarily mutually exclusive. I won’t discuss organized religion, that’s a different matter.
I am in the medical profession and consider myself falling on the science side of the debate, however I still allow for the possibility of an outside force initiating life on this planet. I just don’t think it was necessary. I allow for any possibility, no matter how extreme. I formulate my worldview based on what I BELIEVE to be the most probable. We are all just guessing, no matter how sophisticated the process. None of us will ever know the Truth; we just create a view of the world that allows us to achieve our goals. Or not.

Gnawer of the Moon, Los Anchorage, AK
July 19, 2009 2:02pm

Ahhh, but blind guessing =/= rational guestimation based on observable data ;)

John, New York
July 19, 2009 3:23pm

Gnawer says;
"I’m just saying that science is not the only way of making sense of the world."

Indeed, it is not. It is, however, the only methodology that is going to get you nearest the actual truth.
The flood may have carved the Grand canyon, or it may have been constructed by magic unicorns.
It may also have been carved over millennia of millenniums by the Colorado river.
My money is on the latter, because of the great abundance of available evidence that draws us to this inevitable conclusion.

Why make something up when there are perfectly rational ways of describing the universe?

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
July 20, 2009 6:26am

Expound on that great abundance, Marius. In your own words, please, not in copy-and-paste links. Seriously.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 20, 2009 2:44pm

Sure, Joe, just as soon as you answer my question on the transitional fossils in the evolution thread, and tell me exactly what is absurd about unicorns digging it.

And before you get all antsy saying "well, that's just typical of a evolutionist, dodging questions that they cant answer" consider how well you have answered my question on tiktaalik and ambulocetus.

Here's some hints on the canyon's age, however. Lead. Math. River. Strata. Radioactive decay. Billion. Erosion.

(note; absence of god)

Besides, whatever I or anyone else presents, you are not about to accept, because all you want to know is that god did it.

You are not here for debate. You are here to proselytize.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia.
July 20, 2009 8:41pm

You're doing a great job of proselytizing evolution, Marius.

You also re-verified a couple of my convictions: 1. you will try to guess my response ahead of time (nice try but you fail) 2. you use the old unicorn ruse again (typical.

I have posted before that I am not interested in discussing fossils here. That's my choice. If we were taslking car mechanics I would not be interested in discussing tire tread marks. If we were talking music, I would not be interested in discussing the brand of amplfiers... etc.

The canyon contsains all which you mention except billion - unless you mean rocks or insects.

And someone should have told you, marius: unicorns do not exist, except in your head.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 21, 2009 4:53am

There is exactly as much evidence for the existence of unicorns as there is for the existence of God.

I'm guessing that this is Marius' point, and it's a perfectly valid one.

H. Tiberius Miser, Secret Underground Lair, Earth
July 21, 2009 6:27am

Uh, oh. Joe's on one of his anti-unicorn tirades.
Save your blasphemies for the day of judgment before the Great Mono Horn.

Not interested in discussing fossils? Fair enough. I guess, what with all the cherries in your orchard being ripe for harvest, you have better things to do.

I'm guessing your wishing that there was an edit function in this format right about now, Joe.

The Billions? That's the number diamond encrusted horse shoes-sorry-unicorn shoes, that are all through the strata of the Grand Canyon.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
July 21, 2009 8:06am

Always going over the top, Marius, just like your Theory...

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 21, 2009 10:25am

Sorry, you may not want to talk about fossils but that doesn't stop them from being really good evidence for evolution. The pro science side of this will continue to feel free to cite fossil evidence regardless of your objections.

Craig, Washington DC
July 21, 2009 10:40am

So, Joe, what you're saying is...you want to scientifically discuss evolution vs creationism BUT without bringing in any of that science that doesn't agree with your beliefs?

Your analogies were horrendous. When it comes to the fossil record and evolution, they go hand in hand. It's not just saying "I want to talk car mechanics without talking tire tread," it's saying "I want to talk car mechanics, but only about the part of the car that I believe exists - the blinker fluid."

Joe, why don't you believe in invisible pink unicorns? Or flying spaghetti monsters? Or Zeus?

John, New York
July 21, 2009 2:55pm

Well John, on the lighter side, unicorns and flying spaghetti monsters do not exist, and they are a figment of Richard Dawkins' imagination...but not really...
On the other hand, what I thought I was getting at was that there has to be a very clear connection between fossils and species change or biological advancement, wouldn't you agree? There's not enough bones in the earth to do that. Remember the old adage: "the fossils are dated by the rock, and the rock is dated by the bones." Or a variation of that - it's a circular argument, which I hesitate to apply to any other field of earth sciences. On top of that, you have to consider that fossils are not the only source of evidence. There is geology, living biology, cosmology, planetology, radiology, natural erosion...etc. They must all agree somewhat if a theory as wide as evolution is to be valid. I do not in any way say that Walter Brown is right on every point - neither does he. But he raises a forest of questions.

You also seemed to have flipped my anology on it's head: I was suggesting that if a person was to look only at, say, a hydraulic principle, which he understood fully, he wouldn't necessarily have a valid claim to understanding mechanics of a car, even though a car uses hydraulics. So, if you fully understand all there could be to understand about fossils, it doesn't follow that you have an unimpeachable claim on all of evolution.
Craig, please take not of this posting as well, OK? I'm busy, but will return.

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 23, 2009 12:16pm

Some one throw Joe a life preserver.
He's drowning in an ocean of confusion.

Clay Wells, Adelaide, Australia
July 23, 2009 3:07pm

Come on Joe, a little consistancey.
What happened to not wanting to discuss fossils?

So your car uses hydraulics? Have you got lowrider suspention? Hardly relevant to evolution.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia
July 23, 2009 3:41pm

Fossils do not support evolution and if you don't believe it read an evolutionist on the subject. His name is Steven J. Gould. You may have heard of him. He calls the woefully inadequate fossil evidence the " Information theory also debunks the evolution mythology. The impossible transition from non-life to life is an enourmous problem and what escapes most people is the simple fact that if it couldn't start, it couldn't happen. I find the so called skeptic is surprisingly dogmatic about the evolution (and I mean Macro-evolution) myth.
To be consistent, the skeptic should be skeptical of his or her skepticism. This is not the case however. Later. D.

Damian, Vancouver, WA
July 23, 2009 9:31pm

That is a quote mine of Stephen J gould that was disproven many times before.

If you read the entire article, like I am pretty sure that the people at Answers in genesis did, you will see that he was just being intellectually honest in that statement because he later says that yes fossil evidence can show evolution. It is woefully inaccurate in the sense that we do not have fossils for all the extinct species. What we have is more than adequate to prove that evolution did happen.

Evolution is fact. It has been proven not only through fossils, but through DNA as well. It can be created in a lab, observed in nature, we can use evolutionary principles when we grow agriculture, raise dogs and create new virus. Evolution won the debate 100 years ago.

Quit trying to unravel the 1000 foot tapestry of evolution by pulling out tiny stands from different parts of it. Those strands are not going to collapse the tapestry at all. You are not going to get anywhere doing that.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
July 24, 2009 12:24am

Has anyone created life in the lab yet???
Not..
If a scientist can't start it or create it by now, how could it possibly happen by chance?

LIZ MERRILL, SAN FRANCISCO
July 24, 2009 8:20am

What I note about your post is that it offers no substantive challenge to the fact that fossil records are evidence of evolution. Any luck with that bunny. Just one will do.

Craig, Washington DC
July 24, 2009 9:30am

Liz, sorry but you're wrong in your assumptions. Firstly, scientists have created life from non-life in a lab. I don't have the reference handy so somebody correct my details (what little there will be) but scientists have created amino acids from base chemicals under laboratory conditions. It wasn't earth-like conditions and doesn't even try to explain life on earth, but it demonstrated the possibility.

Secondly, I'm assuming you aren't disputing evolution as the origin of life has nothing at all to do with evolution.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 24, 2009 3:35pm

Interestingly, I was just reading Dennett's chapter on how life could have sprung from evolution. Unfortunately, I don't have the text handy to quote so it will have to wait for another day.

I will go ahead and state that the law of large numbers is on the side of evolution. Given enough time, the odds play out in favor of evolution.

And as for Gould, there have been many more fossils found since he wrote that the fossil record provided insufficient evidence...

John, New York
July 24, 2009 6:13pm

Memo to Creationistas;

Before citing Gould out of context yet again, take the time to actually read up on the man a little. Use a source that is not creationist.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour Plain., Australia
July 24, 2009 8:39pm

Joe: Just to further explain how horrid your analogies are, I'll revise the auto one yet again.

Lets say you take your car to the mechanic b/c it's not running. He looks under the hood and on the underside of the car and says "Well, here's your problem. See the oil covering the underside of your car? That's because it all leaked out and that's why your engine isn't running." To that you respond: "I don't believe you because the guy who installed my windshield wipers says that it's the invisible pink unicorn's will that my car not run and I believe in the invisible pink unicorn. Besides, there's a spot right there that has no oil on it, so I don't want to talk about the oil leak."

Before you try and claim that it's something I would say b/c of the claim for invisible pink unicorns, remember that there's as much evidence of your god as there is for my IPU ;).

Amazingly, your love of science and truth STILL has not allowed you to respond to the refutation of Brown's biased hypothesis except to claim that it's valid because it raises questions. Let's be honest, if it really raised scientific questions there would have been more scrutiny of his hypothesis by the scientific community (peer review, anybody?). Waving it around as if it's still solid or even trying to salvage some face by claiming that it raises questions (it doesn't, really) only further reduces your credibility.

John, New York
July 24, 2009 9:07pm

Gould was livid with creationists up to the end of his life over their quote mining of him. He never supported creationism and said so numerous times.

"Not enough bones in the world". Bizarre doesn't even begin to describe that statement. The Indus River Valley whale fossils, horses, humans and other primates have very good representations in the fossil record showing transitions over periods of time. At this point, simply saying there aren't enough fossils is an act of intellectual dishonesty.

Craig, Washington DC
July 24, 2009 11:21pm

“Any luck with that bunny. Just one will do.” Hey, Craig, any luck with a time-lapse clip of video showing an ape morphing into a man? Just one will do...As for Gould, he didn’t believe in special creation, but he maintained throughout his life that fossil evidence was too scant to call evolution a fact based on them. Don’t try to put your stupid spin on everything.

Clay, seems to me like you’re the one who’s totally confused. Figures...

John, I’m still very busy – I promise to check out your reference... And if you mean that “there’s as much evidence for your God as there is for my IPU” to prove God doesn’t exist, you’re on very thin ice. Prove he DOESN’T, and you’re talking something...
On top of that, you apparently have no idea what an analogy is.

Oh look, people, we go from Mr Furguson’s “fact” to Adrian’s “possibility in one leap. Zounds! I better throw in the towel – this Evolution seems written in stone after all. With proof like that from the mouths of these babes, who am I to argue?

Ummm... who’s drowning, did you say..?

Joe Boudreault, Hanover, On, Canada
July 26, 2009 6:30am

http://www.vtutorials.com/curefaith/micro-vs-macroevolution.html

As for what an analogy is, I have a perfect clue. But if you're going to make up analogies that are wrong (in your favor), I believe firmly that they should be corrected to accurately represent what they're analogizing.

In this case, you're denying that the people who are most knowledgeable about the fossil record in fact don't know what they're talking about because you have a belief in a god that says the fossil record is wrong. Note, you're not offering any scientific refutation of the fossil record, you're relying solely on your faith (and fellow 'scientific' creationists) as evidence to the contrary.

John, New York
July 26, 2009 12:22pm

No but the fossil record is pretty conclusive on that. Not all the links are there but there's enough to show the evolution of primates from a common ancestor. There's also the DNA evidence of common ancestry.

It was Gould's "stupid spin". He was not a creationist and pointed that out often.

As for throwing in the towel, obviously you should. It's not like there's some scientific debate about it. There aren't any competing theories.

Creationism is fine if it's practiced among consenting adults in private and you keep your kids out of it.

Craig, Washington DC
July 26, 2009 12:27pm

Honestly, Joe, I think it is time you hung up your gloves.
Your best arguments at this point are summed up as;

#1 God did it, the bible says so.

#2 I know you are, but what am I?

#3 Brown's hydroplate hypothesis is the cause of the flood (that god did). It made mammoths freeze

#4 I don't want to talk about fossils, but sometimes I will, if it is to make some sort of bizarre creationist point. If you mention them, I don't want to know.

#5 Unicorns are absurd, but talking snakes and Jewish zombies are real.

Marius vanderLubbe, Nullabour plain, Australia.
July 26, 2009 8:08pm

All this talk of unicorns is nonsense. So is the idea that the world was created in seven days by some other God 6000 years ago. As for the universe being 13 some billion years old, Phooey! What a mad idea. I don't want to anything that you have to say contrary to my beliefs, because the true word of the true god is infallible.

Everyone knows that the universe was sneezed into existence out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure. Praise his mucoidal name.
As one of the Jatravartids of the planet Viltvodle VI, we live in perpetual fear of the time we call "The Coming of the Great White Handkerchief", as revealed to you humans in the revelations of his prophet, Douglas Adams

I challenge Joe Boudreault, when he has finished his own skating session, to prove me that I am wrong.

Clay Wells, Adelaide, Australia
July 27, 2009 1:03am

^I actually LOL'd...my coworkers think I'm nuts right now...

John, New York
July 27, 2009 1:13pm

Every time I see the word "coworkers", I must make a conscious effort not to think about dairy farms and rodeos.
Ladies and gentlemen, meet Mr hyphen. "-"

Marius vanderlubbe, Nullabour Plain, Australia
July 29, 2009 5:27am

Wow, 6000 years ago? If ONLY most religious people believed that. I know someone who was taught that the world and the universe is only 2000 (+/-) years old. She was taught dinosaurs are a myth (heh, unicorns anyone?) and that we make the bones ourselves for display.

Honestly, I cannot talk to her about anything of that sort because it always ends in fighting. (Might as well fight about what's better, Coke or Pepsi?)

What it all comes down to is a matter of believe. Creationists believe they have all the proof they need, and scoff when it's disregarded by the other side. Just Evolutionists believe they have all the proof they need, and scoff when it's disregarded by the other side.

Why can't we all just agree to disagree.

Oh and Joe "John, I’m still very busy – I promise to check out your reference... And if you mean that “there’s as much evidence for your God as there is for my IPU” to prove God doesn’t exist, you’re on very thin ice. Prove he DOESN’T, and you’re talking something..."

Prove he DOES and then we'll talk ;)

Jessica Smith, Vancouver, BC, Canada
July 30, 2009 2:45pm

We can agree to disagree when the argument is subjective. My wife and I have different opinions on what movies we like and arguing what is the best movie is, beyond the benefit of a friendly debate, a waste of time. Some issues are simply not two sided. If someone was to argue 2+2=4 and someone else 2+2=5, then one of them is simply wrong. It is not a false dichotomy to suggest a position is clearly, demonstratably wrong.

The whole evolution/atheism/etc is a belief requiring any amount of "faith" is an old argument that theists have been trying on for centuries. Evolutionists don't claim to have "proven" anything, just reached the best conclusions possible based on an overwhelming level of evidence.

Btw, if people's beliefs didn't affect what stupidity they push on our kids in school, whether they vaccinated their kids (or just took them to a doctor at all), whether they attempt to legislate away people's basic rights (choice, gay marriage etc), then I wouldn't care in the least what magic they wanted to believe in.

Adrian, Brisbane, Australia
July 31, 2009 12:17am

No I will not agree to disagree on this point Jessica. This is nothing like what video games are great, which ones suck and which ones are wastes of programming and plastic. That is something where everyone can have their opinions because in the end, it does not matter.

This is not something were both sides make a claim and scoff at the evidence that proves their point of view wrong. This is an argument where one side makes outrageous claims about how the world is and when they are proven wrong, they move the pea to a new shell and try a new argument.

And when evolution side keeps on winning the arguments and keeps on proving the other sides claims false, the person representing creationism always resort to appeals to fear, name calling, and whatever else they can think of so they can drag the evolution side down to their level.

As an English major, what bugs me the most is that the creationist wan the word theory to have one definition. Every other common word in the language has at least 2 or more definitions, but theory just has one. That irks me because even the word Bible has atleast 3 definitions according to Webster.

If the creationist would just accept that their beliefs have no evidence to back it up, then I would be happy to let them agree to disagree. No amount of science can touch faith. If they continue to play in the realm of science and claim to have proof for their beliefs, then they will get all sorts of scrutiny.

Joseph Furguson, Brawley, Ca
July 31, 2009 6:38am

Hello. Firstly, I would like to know, has anyone proven the non-existence of God? Based on my knowledge, we haven't yet proven the existence OR non-existence of him. I have read arguments in various places, including here, and I heard somewhere else, that all cells must come from previous cells, and that no exceptions have been observed, as well as the fact that evolution is a MUTATION of existing life. How did life begin? Some have proposed the chemical origins of life, but nobody has been able to demonstrate the actual formation of life simply from chemicals, let alone it developing all coincidentally. I have heard that in an entire universe, out of all of the life-supporting planets, the odds of life spontaneously coming into existence on a random planet, is one in a very large number. Please explain.

Anonymous, Houston, TX
August 22, 2010 8:41am

If creationism wants to be science then it has to stand up to scrutiny as if the Theory of Evolution does not exist. It's up to the person presenting the theory to provide evidence. Creationist need to answer how they determined that the Earth was 6000-10000 years old. What evidence exists that life began much as it is today?

As for abiogenesis here is a pretty good primer on the topic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abiogenesis

Do we know how life began. No, not knowing and saying god did it are two different things. If someone wants to make a claim a god made life, that claim must be defended with evidence.

The theory of evolution doesn't speak to how life began it speaks to how life evolved once it began. Abiogenesis is an entirely different area of study.

Craig, Washington DC
August 23, 2010 2:44pm

Creationism is only "Science" when it wants to be. If you push too hard for evidence it steps into a telephone box and becomes "Religion" again faster than Clark Kent becomes Superman. It is a sad possition that weakens the case for those who are actually trying to do "real" science, even if most the science falls more than a little flat.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 25, 2010 1:21pm

You didn't say anything about how life got here in the first place. Life can't come from non-life. Yes, there is overwhelming evidence for microevolution, and as an avid Creationist, I would be the first to say that natural selection does, in fact, work. So many of the species walking around today obviously weren't here from the beginning of the formation of the earth. I think that's beside the point though.

Macroevolutionists believe in the complete abcence of a higher power, and rely on science to create explanations of everything. While I believe that every theory and idea should be tested thoroughly, I think that many (or most) of the Evolutionists and Creationists today don't know what their own argument is. Both parties are trying to argue against obvious evidence.

Let's all set aside our personal biases and talk science, please.

Sage G, Colorado Springs, CO
August 26, 2010 6:15pm

How did you come to the conclusion that life cannot come from non-life. What equations did you use to determine the probability? How did you come to the conclusion that there's no macro evolution? How can you reconcile that statement with the vast number of speciation events found in the fossil record? Look at the fossil record of modern whales and humans as an example.

Craig, Washington DC
August 27, 2010 4:30am

The formation of life from inert matter is an ongoing area of research. In 1953, Stanley Miller and Harold Urey at the University of Chicago combined water, methane, ammonia, and hydrogen in an airtight flask and subjected it to repeated electric discharges, mimicking the conditions under which the first organic molecules developed. They found that various amino acids (the key component of proteins, which make organic life possible) formed spontaneously after less than a week of experimentation. A great deal has been learned in the 57 years since then. Browse your library's periodicals section for back issues of Scientific American.

Andrew C. E. Schneck, Houston, TX
August 27, 2010 10:14am

As noted in other threads, working viral DNA can be created in a lab, and there is no reason to suggest it could not have occured naturally. Simply stating life could not have started on its own wont convince me, I would need evidence of an outside influence.

Tom H, Kent, UK
August 27, 2010 12:27pm

I have no problem with Horses changing to a different breed or birds that take up life on a different part of an island by developing a different way to eat or reproduce. The transitional fossils that are missing are those that show changes from fish to amphibian or reptile to bird. Or even great ape to human. That is the difference between macro and micro evolution.

Lastly creationism is based on faith that God created everything according to his plan. Evolutionism requires faith that hypotheses that we use in science are indeed correct. I am not sure who really has to have the most faith in their beliefs.

Ken C, WI
September 01, 2010 4:31pm