Slashdot Mirror

To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...

The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.

Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:

Cosmic- Big Bang
Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He
Stellar- stars form
Organic- primordial soup
Macro- ape changes to man
Micro- slight variations within a kind

Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.

Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.

What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.

As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - Check out their Technical Journal (TJ)

To start off, it is incorrect to say that creationism was beaten off by overwhelming evidence. If there were any "overwhelming evidence" for evolution, there wouldn't be a debate right now...

The phenomenon of creationism's lag in decades past was due to overwhelming propaganda - not sheer scientific reasoning. All of the evolutionary evidence of yesteryear that students were nursed off of has now fallen by the wayside. Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man. Java Man. Heidelburg Man. Neanderthal Man. Cro-Magnon Man. All of these have been shown to be relics of the past - composed of scattered fragments of skeletons: sadly some even hoaxes (Heidelburg Man was 'scientifically' constructed from an extinct pig's tooth). Carbon dating has been shown to be way off - even in known cases (Live penguins at 900 years old). Ernst Heckel's embryonic drawings were faked (even his contemporaries knew this - and he got in trouble for it). The Miller experiment no longer holds up when under scrutiny (the gasses he used are no longer believed to be present in earth's early atmosphere, and when 'correct' gasses are used, the experiment yields cyanide and formaldehyde: key elements in embalming fluid.) Even Archaeopteryx is no longer accepted as a transitional fossil. As Alan Feduccia, the world's leading expert on birds, said: "[Archaeopteryx] is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of "paleobabble" is going to change that." So to say that overwhelming evidence drove creationism away is to be intellectually dishonest. The 'science' part of science just happens to be catching up, that's all.

Secondly, a demonstrable difference between microevolution and macroevolution can be shown. In fact, there are actually six definitions of evolution, to be precise. They are:

Cosmic- Big Bang
Chemical- all elements evolve from H and He
Stellar- stars form
Organic- primordial soup
Macro- ape changes to man
Micro- slight variations within a kind

Only the very last, microevolution, is scientific by definition. The rest are theories that cannot be tested or proven in normal laboratory science. They are part of what is know as Origins Science - the study of today's universe as to determine what has happened in the past to cause us to be here.

Finally, as to the eye article, the fact that the mechanisms for light-sensitive cells exist in worms does not therefore mean we evolved from worms. The latter is simply the evolutionary interpretation of the facts. In truth, this data could also be interpreted as common design. Just as GMC puts the same lug-nuts on several vehicles which did not necessarily evolve from each other, an Intelligent Designer could have created different creatures using the same mechanisms to perform the same function. You see, there's a difference between the fact, and the interpretation of the facts, based on one's worldview. The latter is simply the creationist interpretation.

What the scientists did not do is solve once and for all evolution's problem with the eye. They may have found similar structures, but they have yet to propose how such a system could have arisen by chance. The fact is, the eye is nearly an irreducibly complex system - if any of its parts are missing, it is useless. The challenge is to explain how something like that - a complex network of interlocking systems - could evolve via Darwinian evolution. For anyone who doubts the biochemical complexity of the human eye, I would highly recommend Michael J. Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." The fact is, the conceptual evolution of how the human eye might have evolved is plausible. The actual physical process of getting there is much more difficult.

As to the posts about the nonexistence of good creationist literature and argumentation out there, I humbly point you to:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ - Check out their Technical Journal (TJ)

I still doubt that a person using the scientific method (which IS proven) could possibly come to the conclusion that the universe is 6000 years old.

Also, I'd appreciate a little less anonymity, if you could see your way clear to that?

And there it is, argument CB310, a standard argument from incredulity on this beetle and how it could have come into being.

You must be confused. That site you sent me to starts with the premesis of proving literal truth in every word of a book written by people (mostly my own ancestors) several thousand years ago.

And you consider this to be well argued? It cites a bunch of resources, all of which are either on its own website (their own 'Creation' magazine). The "argument" involves taking one basic fact about the fossilization process as disproof of the entire scientific study of fossils, all techniques and data used to make conclusions about the age of fossils and so on. And that was just the first link in their FAQ I happened to click on.

This is not a scientifically sound site, I'm sorry to tell you.

What do you have to say about pygmies from the Congo jungle?

[An Indonesian island reveals the existence of an extinct group of pygmy humans]

Let me help. The Bible clearly states that the world was created is 6 days and it was good. It was not until man sinned that death entered the world. For evolution to work, death must have been at work before man's sin. Clearly a contradiction. If you are a Christian, then you must reject evolution. If you want more information, I would refer you to Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/), Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/csc), and Answers in Genesis' Creation Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp) . David

1. Bible: God is the Creator of all things. (Genesis 1)
Evolution: Natural chance processes can account for the existence of all things.

2. Bible: World created in six days. (Genesis 1) These must be literal days; see #23.
Evolution: World evolved over the aeons.

3. Bible: Creation is completed (Genesis 2:3)
Evolution: Creative processes continuing.

4. Bible: Oceans before land. (Genesis 1:2)
Evolution: Land before oceans.

5. Bible: First life on land. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Life began in the oceans.

6. Bible: First life was land plants. (Genesis 1:11)
Evolution: Marine organisms evolved first.

7. Bible: Earth before sun and stars. (Genesis 1:14-19)
Evolution: Sun and stars before earth.

8. Bible: Fruit trees before fishes. (Genesis 1:11,20,21)
Evolution: All fishes before fruit trees.

9. Bible: All stars made on the fourth day. (Genesis 1:16)
Evolution: Stars evolved at various times.

10. Bible: Birds and fishes created on the fifth day. (Genesis 1:20,21)
Evolution: Fishes evolved over hundreds of millions of years before birds appeared.

11. Bible: Birds before insects. (Genesis 1:20-31; Leviticus 11)
Evolution: Insects before birds.

12. Bible: Whales before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before whales.

13. Bible: Birds before reptiles. (Genesis 1:20-31)
Evolution: Reptiles before birds.

14. Bible: Man before rain. (Genesis 2:5)
Evolution: Rain before man.

15. Bible: Man before woman. (Genesis 2:21-22)
Evolution: Woman before man. (by genetics).

16. Bible: Light before the sun. (Genesis 1:3-19)
Evolution: Sun before any light (on earth).

17. Bible: Plants before the sun. (Genesis 1:11-19)
Evolution: Sun before any plants.

18. Bible: Abundance and variety of marine life appeared all at once. (Genesis 1:20-21)
Evolution: Marine life gradually developed from a primitive organic blob.

19. Bible: Man's body created from the dust of the earth. (Genesis 2:7)
Evolution: Man evolved from monkeys.

20. Bible: Man exercised dominion over all organisms. (Genesis 1:28)
Evolution: Most organisms extinct before man evolved.

21. Bible: Man originally a vegetarian. (Genesis 1:29)
Evolution: Man originally a meat-eater.

22. Bible: Fixed and distinct kinds (Genesis 1:11,12,21,24,25; 1 Corinthians 15:38-39), although speciation does occur.
Evolution: Life forms in a continual state of flux.

23. Bible: Man's sin is the cause of death. (Romans 5:12)
Evolution: Struggle and death existent log before the evolution of man.

That assumes some form of evolution, of which bible-thumpers deny.

Christian creation theorists argue that when God created the animals about 5,800 years ago, He created each after its kind with genes fit for all sorts of environments. Over the years, some genes got turned off by mutations, allowing each animal to specialize to a specific habitat and niche. For instance, aggressiveness genes got bred out of wolves to create the family dog, and further genes got bred out to change the appearance.

"What happened to the dinosaurs?" The largest of animals, called "behemoth" and "leviathan" by the ancients, lost some growth-hormone inhibitor genes so that their offspring could eat the taller foliage and eventually became so large that God didn't want them to fit into the ark.

If you're curious about what Judeo-Christian creation theorists have come up with to reconcile the ideas of the first chapters of the Bible with the physical evidence, read this site.

...it closes the door [to understanding] because there is nothing more to be understood beyond "God did it".

Actually, this is a over-generalisation, as if all Theists were a particular modern brand of obscuratist. Historically, the obvious next question, "So HOW did God do it?", is the reason that science arose in the first place, and arose in Europe rather than elsewhere. The idea of a single, omnipotent mind ordering the universe gave thinkers confidence that it was regular in its behaviour -- even musical as in Platonic thought -- rather than arbitrary. Reading early scientists themselves (esp. Kepler, Galileo, Newton, Pascal) shows this particular influence strongly, though always amongst others.

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

I don't know how you can say, "a literal reading of the bible cannot be reconciled with science" when you haven't bothered to even do a Google search regarding your "favorite question."

I think that it would be impossible for anyone to "reconcile" the Bible with science without having an attitude of sincere, intense study of the relevant subjects.

I'll give you a few places you can check out if you'd like.

• "firmament" in Easton's Bible Dictionary
• Is the raqiya' ('firmament') a solid dome?
• Genesis FAQ
• Online Bible search - many translations
• Online Bible dictionaries
• Online Bible commentaries
• Open source free Bible software - Linux, Windows; many translations, dictionaries, commentaries, etc.

If you want to learn more about the creationist viewpoint on this issue, you're in luck. There is a creationist site that has a a whole section on dinosaurs. Both the meteor and Flood theories are analyzed.

Further to my post, about the intersection of humans and dinosaurs...

As this site says:
the standard long-age scenario of our evolution-riddled culture says that such encounters between pterosaurs and man have never happened, because all flying reptiles, along with the dinosaurs, allegedly became extinct some 65 million years before man came on the scene.

But what we know is:
The Sioux Indians have long told the story of the huge "thunderbird". They gave it this nickname because this flying reptile was hit by lightning and fell from the sky during a thunderstorm.

They searched for this creature and when they found it they described it as having wings almost 20 foot across. It had a long sharp bill and a large bony knob-like protrusion on the back of its head.

There are no birds that fit this description. The similarity between the "thunderbird" and the pteranodon is striking. Flying dinosaurs like the pteranodon have been found fossilized with a wingspan of 23 feet!

Pteranodon also have a large bony crest jotting off of the backs of their heads. Just as the Indians described. ...
The Indians have made many paintings and carvings of this dinosaur with accuracy that can only come from seeing the creature first hand.

And you can see this in a picture from a Canadian Indian tribe:
"Kwaguilth Thunderbird", by Jim Johnny

.

In 2001, PBS/Nova produced a seven-episode series called Evolution. It was thoroughly rebutted, but much of the same kind of atheist propaganda will be disseminated again through this latest re-education campaign of The People's Broadcasting System.

Listen to this little chat about why such "rectifying" is bad for Christianity.

I am happy to see other creationists, open-minded agnostics, or at least cynics of Darwinian evolution posting at /.. I personally hadn't thought much about the importance (or validity) of a literal, Biblical Genesis until a group at church (a non-denom church in Georgia at that) started watching Ken Ham's Answers in Genesis videos recently.

Since then, I've done some other research (Darwin's Black Box, Tornado in a Junkyard, articles from the Christian Research Institute, and so on.

Before the tired tirade of "fundamentalist / Christian wacko / moron / anti-science" begins, it is important to note that Christians can be scientists too, and visa versa. It seems to me that more and more credible, scientific evidence has scraped and scratched its way to the surface that calls out many of the theories that the secular world has taken for granted regarding the origins of the world, life, and intelligence. Without arguing nitty-gritty details, it is interesting enough to look at the questions of biochemical processes, discrepencies in geological and fossil records, the fundamental flaws in carbon dating, and the political motivations of secularists

This is obviously a poor attempt at a thoughtful statement, but I just wanted to throw a couple things out. I would encourage anyone with similar questions about discrepencies in carbon dating, fossilization, speciation, etc... would at least consider the scientific rebuttals to Darwin and other secularists.

*shakes head* and so speaks yet another person with a sense of false authority. It's quite apparent that you have never really explored the viewpoints or scientific claims of the creationists, who do indeed have arguments that from a *pure* logical viewpoint have some level of credence. Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.

Of course, why am I suprised at the number of logical fallacies in slashdot comments? Silly me :P

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...

Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...

You don't have to take my word for it - try doing some research on your own (For instance, the AIG 's Q&A page I linked to earlier has a lot of interesting information).

If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen, at least don't bore us with childish and whimsical notions - have the decency back it up with some real information.

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/ [flat-earth.org]

*grins* now we're getting somewhere :)

*shakes head* and so speaks yet another person with a sense of false authority. It's quite apparent that you have never really explored the viewpoints or scientific claims of the creationists, who do indeed have arguments that from a *pure* logical viewpoint have some level of credence. Your assumption is that because they believe in some things which are non-empiracally proveable concepts (such as God), that all of their beliefs or viewpoints/concepts are illogical or non-proveable using modern scientific knowledge, skills or practices - to which I say: grow up.

Of course, why am I suprised at the number of logical fallacies in slashdot comments? Silly me :P

riiight... lets not let facts get in the way here. I mean the earth was OBVIOUSLY created in 7 days! God put dino bones in the ground to fool non-believers!

A classic example of someone who's never really bothered to KNOW what the creationists claim - if you're going to try to argue against the validity of their claims, AT LEAST HAVE ENOUGH BRAINS TO DO SOME RESEARCH before you claim absolute knowledge on a subject. Stop regurgitating something that you once read in high school biology...

Dinosaur bones and other fossil evidences are probably one of the most easily explained phenomena, from the creationist point of view, as various types of fossils, sedimentary layers in the geological record etc (including different viewpoints on the various fossil dating methods) can theoretically be explained by the worldwide flood that the creationists believe in, using empirically collected data...

You don't have to take my word for it - try doing some research on your own (For instance, the AIG 's Q&A page I linked to earlier has a lot of interesting information).

If you're going to try and throw around the weight of your scientific acumen, at least don't bore us with childish and whimsical notions - have the decency back it up with some real information.

And, of course, for those who are interested in yet more alternative views, and more "fascinating information", here are some other nice links, as helpful as the above one:

http://www.flat-earth.org/ [flat-earth.org]

*grins* now we're getting somewhere :)

..."serious research projects are going on now to create life at a molecular level; to the credit of the researchers in the field, there seems to be a hesitation going on while some of the ethical and moral issues are discussed before proceeding."

People have been discussing Asimov's three laws of robotics for decades. But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're not close at all).

There is no evidence these projects that you say are "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are likely to succeed. Of course, I am excluding efforts that (effectively) cut-and-paste complex (and incompletely understood) biological structures ripped from _already_ living cells in order to form new ones -- that's not _creating_ life. Rather, it's similar in principle to, say, hybridizing roses -- something humans have been doing for 1000s of years.

See this for reasons why the 1950s Miller experiment was not an accurate replica of supposed primordial conditions:
Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids.Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth.1--7 . Your chain of logic has multiple missing links.

You agree that the universe is wonderful - good. You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have: it's wonderfully balanced Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycles, the temperature and the position of earth w.r.t. to the sun, the qualities of water, and the wonder that is the water cycle, the wonderful balance of plant and animal life, the mysteries of an apparent Cambrian explosion in the fossil record? Good. Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job). And then there are the smaller details: look up and consider how the sun, and the the moon have the same relative size, how all humanly-recorded history begins 5000 years ago, how despite searching, no tree has more than 5800 yearly tree rings (and there is no reason they can't - these old trees were cut down, still living, in this century).

Finally consider how many millions of humans _know_ (and can testify) to a supernatural and loving God, who communicates with them: A God who does not love differently based on their position... or their intellect.

And He yearns for you too - its your choice.

..."serious research projects are going on now to create life at a molecular level; to the credit of the researchers in the field, there seems to be a hesitation going on while some of the ethical and moral issues are discussed before proceeding."

People have been discussing Asimov's three laws of robotics for decades. But we're no closer to robots with synthetic intelligence than we were in the glory days of AI research. (i.e. we're not close at all).

There is no evidence these projects that you say are "going on now to create life at a molecular level" are likely to succeed. Of course, I am excluding efforts that (effectively) cut-and-paste complex (and incompletely understood) biological structures ripped from _already_ living cells in order to form new ones -- that's not _creating_ life. Rather, it's similar in principle to, say, hybridizing roses -- something humans have been doing for 1000s of years.

See this for reasons why the 1950s Miller experiment was not an accurate replica of supposed primordial conditions:
Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids.Oxygen, deliberately removed from Miller's apparatus, destroys amino acids. But geological evidence indicates oxygen was always present on earth.1--7 . Your chain of logic has multiple missing links.

You agree that the universe is wonderful - good. You must have considered the apparently unique earth we have: it's wonderfully balanced Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen cycles, the temperature and the position of earth w.r.t. to the sun, the qualities of water, and the wonder that is the water cycle, the wonderful balance of plant and animal life, the mysteries of an apparent Cambrian explosion in the fossil record? Good. Consider how the continents were one supercontinent to begin with (as the Bible describes in Genesis) or how the Bible, rather off-handedly, describes the earth as a sphere (Book of Job). And then there are the smaller details: look up and consider how the sun, and the the moon have the same relative size, how all humanly-recorded history begins 5000 years ago, how despite searching, no tree has more than 5800 yearly tree rings (and there is no reason they can't - these old trees were cut down, still living, in this century).

Finally consider how many millions of humans _know_ (and can testify) to a supernatural and loving God, who communicates with them: A God who does not love differently based on their position... or their intellect.

And He yearns for you too - its your choice.

Any president who reads the bible for help making presidential decisions cannot be pro-science,

By implication, then, you're saying that anything that is pro-science is automatically anti-Bible. That's about as foolish as me saying that every "scientific" reference in the Quran is wrong, having never read it in it's entirety. For that matter, what many Bible-opposers latch on to as "science" today in fact is not science at all. Much of which is based not upon what we can observe, but by presumptions based upon the results of actions that supposedly took place X millions of years ago.

Anyway, I'll answer your call for evidence that fossils have formed around man-made objects: Fascinating fossil fence-wire

There is no separation between philosophy and science. Notice how the Ph in Ph.D. stands for philosophy. This was discussed on Slashdot with regard to Isaac Newton, who interspersed "religious" ideas within his "scientific" writings. He wrote more about Biblical prophecy than anything else.

Today's science seeks to quarantine certain ideas and realms of thought from "pure science." Today's science starts from materialism and does absolutely demand specific beliefs. Dissenters are summarily scoffed at and dismissed. Creationists want to liberate the mind and the disciplines of exploration from this materialist/naturalist Iron Curtain.

Real science doesn't force its members to declare for any religious beliefs;

According to Dr. Michael Ruse, who, ironically, had denounced creationism because it was religious, has said that your "real science" does have "metaphysical assumptions.". Look also at what Lewontin says:

"We take the side of science

in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (emphasis in original) -- Professor/Geneticist Richard Lewontin

Read more scientists in their own words.

- Evolution as Religion -- Not Science
- Evolution As Religion

it merely asks that they engage in a search for truth as shown through the natural world.

It may ask that, but that's not what happens. Human nature takes over. Boyce Rensberger, an ardently anti-creationist science writer, writes in How the World Works:

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

If scientists were engaged "in a search for truth as shown through the natural world," they would admit that fossils have formed around man-made objects within a few decades; fossilization is a rapid process. They would admit that mutations do not produce new genetic material. They wouldn't try to invent a new stage of "hominids" based on a solitary jawbone that turned about to be from a known primate spe

There is no separation between philosophy and science. Notice how the Ph in Ph.D. stands for philosophy. This was discussed on Slashdot with regard to Isaac Newton, who interspersed "religious" ideas within his "scientific" writings. He wrote more about Biblical prophecy than anything else.

Today's science seeks to quarantine certain ideas and realms of thought from "pure science." Today's science starts from materialism and does absolutely demand specific beliefs. Dissenters are summarily scoffed at and dismissed. Creationists want to liberate the mind and the disciplines of exploration from this materialist/naturalist Iron Curtain.

Real science doesn't force its members to declare for any religious beliefs;

According to Dr. Michael Ruse, who, ironically, had denounced creationism because it was religious, has said that your "real science" does have "metaphysical assumptions.". Look also at what Lewontin says:

"We take the side of science

in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (emphasis in original) -- Professor/Geneticist Richard Lewontin

Read more scientists in their own words.

- Evolution as Religion -- Not Science
- Evolution As Religion

it merely asks that they engage in a search for truth as shown through the natural world.

It may ask that, but that's not what happens. Human nature takes over. Boyce Rensberger, an ardently anti-creationist science writer, writes in How the World Works:

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

If scientists were engaged "in a search for truth as shown through the natural world," they would admit that fossils have formed around man-made objects within a few decades; fossilization is a rapid process. They would admit that mutations do not produce new genetic material. They wouldn't try to invent a new stage of "hominids" based on a solitary jawbone that turned about to be from a known primate spe

There is no separation between philosophy and science. Notice how the Ph in Ph.D. stands for philosophy. This was discussed on Slashdot with regard to Isaac Newton, who interspersed "religious" ideas within his "scientific" writings. He wrote more about Biblical prophecy than anything else.

Today's science seeks to quarantine certain ideas and realms of thought from "pure science." Today's science starts from materialism and does absolutely demand specific beliefs. Dissenters are summarily scoffed at and dismissed. Creationists want to liberate the mind and the disciplines of exploration from this materialist/naturalist Iron Curtain.

Real science doesn't force its members to declare for any religious beliefs;

According to Dr. Michael Ruse, who, ironically, had denounced creationism because it was religious, has said that your "real science" does have "metaphysical assumptions.". Look also at what Lewontin says:

"We take the side of science

in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (emphasis in original) -- Professor/Geneticist Richard Lewontin

Read more scientists in their own words.

- Evolution as Religion -- Not Science
- Evolution As Religion

it merely asks that they engage in a search for truth as shown through the natural world.

It may ask that, but that's not what happens. Human nature takes over. Boyce Rensberger, an ardently anti-creationist science writer, writes in How the World Works:

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

If scientists were engaged "in a search for truth as shown through the natural world," they would admit that fossils have formed around man-made objects within a few decades; fossilization is a rapid process. They would admit that mutations do not produce new genetic material. They wouldn't try to invent a new stage of "hominids" based on a solitary jawbone that turned about to be from a known primate spe

John 8:56-58:

"Your father Abraham was overjoyed to see My day, and he saw it and was glad."

Then the Judeans replied, "You are not yet fifty years old! Have You seen Abraham?"

Jesus said to them, "I tell you the solemn truth, before Abraham came into existence, I AM!"

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. He was with God in the beginning. Through Him all things were made; without Him nothing was made that has been made." -- John 1:1-3

Acctually... I've spent time studying the Bible (not just listening to others oppinion of it) and I've not come accross any true contradictions. I have however come accross things that are difficult to understand, but that doesn't make them contradictions.

You may find this site interesting.. it starts at the beginning

What everyone is ignoring here, including the linked article, is that Physicists and Mathematicians in Newton's era were REQUIRED to be ordained Ministers in the Church of England. This decree was set forth by King Charles II.

The political climate closely tied Religion and Science. (quite evident in the strong tie between Trinity College and the Royal Society) That way they resolved all of the Galileo type problems. Newton disagreed with much of the church's teachings, and refused to be ordained. Thus he had to obtain special permission from the King. By keeping his disidence in his private notebooks, he could continue his scientific/mathematical endevours.

It's a lazy Sunday and I'm a little bored, so I thought I'd respond to your post a little.

First off, it'd be nice if you were to include where you got your information. Most people don't have copies of the Journal of Gastroenterology lying about their house, from 1976 or otherwise. I imagine you instead got the Journal of Gastroenterology reference from here or some other creationist site without ever reading the primary citation yourself--this is disingenuous on your part. Second, you are salting your post with a demonstrably false and slanderous attack on scientists by accusing us of keeping the population ignorant of the appendix's role in the immune system, when it is clear that it was scientists who reported appendix functionality in the first place in academic and medical journals. Third, the appendix is indeed vestigial. Creationists are fond of redefining the word "vestigial" to be synonymous with "useless" but this is not the proper definition of the word in biology: "An organ, serving for two purposes, may become rudimentary or utterly aborted for one, even the more important purpose, and remain perfectly efficient for the other. Thus, in plants, the office of the pistil is to allow the pollen-tubes to reach the ovules protected in the ovarium at its base. The pistil consists of a stigma supported on the style; but in some Compositae, the male florets, which of course cannot be fecundated, have a pistil, which is in a rudimentary state, for it is not crowned with a stigma; but the style remains well developed, and is clothed with hairs as in other compositae, for the purpose of brushing the pollen out of the surrounding anthers. Again, an organ may become rudimentary for its proper purpose, and be used for a distinct object: in certain fish the swim-bladder seems to be rudimentary for its proper function of giving buoyancy, but has become converted into a nascent breathing organ or lung. Other similar instances could be given." This quote comes from chapter 13 of Darwin's Origin of Species from 1859. In my "Penguin Classics" edition published in 1985, the above quote is on page 429. All the way back to Darwin: vestigial does not necessarily equate to useless.

The human appendix appears to have an immunological function, albeit a nonessential one--removal of appendix has no ill effect and people have been born without the appendix at all. Regardless, we still correctly call it vestigial. We do so because of comparative anatomy: humans are classified as mammals and as primates, and so we compare the human appendix to structures found within other species. The human appendix is homologous to the end of the mammalian caecum, which normally functions in the digestion of cellulose, which is something that we humans cannot digest. Digestion is of course the primary function of organs in the digestive tract, so therefore the human appendix is vestigial even though it may have an immunological function. You are free to consider talkorigins biased if you wish, but it represents the scientific mainstream. They have an excellent article in their archives on anatomical vestiges with a hefty dose of discussion on the human appendix. I suggest that you read it so you know what the mainstream view of science actually is, not what the creationists like to claim it is.

As for the flagellum, you are badly mistaken on one major point (yet another reason to read up on evolutionary biology as written by biologists, not creationists). There is absolutely no requirement that the evolution of the bacterial flagellum requires that each step must be linked, directly or indirectly, to flagellar motility. For instance, it is now known that the flagellum is related to the type IV pilus (J Mol Microbiol Biotechnol. 2004;7(1-2):41-51). This page

The weirdest thing is that these lifeforms evolved from "normal" terestrial life, and aparently within a couple thousand years. The majority of the species found there lost vision and skin pigments.

So why not something similar on Mars ? If water was flowing on Mars (and that implies some temperature ranges), there's a good posibility for life. At some point a planet-wide cataclism changes everything - surface water is completely lost - but in some places water, along with its inhabitans, is trapped underground. Evolution takes care of the details.

A long stretch, of course, but not unlikely.

The interesting thing about the sulfur-based ecosystem discovered in Romania is that it was formed apparently with mutations that ocured quite fast on an evolutionary scale (thousands of years as opposed to millions).

We will obviously see a lot of mutations if we send life on an alien world. So my question is - are we gonna repeat the Australian eco-fiasco at a planetary scale ?

Why is our eye designed inefficiently?

Btw, the reality of speciation is crucial to the feasibility of all those animals fitting on the Ark, e.g., there weren't as many as you think. "Kinds" != species.

Btw, the reality of speciation is crucial to the feasibility of all those animals fitting on the Ark, e.g., there weren't as many as you think. "Kinds" != species.

I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite..

1. Noah didn't get the animals to the ark. God did. It's in the bible, read it.
2. Their own habitats afterwards? They didn't have one, the flood destroyed the whole world. As to getting where they are now, if you are actually interested, take a look here
3. As for piranhas, Noah only brought animals that had "the breath of life in them". Fish need not apply.
4. Worms, insects and other "lower" life forms probably didn't come either. Perhaps related to the same problem as 3, but also the hebrew used for "life" in the flood account (nephesh I think, I'm no Hebrew scholar) implies a "higher" form of life (a "soul"?). But even allowing for their presence (and yes, it was perhaps a little dangerous, them and the termites), Noah could have made a stone or steel bowl for them to live in for a year or so!

I must say I'm surprised there weren't any dinosaur questions.

I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite..

1. Noah didn't get the animals to the ark. God did. It's in the bible, read it.
2. Their own habitats afterwards? They didn't have one, the flood destroyed the whole world. As to getting where they are now, if you are actually interested, take a look here
3. As for piranhas, Noah only brought animals that had "the breath of life in them". Fish need not apply.
4. Worms, insects and other "lower" life forms probably didn't come either. Perhaps related to the same problem as 3, but also the hebrew used for "life" in the flood account (nephesh I think, I'm no Hebrew scholar) implies a "higher" form of life (a "soul"?). But even allowing for their presence (and yes, it was perhaps a little dangerous, them and the termites), Noah could have made a stone or steel bowl for them to live in for a year or so!

I must say I'm surprised there weren't any dinosaur questions.

I know you shouldn't feed the trolls, but I'll bite..

1. Noah didn't get the animals to the ark. God did. It's in the bible, read it.
2. Their own habitats afterwards? They didn't have one, the flood destroyed the whole world. As to getting where they are now, if you are actually interested, take a look here
3. As for piranhas, Noah only brought animals that had "the breath of life in them". Fish need not apply.
4. Worms, insects and other "lower" life forms probably didn't come either. Perhaps related to the same problem as 3, but also the hebrew used for "life" in the flood account (nephesh I think, I'm no Hebrew scholar) implies a "higher" form of life (a "soul"?). But even allowing for their presence (and yes, it was perhaps a little dangerous, them and the termites), Noah could have made a stone or steel bowl for them to live in for a year or so!

I must say I'm surprised there weren't any dinosaur questions.

> How many stories of creation are there in Genesis?
> The first two chapters don't even agree with each other

Regarding Genesis, the first two chapters agree.
But that's not what I asked, is it?

Getting back to my question, you said:
"Genesis is a pretty clear derivative of Gilgamesh rather than an independent account"
I asked what your evidence was. You haven't provided it.

> but one of them does agree with many of the stories
> floating around that part of the world at that time
> including the stories told at the time of Gilgamesh.
They don't agree, but there are many similarities between the two epics. The obvious thing to point out is that the Bible Genesis has *much* more documentary evidence (thousands of manuscripts or framents, numerous more indirect quotations) than Gilgamesh does (12 stone tablets) and a much more consistent and believable story (eg: Gilgamesh's version of Noah and his wife are physically immortal(!) and still alive, Gilgamesh's Noah uses a illogical order of releasing birds from the ark)

> Its also clear as you trace religions that they all
> tend to borrow idea from each other as different
> groups start having more contact with people with
> other religions assuming wars don't break out.
Yes, many religious movements either borrow or "make stuff up" or refer to traditions from other faiths. For eg: the modern Pagan/Wicca movement (which tends to just makes things up), Islam which refers to the crucifixion (but whose Koran contradicts the word and the nature of God in the Bible), Sikhism, which refers to Hindu concepts. etc.

Not so Biblical Christianity and the religion of the Jews, which have preserved God's word. How is it Christians refused to assimilate, and instead preferred to be slaughtered in Roman times. How is it that the 2000+ year old Jewish dead sea scrolls match the modern day Jewish texts?

Have a read of this document comparing Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic. Especially the chart toward the end: "All people groups remember a global Flood" -- the Indians, Aztecs and the Cherokee have similar legends.

> How many stories of creation are there in Genesis?
> The first two chapters don't even agree with each other

Regarding Genesis, the first two chapters agree.
But that's not what I asked, is it?

Getting back to my question, you said:
"Genesis is a pretty clear derivative of Gilgamesh rather than an independent account"
I asked what your evidence was. You haven't provided it.

> but one of them does agree with many of the stories
> floating around that part of the world at that time
> including the stories told at the time of Gilgamesh.
They don't agree, but there are many similarities between the two epics. The obvious thing to point out is that the Bible Genesis has *much* more documentary evidence (thousands of manuscripts or framents, numerous more indirect quotations) than Gilgamesh does (12 stone tablets) and a much more consistent and believable story (eg: Gilgamesh's version of Noah and his wife are physically immortal(!) and still alive, Gilgamesh's Noah uses a illogical order of releasing birds from the ark)

> Its also clear as you trace religions that they all
> tend to borrow idea from each other as different
> groups start having more contact with people with
> other religions assuming wars don't break out.
Yes, many religious movements either borrow or "make stuff up" or refer to traditions from other faiths. For eg: the modern Pagan/Wicca movement (which tends to just makes things up), Islam which refers to the crucifixion (but whose Koran contradicts the word and the nature of God in the Bible), Sikhism, which refers to Hindu concepts. etc.

Not so Biblical Christianity and the religion of the Jews, which have preserved God's word. How is it Christians refused to assimilate, and instead preferred to be slaughtered in Roman times. How is it that the 2000+ year old Jewish dead sea scrolls match the modern day Jewish texts?

Have a read of this document comparing Noah's Flood and the Gilgamesh Epic. Especially the chart toward the end: "All people groups remember a global Flood" -- the Indians, Aztecs and the Cherokee have similar legends.

I think you'll find the following site deals with any arguments brought foward by the web site you linked to.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/noah .asp

Yep, read about the various global flood legends here.

Three major points:

1. A theory stemming from the fact that the Flood was initiated by the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) indicates that the pre-Flood ocean waters were less salty than they were after the Flood. (see article for explanation)
2. Many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.
3. Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species.
4. My own point: Maybe the fish that couldn't survive did die? And since then, some of the surviving kinds of fish have diversified so as to not be as tolerant of salinity changes as they used to be.

Three major points:

1. A theory stemming from the fact that the Flood was initiated by the breaking up of the "fountains of the great deep" (Genesis 7:11) indicates that the pre-Flood ocean waters were less salty than they were after the Flood. (see article for explanation)
2. Many fish species today have the capacity to adapt to both fresh and salt water within their own lifetimes.
3. Many families of fish contain both fresh and saltwater species.
4. My own point: Maybe the fish that couldn't survive did die? And since then, some of the surviving kinds of fish have diversified so as to not be as tolerant of salinity changes as they used to be.

The argument I've heard in response to that centers around the word "kind" used in the Bible. Here is a response to your question from somehow who probably thought about it a lot longer than I did.

I'm not saying I think that's how it happened, I'm just providing you with an alternate point of view.

The Main Claims at a Glance
True/False?

• Radar shows man-made (boat) structure..........FALSE
• There is a regular metallic pattern............FALSE
• Lab tests show petrified laminated wood........FALSE
• Turkish scientists found metal rods............FALSE
• Metal artefacts have been proved by lab........FALSE
• There are 'ship's ribs' showing................FALSE
• There is lots of petrified wood................FALSE
• Turkish Commission says 'it's a boat...........FALSE

For the many who had their hopes built up that this may be Noah's Ark, it needs to be kept in mind that the Bible in no way says that Noah's Ark would be preserved as a witness to future generations. Nevertheless, it certainly would be an exciting and powerful testimony to an unbelieving world for the Ark to be found, but if that is to happen it will be unmistakably God's doing in His time and in His way to bring Him the glory.

In the meantime, as Christians we need to always exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims would never have received the widespread credence that they have.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for creation and the Flood, so we don't need the Ark to be discovered in that sense.

The Main Claims at a Glance
True/False?

• Radar shows man-made (boat) structure..........FALSE
• There is a regular metallic pattern............FALSE
• Lab tests show petrified laminated wood........FALSE
• Turkish scientists found metal rods............FALSE
• Metal artefacts have been proved by lab........FALSE
• There are 'ship's ribs' showing................FALSE
• There is lots of petrified wood................FALSE
• Turkish Commission says 'it's a boat...........FALSE

For the many who had their hopes built up that this may be Noah's Ark, it needs to be kept in mind that the Bible in no way says that Noah's Ark would be preserved as a witness to future generations. Nevertheless, it certainly would be an exciting and powerful testimony to an unbelieving world for the Ark to be found, but if that is to happen it will be unmistakably God's doing in His time and in His way to bring Him the glory.

In the meantime, as Christians we need to always exercise due care when claims are made, no matter who makes them, and any claims must always be subjected to the most rigorous scientific scrutiny. If that had happened here, and particularly if the scientific surveys conducted by highly qualified professionals using sophisticated instruments had been more widely publicized and their results taken note of, then these claims would never have received the widespread credence that they have.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for creation and the Flood, so we don't need the Ark to be discovered in that sense.

I triple dog dare you to read that book and remain an atheist.

The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible

The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh

The appeal to overt bias is one that comes up regularly, but surely somebody must have been able to publish something within the past century and a half. My suggestion is this: when creationists complain about bias in the literature, ask them to provide a draft of a paper they submitted and got rejected. They should have some letter of rejection to back it up. I've only seen one example of this (from ~30 years ago... and whether it was overt bias or something else is debatable). Nobody else has been able to come up with the evidence. From what I've seen, it's not that they're getting rejected by a propaganda machine. It's that they're not submitting. If somebody could produce letters of rejection that lend creedence to the conspiracy theory, he or she should come forward. Otherwise, if you don't play the game, you don't get to complain about the rules.

However there would likely be material in the technical journal called TJ which is a forum for creationist scientists to publish their papers in a peer reviewed journal, it is published by Answers In Genesis.

Speaking of overt bias, I have a question for you. How many of the overtly biased journals you refer to have a statement of faith? AiG's statement of faith says, among other things:

The scientific aspects of creation are important, but are secondary in importance to the proclamation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as Sovereign, Creator, Redeemer and Judge.
. . .
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

Basically, "Any research we do will always produce the same conclusion." I would call that second quote the nail in the coffin for any objectivity from AiG's TJ. If you can find any similar statement regarding evolutionary theory from any mainstream journal, I'd love to see it. As it stands, I see no reason to regard anything AiG puts out as a real scientific publication.

Without doing an exhaustive search I can refer you to http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback /negative_10september2001.asp, which is not a peer reviewed article, but it does provide a good starting point. Nonetheless I believe an increase in specified complexity is a fairly obvious concept.

An obvious concept, perhaps, but not mathematically defined, and certainly not rigorously connected to biology. Even the summary you provide indicates over and over again that such applications are rough. Having a "touchy feely" definition and then applying the rigors of information theory to it is very much a garbage in, garbage out proposition. My favorite quote from the whole thing is, "Duplication of anything does not constitute an increase of information. Random mutations to change the duplicated gene would not add information unless the mutated sequence coded for some new, useful protein (no one has demonstrated such a thing happening; there have only been imaginative scenarios proposed)." The obvious weakness here is that the chemical mechanisms that turn DNA "information" into proteins don't see "information" in the same way information theorists do. Even duplicated information which adds nothing in the eyes of a mathematician will (usually) tack amino acids onto a protein sequence, changing the protein that comes out of the system. That's simply how the mechanisms work, information theory or not. The author points out that there is