Slashdot Mirror

Please read this story, it is about six WW2 P-38 Lightning fighter planes that got buried in 250 feet of ice.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/sq uadron.asp

Here it is again:
Ice-bound plane flies again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/pl ane.asp

Here is a farily technical article on Global Warming:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/ human-caused-global-warming

Please read this story, it is about six WW2 P-38 Lightning fighter planes that got buried in 250 feet of ice.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i3/sq uadron.asp

Here it is again:
Ice-bound plane flies again!
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i1/pl ane.asp

Here is a farily technical article on Global Warming:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v1/n2/ human-caused-global-warming

Please read for your benefit:
I can only post the first paragraph(copyright request), you are going to need to go to the web page and read the rest

Observation of evolution in bacteria
In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!"

It goes onto address equivocation (one word, many meanings) of the term evolution. Please read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Here is another funny article about equivocation:
Rushing in--where wiser heads might not
One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda).

Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimme r.asp

Here are a couple more on mutations:
Mutations--part of evolution's engine?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/pr eview/part3.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are -mutations-the-engine

Please read for your benefit:
I can only post the first paragraph(copyright request), you are going to need to go to the web page and read the rest

Observation of evolution in bacteria
In a recent paper in Nature Genetics,1 scientists have reported observing the evolution of Escherichia coli bacteria in a matter of days. An initial response might be to ask what they evolved into. The answer would be mutant bacteria with a loss of pre-existing genetic information. The next question might be about what the authors' definition of evolution is. The answer would be mutation and natural selection acting over millions of years to bring about complex life forms from simpler ones. The final question might be: "Then did they really observe evolution?" The answer would be: "No!"

It goes onto address equivocation (one word, many meanings) of the term evolution. Please read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2007/0131obser vation.asp

Here is another funny article about equivocation:
Rushing in--where wiser heads might not
One of the more annoying habits of the vociferous anti-creationist lobby, both here in Australia and in the USA, is to pontificate on matters concerning creationists in a way that demonstrates that they have not even read the leading creationist literature (or perhaps they have read it, but think that knocking down straw men is justified to promote their agenda).

Read more at: http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0412zimme r.asp

Here are a couple more on mutations:
Mutations--part of evolution's engine?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/wow/pr eview/part3.asp

Are mutations part of the "engine" of evolution?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/wow/are -mutations-the-engine

There are several very interesting videos on this page, but the videos titled "Creation Astronomy", in two parts, deals particularly with astronomy. Dr. Lisle talks about distant starlight, large planets, internal heat of planets, magnetic fields, galactic temperatures, etc.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/video/ondemand/

Oh, gosh. That Wickramasinghe. Those Archaeopteryx papers he co-authored with Hoyle and others were really bad. The idea was worth checking out initially, but the whole thing collapsed under pretty basic scientific scrutiny. Not even the motivations they offered for a supposed forgery made any sense (you should see the lengthy, detailed paper that Owen, a vigorous anti-evolutionist, wrote about Archaeopteryx in the 1800s, yet he was supposedly someone involved with the forgery? Crazy). Heck, the photographic techniques they used were mundane, even though the papers were in the British Journal of Photography.

This "Archaeopteryx forgery" claim is so lame that even most anti-evolutionary creationists don't use it anymore (e.g., "Answers in Genesis" lists the "Archaetopteryx is a fraud" claim as an argument that should not be used). I can't think of a stronger repudiation of Wickramasinghe's paleontological claims than that.

Anyway, past performance doesn't mean his current argument on a different subject is wrong (at least it involves math!), but it certainly bears careful scrutiny.

79. Is there life in space?

All efforts to detect life beyond earth have failed so far. The search began with the moon, where astronauts walked during six lunar landings from 1969 through 1972. After it was concluded that the moon was a sterile, lifeless place, the search moved to the other planets and their moons. Viking probes to Mars in 1976 performed experiments designed to detect life, including microscopic organisms, with negative results. Two unmanned Voyager craft whose destinations include Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus--have taken thousands of pictures of the outer solar system. They reveal harsh, nonlivable conditions everywhere. Searches of deepest space have been carried out by radio telescopes, instruments that are able to beam messages of greeting toward any planets that might be circling distant stars. Radio telescopes also "listen" for any space messages that may be coming in earth's direction. During the past few decades, scientists have searched dozens of nearby stars for intelligible radio signals. The results are once again completely negative. At this point, it appears that life as we know it is unique to planet earth. This conclusion has been very upsetting to evolutionists, who believe that life began spontaneously on earth and that the same thing probably happened elsewhere in the universe.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#79

Life on any planet can only survive in the presence of a great number of very stringent requirements. For example, it must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold.

Although one cannot rule out the possibility that planets around other stars may be confirmed at some future point, it is at least extremely improbable that any of them would fulfil all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement reigning when such was detected as possibly being on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa.

Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things. Without this unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/et .asp#r2

Secrets of the universe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/se crets.asp

Index of articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alie n.asp

79. Is there life in space?

All efforts to detect life beyond earth have failed so far. The search began with the moon, where astronauts walked during six lunar landings from 1969 through 1972. After it was concluded that the moon was a sterile, lifeless place, the search moved to the other planets and their moons. Viking probes to Mars in 1976 performed experiments designed to detect life, including microscopic organisms, with negative results. Two unmanned Voyager craft whose destinations include Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus--have taken thousands of pictures of the outer solar system. They reveal harsh, nonlivable conditions everywhere. Searches of deepest space have been carried out by radio telescopes, instruments that are able to beam messages of greeting toward any planets that might be circling distant stars. Radio telescopes also "listen" for any space messages that may be coming in earth's direction. During the past few decades, scientists have searched dozens of nearby stars for intelligible radio signals. The results are once again completely negative. At this point, it appears that life as we know it is unique to planet earth. This conclusion has been very upsetting to evolutionists, who believe that life began spontaneously on earth and that the same thing probably happened elsewhere in the universe.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#79

Life on any planet can only survive in the presence of a great number of very stringent requirements. For example, it must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold.

Although one cannot rule out the possibility that planets around other stars may be confirmed at some future point, it is at least extremely improbable that any of them would fulfil all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement reigning when such was detected as possibly being on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa.

Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things. Without this unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/et .asp#r2

Secrets of the universe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/se crets.asp

Index of articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alie n.asp

79. Is there life in space?

All efforts to detect life beyond earth have failed so far. The search began with the moon, where astronauts walked during six lunar landings from 1969 through 1972. After it was concluded that the moon was a sterile, lifeless place, the search moved to the other planets and their moons. Viking probes to Mars in 1976 performed experiments designed to detect life, including microscopic organisms, with negative results. Two unmanned Voyager craft whose destinations include Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus--have taken thousands of pictures of the outer solar system. They reveal harsh, nonlivable conditions everywhere. Searches of deepest space have been carried out by radio telescopes, instruments that are able to beam messages of greeting toward any planets that might be circling distant stars. Radio telescopes also "listen" for any space messages that may be coming in earth's direction. During the past few decades, scientists have searched dozens of nearby stars for intelligible radio signals. The results are once again completely negative. At this point, it appears that life as we know it is unique to planet earth. This conclusion has been very upsetting to evolutionists, who believe that life began spontaneously on earth and that the same thing probably happened elsewhere in the universe.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#79

Life on any planet can only survive in the presence of a great number of very stringent requirements. For example, it must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold.

Although one cannot rule out the possibility that planets around other stars may be confirmed at some future point, it is at least extremely improbable that any of them would fulfil all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement reigning when such was detected as possibly being on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa.

Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things. Without this unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/et .asp#r2

Secrets of the universe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/se crets.asp

Index of articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alie n.asp

79. Is there life in space?

All efforts to detect life beyond earth have failed so far. The search began with the moon, where astronauts walked during six lunar landings from 1969 through 1972. After it was concluded that the moon was a sterile, lifeless place, the search moved to the other planets and their moons. Viking probes to Mars in 1976 performed experiments designed to detect life, including microscopic organisms, with negative results. Two unmanned Voyager craft whose destinations include Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus--have taken thousands of pictures of the outer solar system. They reveal harsh, nonlivable conditions everywhere. Searches of deepest space have been carried out by radio telescopes, instruments that are able to beam messages of greeting toward any planets that might be circling distant stars. Radio telescopes also "listen" for any space messages that may be coming in earth's direction. During the past few decades, scientists have searched dozens of nearby stars for intelligible radio signals. The results are once again completely negative. At this point, it appears that life as we know it is unique to planet earth. This conclusion has been very upsetting to evolutionists, who believe that life began spontaneously on earth and that the same thing probably happened elsewhere in the universe.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#79

Life on any planet can only survive in the presence of a great number of very stringent requirements. For example, it must be at the right distance from its sun, so as to be neither too hot nor too cold.

Although one cannot rule out the possibility that planets around other stars may be confirmed at some future point, it is at least extremely improbable that any of them would fulfil all the requirements needed for life. Just having liquid water is completely insufficient, despite the excitement reigning when such was detected as possibly being on the surface of Jupiter's moon, Europa.

Without intelligent, creative input, lifeless chemicals cannot form themselves into living things. Without this unfounded evolutionary speculation, UFOlogy would not have its present grip on the public imagination.
Read more at:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i4/et .asp#r2

Secrets of the universe
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i1/se crets.asp

Index of articles:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/alie n.asp

After the Reformation, many Christians threw authority out the window and started wondering around in Theology making stuff up as they went along and now we have Bible-only Christians that think every word is LITERALLY (as opposed to LITERALISTICALLY which is what most rational, thinking people read the Bible as) the absolute direct translation of God's will (despite their lose, error-prone translations into English, etc).

First of all, "wondering around in Theology making stuff up" is a very interesting statement considering the rest of your post. How do you suppose the people who think the 6 days of creation mentioned in the Bible did happen however they took place over millions of years arrived at that conclusion? Another problem I have with your opening sentence is that you claim the Christians who have thrown away the authority of the Bible are the ones who believe it...this doesn't even make sense from a non-religious standpoint.

I will concede to you and agree that the Bible inevitably looses some of its meaning when it is translated into any language other than its original. However, you forget that it was translated from something, and most theologians do not open up a copy of the KJV and go solely off of its translation. Many Bible schools offer courses in ancient Greek and Hebrew, enabling their students to analyze the original laguage texts as well.

These people think the Universe was created in precisely 6 24-hour periods and think (I'm not kidding, I heard one say this) that Christ himself use the King James Version to quote scripture. Using LITERAL interpretation, they would also think that 'Raining Cats and Dogs' literally means that canines and felines were falling from the sky.

Can I ask you why it is so hard to believe that a supreme being could create the universe in *only* 6 24-hour days? In addition I encourage you to examine this paragraph about the six literal days:

When Moses, under the inspiration of God, compiled the account of creation in Genesis 1, he used the Hebrew word yôm for 'day'. He combined yôm with numbers ('first day', 'second day', 'third day', etc.) and with the words 'evening and morning', and the first time he employed it he carefully defined the meaning of yôm (used in this way) as being one night/day cycle (Genesis 1:5). Thereafter, throughout the Bible, yôm used in this way always refers to a normal 24-hour day.2,3 There is thus a prima facie case that, when God used the word yôm in this way, He intended to convey that the days of creation were 24 hours long. (source: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i1/da ys.asp)

Proper Christianity, that is Christianity that stuck with what Christ intended and with the proper Apostolic Authority and proper scriptural interpretation based on ACCURATE translations of the Bible (i.e. the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church), do NOT interpret the Bible this way, and instead interpret LITERALISTICALY which is to say that 'Raining cats and dogs' has a specific literalistic meaning and is not intended to be interpreted literally.

I would love to know what "ACCURATE translations of the Bible" the Roman Catholic Church and the Greek/Russian/Etc Orthodox Church use that is not available to any Bible scholar. Claiming that "Proper Christianity" is based on anything but the Bible seems a bit ridiculous to me--I would argue that proper Christianity is rooted in following the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Now, here we go: True Christians know that God created the Universe according to his own design in a specific fashion in a specific order and that the FULL details are NOT included in Genesis.

It's ENTIRELY possible that when Genesis talks about the 6th day God made animals, it means 'after 400 million years, vertebrate lifeforms evolved from invertebrates'.

This is actu

Speaking as a Frenchman, that such a museum has been conceived and built is mind-boggling, in a bad way. It reflects poorly on the american educational system. It shows how far fundamentalists can go to counter Reason in a way that hasn't been seen in France for centuries.

Yeah, good thing nothing like that ever happens in France. It's a good thing France is free of people who unquestioningly follow religious wackos.

$20 to get in? That's a change up from the normal "collection-plate" sort of deal one usually sees in Christian churches. That's what this is, of course.. it's an apologetic ministry facility run by an on-the-books religious organization, labelled a museum.

Although to be honest, if the Christian church I was brought to as a kid had dinosaur rides out front, I may never have converted away from the faith.

Here's AIG's answer.

I've been through answers in Genesis. Acknowledgement of what they call "microevolution" is simply their latest fall-back point. They only concede it's truth because to do otherwise would make them look so deliberately ignorant that they would lose all but their core membership

So, it turns out that they're not refusing the evidence you cited, but in fact embrace it, and so your response is "they're lying! They really don't believe it, but they're lying to us to suck us in". Well, you're wrong. I'm trying to help you understand something here, because it's quite obvious you're quick to criticise but slow to understand that which you reject. The YEC position (and I don't consider myself a YEC) is that natural selection and changes in allele frequencies in a population over time have played a *very* large part in the 6000 year history of the world, and their worldview. For you to say that they only concede it so as to not lose membership is a major (yet common) misunderstanding of the YEC position. I direct you to:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v14/i3/fi nches.asp

Most people are blissfully unaware of the objections cited to Darwinism, and so they wonder at how people can reject it. Maybe taking the time to understand the objections might make things a bit clearer.

Nevertheless, if someone were to demonstrate a contradiction between the bible and "microevolution", they would be denying the existence of changes in allele frequencies soon afterwards.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/ http://www.creationmuseum.org/

The Creation Museum is "powered" by the organisation Answers in Genesis, which as an employer requires something more than a good CV:

"All job applicants need to supply a written statement of their testimony, a statement of what they believe regarding creation and a statement that they have read and can support the AiG statement of faith." - AiG website.

Isn't this a form of disrimination? Is this legal?

Scientist who were infact Christian. There are many on the list who have contributed much to science and yet still believe in God.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

So lets say that city x is handcuffing everybody in town and taking them to a concentration camp to die. Would it be a beneficial mutation if some mutant didn't have arms (and therefore couldn't be handcuffed)? By your (pseudo) logic it would. The fact is that these bacteria are losing information, not gaining it. The information had to come from somewhere.

Fish having gills isn't a mutation, they were designed that way.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria .asp Your nylon eating bacteria have been observed changing a bunch of times. They simply have a built in mechanism that makes them quickly adapt to changing food sources, it is not mutation.

Hell, any day now I'm expecting Slashdot stories citing the The Fred and Wilma Museum.

-

Why is it that the truth is only the truth if it makes someone money. Just because you can't make money by believing what is so obvious to true scientists does not make it false. The world's formation by God and the transformation via the Flood are easily seen if you use a truly open SCIENTIFIC mind. That is, consider all the options and see what the evidence BEST fits. You will quickly see that it is not uniformitarianism and evolution.

You might also check out Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/), the Creation Research Society (http://www.creationresearch.org/), and True.Origins (http://www.trueorigin.org/). All of these organizations provide resources from scientists credentialed in their fields of study showing how the Bible explains the creation of the world better than uniforitarianism.

David

I botched the URL in the previous message. See http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/carbon_da ting.asp That's worth a taunt, isn't it?

The evidence for a world wide flood go together. Most people have heard of the idea that if you put a dam at the Grand Canyon that most of the Midwest would turn into a giant lake. There is even evidence that it could have once been a giant lake, fish bones and such in desert. Basically the idea is that if there has always been a river and then there was a flood, the river could have become blocked as the water left, evaporated, gone down into the Earth, and froze at the poles. Then when the dam broke water rushed out and carved the Grand Canyon. The idea is also supported from the fact that rushing water takes the path of least resistance and thus would explain the randomness of its path.

The idea with lunar dust is that over time dust collects on the moon's surface. That is a fact and because of that when the lunar lander was created they gave it long legs. NASA expected there to be a couple of feet of dust since it would have been collecting for hundreds of millions of years. However once on the moon they found that their was only a couple of inches, only enough for a few thousand years.

The Earth's rotation is slowing over time, by about 2 milliseconds a year. This means that billions of years ago when the Earth was so-called created the days were about 13.5 hours. The Earth's rotation would be so great that gravity would make it impossible to live and survive.

Micro-evolution is observable, but you cannot extrapolate micro-evolutionary processes out to say it becomes macro-evolution. If you take any micro-evolutionary process that is documented, you will almost always find that DNA information is lost. One good example article to read is http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4343Critics_ Plantcolour.asp [answersingenesis.org] . You can't evolve to a higher state without adding information and no scientist has yet been able to figure out how that can happen in nature.

I have read several articles and books on evolution. It is still a simple conjecture that all animals and humans evolved over billions of years from a single primative original species and something that should be easily proven and hasn't! Just because several people have been very verbose in their explaination of how evolution could work doesn't make it true. Just give me the facts - it should be easy.

I truly hope you read the article posted above and that website in general, it will at least give you good food for thought. Don't stop learning and challenging your ideas - evolution has a lot of gaps, at least be open to other ideas.

At the end of the day, even if one were to ignore all the flaws in this horse evolution (there are many), you still have a horse! I need to see that next step down where the horse evolved from a different species altogether like a fish. There should easily be a fossil record showing the process - doesn't exist.

This horse evolution "fact" and many others are not vetted properly, if they were, they would never be allowed in print. Instead many unethical scientists have "created" their own facts and/or not fully explained how they derived their information - such as the case with the horse evolution - a lot of information was left out about how the fossils were gathered and how they are (not) related.

As to PE, it is still an insane idea, even if Gould tries to lend it credibility by limiting its scope to within a taxa. All he has to do is string enough of these "poofs" together to skip over a lot of unexplained gaps.

At the end of the day, even if one were to ignore all the flaws in this horse evolution (there are many), you still have a horse! I need to see that next step down where the horse evolved from a different species altogether like a fish. There should easily be a fossil record showing the process - doesn't exist.

This horse evolution "fact" and many others are not vetted properly, if they were, they would never be allowed in print. Instead many unethical scientists have "created" their own facts and/or not fully explained how they derived their information - such as the case with the horse evolution - a lot of information was left out about how the fossils were gathered and how they are (not) related.

As to PE, it is still an insane idea, even if Gould tries to lend it credibility by limiting its scope to within a taxa. All he has to do is string enough of these "poofs" together to skip over a lot of unexplained gaps.

Check out this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp. It is a gold mine of alternative information about the "theory" of evolution.

Until science can prove evolution without all the fallacious assumptions and outright fraud, I'll put my faith in God and His word.

If anyone cares, check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/

I'm ready to accept evolution just as soon as the science is more credible than faith and the Bible.

Still waiting...

besides if you want to prove that Christian !=anti-science then just bring up this building http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/walkthrough /

I mean if you can't start from the First Words then pastafarian is a sane "religion"

Read this (original published in TJ).
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/ice_core .asp

You are making the classic mistake: you are assuming that science is about trying to prove that something is true. It's not. Science cannot prove anything; science can only disprove.

If you want a concise definition of science, it is this: science is the methodology by which we identify and discard beliefs and theories that are false. This process does not produce facts; it does not produce proof. At best, it produces theories that have withstood enough attempts to knock them down that for now, we tentatively assume that they are accurate. But we're still standing on quicksand.

People who look to science to give them facts and absolute truths are inevitably frustrated, because science can't give them what they want.

Whilst less efficient, observation of natural events is a equally valid method from which to test a hypothesis.

Observation of natural events is not EQUALLY valid method, because it is not a method without defining the rules of this observation. Merely waiting for natural event to happen is also waiting for random uncontrollable conditions of this event. That is why zoology is not science, for example. It lacks scientific method. Without controlled environment you cannot eliminate for sure reasonable doubt.

then it could be logically demonstrated that evolution and astronomy are not sciences.

Nope. We are in the field of gnoseology which is a subject of phylosophy which is not science either, so logic is not playing crucial role in our dialog, it is juxtaposition of two ideologies (sorry, if you had high hopes for this discussion). I can only demostrate that astronomy and evolution lack an important aspect of physical sciences, which allows me and others to draw a line between the former and the latter. This is obvious. I also gave you an idea of how "science" of macroevolution is useless in terms of technology, practical application to the material needs of humans, while obviously all real science have undeniable relation to technology. That is red line number 2.

I guess, we clear now (more or less) about verification as we could be.

Most theories are impossible to verify; that is, impossible to prove absolutely true.

Nope. (1) there is no absolute truth for theory as I already said (2) nevertheless, scientific theories have clearly definable domains of their numerical validity, for example, Newtonian mechanics, and in that terms they are achieving the pick of "true" that is possible for any abstraction.

Evolution is borderline

(1) it would be much easier and much more self-consistent if you start distinguishing microevolution and macroevolution. So for microevolution there is absolutely no borderlineness whatsoever. In fact the theory of genetic inheritance and selection is one of the most brilliant, simple, fundamental, basic, obvious and well-defined theories. (2) au contraire, macroevolution as unjustified extrapolation, in the same manner as the assumption that Newtonian mechanics is still valid at the velocities approaching c.

About the example of Faeroe Island house mouse:

Found on the pro-macroevolution site:

Species identification in this case was based on morphology, since breeding experiments could not be performed with the parent stock.

No info on number of chromosomes change. I suspect, that if there was a number of chromosomes would have changed in this case, the hupla created by evolutionists would certainly resonate from Galapagos Islands to Kansas.

Anti-macroevolution site:

in that paper the authors acknowledged, 'The Faeroe mouse has been successfully crossed with the English house mouse.'

. You might not trust creationists, but at least you can see that the web reference you gave is quite not enough and the necessesity to cite directly from the article is obvious (I have been since long time ago a proponent of citing original peer-reviewed papers at /., hope it will catch up). Note, that I am not even doubting now that the example is not answering the challenge, I am just showing you that you opened a can of worms here.

another anti-macroevolutionist page (sorry, pro-macroevolutionis

this one
Sort of this one

this one

this one
this one
this one

there are a lot more. I'm not saying religion in totality is trying to spread FUD I'm sayign certain religious groups are stirring opposition for no other reason then to undermine certain scientific corner stones and theories they find inconvienant. Like parts of geology, astronomy, genetics, immunology, ect..

I am myself a moderate catholic. I find the exstremists and fundementalsist distasteful.

Yes, I was once an atheist

Atheist turned troll? Reading through your comments, I don't see any technical posts, just thinly disguised right wing politics.

I do have a college education in the sciences

Really, which ones? Was this degree over the internets? Certainly not any sciences that are applicable to this debate. Perhaps social, political, or economic?

You haven't produced one bit of 'evidence' that doesn't match this site.

I hate to be a flamer, and couldn't care less what anyone believes about how he universe got here. However, you have made the always typical comments telltale of someone not intersted the least bit in 'the sciences' or any fact, you're interested in framing the argument. First off, you start with the 'Public Schools' chestnut. Only in a geeks wildest dreams would a public school education get that in depth into science. Second, you confused evolution with origin. If you are a student of 'the sciences', you would not make such a mistake unless you intended to do so. Finally, using the term monkeyist religion? Perhaps you would feel more at home at a Rush Limbaugh blog rather than a tech site.

Yes, right, exactly. It's in Ohio. Not in northern Kentucky...

I'm in Lexington...

Shouldn't the link be : Utter Rubbish ???

And where do you think these smart people came from? Unless you seriously believe that they spontaneously appeared on slashdot fully-formed, they must have evolved from something ;)

"A new report in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences suggests that the common value of >98% similarity of DNA between chimp and humans is incorrect."

Source

According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Answers magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

According to evolutionists, the dinosaurs 'ruled the Earth' for 140 million years, dying out about 65 million years ago. However, scientists do not dig up anything labeled with those ages. They only uncover dead dinosaurs (i.e., their bones), and their bones do not have labels attached telling how old they are. The idea of millions of years of evolution is just the evolutionists' story about the past. No scientist was there to see the dinosaurs live through this supposed dinosaur age. In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old. No scientist observed dinosaurs die. Scientists only find the bones in the here and now, and because many of them are evolutionists, they try to fit the story of the dinosaurs into their view.

For those of you who have kept up with our lectures and our articles in Answers magazine, you will have heard or read quotes from many well-known and respected Christian leaders admitting that if you take Genesis in a straight-forward way, it clearly teaches six ordinary days of Creation. However, the reason they don't believe God created in six literal days is because they are convinced from so-called 'science' that the world is billions of years old. In other words, they are admitting that they start outside the Bible to (re)interpret the Words of Scripture.

I want to make it VERY clear that we don't want to be known primarily as 'young-Earth creationists.' AiG's main thrust is NOT 'young Earth' as such; our emphasis is on Biblical authority. Believing in a relatively 'young Earth' (i.e., only a few thousands of years old, which we accept) is a consequence of accepting the authority of the Word of God as an infallible revelation from our omniscient Creator.

I'd go to see another point of view. Creation and Intelligent Design scientists offer a much needed dissenting voice. They keep scientists honest(see Hoaxes List) and bring up interesting problems that the theory of Evolution must overcome.

For example, Eberhard Breitmaier of the University of Bonn had purportedly solved a major obstacle to the Theory of Evolution, homochirality. His work was based on teammate Guido Zadel's thesis on mirror-image enantiomers like the infamous thalidomide (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalidomide#Teratogen ic_mechanism). Amino acids, occur randomly in nature as two molecular mirror images (enantiomers) called L (levo) and D (dextro). The obstacle to the prebiotic soup idea was, and still is, that proteins in all living things are built entirely of L-amino acids.

Breitmaier and his team found that a magnetic field could force chemical reactions to favor L-amino acids ( Science 13 May 1994). No one could duplicate their experiment. Scientists went to Breitmaier's lab to see it done again. It worked as stated until Breitmaier tried without Zadel's help. Zadel had been spiking the solution with large amounts of single-enantiomer additive (Science July 1, 1994, Clery, D and Bradley, D. Underhanded 'breakthrough' revealed, vol. 265:21).

Until proven otherwise, the prebiotic soup idea is as impossible as the idea of spontaneous generation that Louis Pasteur killed with his Law of Biogenesis. Life can only come from life or, by extention, something independent of life that can create life. (See Homochirality problem http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v12/i3/chiralit y.asp#r30 and see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homochirality)

Hoaxes List:
Ernst Haeckel's embryo drawings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embryo_drawings
Piltdown Man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
Nebraska_man http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man
Ota Benga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ota_Benga
Eberhard and Zadel's spiked 'breakthrough' Science July 1, 1994
There's more. I strongly recommend three DVDs from amazon.com Icons of Evolution, Priviledged Planet and Unlocking the Mystery of Life. I have also written on homochirality at http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/forum/index.php? showtopic=53&hl=homochiral&st=20

I have been to a lot of museums (my SO works at a Natural History Museum) and I never encountered one before that needed attack dogs. You might think twice before you visit and express a different viewpoint to the one they are hawking.

Evolution in itself has no explanation for the origin of species. (pun intended) Consider this: for that first living cell to exist, it would have to be able to create food (as there would be no organic food for it to feed off of), store the food, convert the food into energy, expell waste, reproduce, the list goes on... Needless to say, this cell would be fairly complex, and it is not likely to think that these parts would just fall into place. Furthermore, it is just silly to think that the DNA could fall into place. That is the same as saying that throwing letters at a wall would produce Shakespearen books. It doesn't work. The improbabilty is doubled, when you bring RNA into the ring. I for one applude that someone is atleast putting common sense into their beliefs. Rather than try and say they are "fools" take a look at the rest of their site. They offer many good arguments. http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Set up a link with the term Utter Rubbish to their web site.

If enough people do it, then searching for Utter Rubbish will show up this web site.

Set up a link with the term Utter Rubbish to their web site.

If enough people do it, then searching for Utter Rubbish will show up this web site.

I agree. Since I couldn't reach either of the ets.org links, I can't see any of their sample questions, if those were even posted. Without that, how do we know that the people giving the tests can even decide the validity of a web page?

I hate to bring it up cuz it will start the same old argument again, but since a lot of people can't decide whether or not wikipedia is a valid source, how can we trust most of them to know what's acceptable?

A\long with that, there are a lot of schools that teach certain guidelines as absolute. I was taught that that any web page with a "~" towards the end was bad, regardless of whether or not the webpage was .com or .edu. The problem is that a ~ means you can't necessarily trust a source from an edu because it is a personal page, not the edu's page (yes, that's a really loose explanation of how that works). The problem is that just because a page can't necessarily be trusted, doesn't mean that it can't be trusted absolutely. Now consider some of the so-called colleges out there that are teaching that the world is only 6000 years old (or the Museum created to support such an idea). Knowing that Liberty University would teach such a thing tells me that they are not a trusted site. To me, a professor's personal page at Stanford would have much more credibility, but that doesn't fit well into specific criteria.

Point is, I don't trust this study until I know what their criteria is or what their questions were. As for the questions, it's just like statistical surveys that ask "Do you drink A) never B) one or two drinks a night C) more than 2 drinks in a night" and conclude that 50% of people are binge drinking alcoholics because they answered C, even though that doesn't take into account how often they drink more than 2 drinks in a night, or a variety of other problems.

This news over a year and a half old!! Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this found to be sensationalist the first time around?

What you describe is called Day-Age creationism, as opposed to young Earth creationism. Some people believe in Day-Age; others believe in young Earth.