Slashdot Mirror

Generally the sticking point for creationists is the idea that a species can diverge, or become two distinct species.

Groups such as Answers in Genesis acknowledge speciation - and in fact draw notice to how quickly speciation can occur.

As for the natural history as accepted by scientists, it's tenuous and ever-changing. It's based on a very incomplete fossil record that may have significant gaps; it's a best guess and should not be considered absolute in any way.

Darwin was attempting to describe how the full diversity of life we see today originated. He described a process whereby it would be possible for an ocean creature to have descendents that are land dwellers only. This idea Creationists reject. Humans were created distinct and separately from other animals, and share no ancestor other than the hand of their Creator.

So in some ways, there'd very little difference between the Creationist and the Darwinist - they both agree about the facts of natural selection, speciation, etc. But they disagree about the creative power of mutations, and about the beginnings and direction life took. These disagreements, in my opinion, are more philosophical in nature than scientific.

Despite the fossil record?

I should be asking you that question, in response to your profession of evolutionism. The fossil record has had a rocky relationship with evolution (no pun intended), but is a helpful friend to the creationist. It is a great witness to the truth of the Biblical Flood account.

Despite the fact that genetics has showed the close relationship between taxonomically-similar species?

Which is not evidence for evolution.

Despite direct observations of evolution in action?

"Evolution" only by the elimination or rearrangement of genes. Show me where genetic information is increased. (Actually, the evolutionist must begin his progression from a point where there is no DNA at all!) By the way, speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.

Despite the Galapagos finches?

Which do not provide evidence of evolution. In fact, they are evidence for creationism.

In fact, despite all of the evidence supportive of the Theory of Evolution?

In fact, you have failed to show me any so far.

I plan to exercise a little curiosity and humility

That would be nice for a change. Let me know when you begin to implement your plan. :)

and find out a little about the world I'm privileged to live on.

Oops, you slipped. Cosmic privileges are outside the domain of evolutionist/naturalist doctrine, because they are, by definition, benefits granted by an authority. Fortunately, you are (unwittingly) correct. The Creator God has bestowed us the privilege of living on this world.

Despite the fossil record?

I should be asking you that question, in response to your profession of evolutionism. The fossil record has had a rocky relationship with evolution (no pun intended), but is a helpful friend to the creationist. It is a great witness to the truth of the Biblical Flood account.

Despite the fact that genetics has showed the close relationship between taxonomically-similar species?

Which is not evidence for evolution.

Despite direct observations of evolution in action?

"Evolution" only by the elimination or rearrangement of genes. Show me where genetic information is increased. (Actually, the evolutionist must begin his progression from a point where there is no DNA at all!) By the way, speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.

Despite the Galapagos finches?

Which do not provide evidence of evolution. In fact, they are evidence for creationism.

In fact, despite all of the evidence supportive of the Theory of Evolution?

In fact, you have failed to show me any so far.

I plan to exercise a little curiosity and humility

That would be nice for a change. Let me know when you begin to implement your plan. :)

and find out a little about the world I'm privileged to live on.

Oops, you slipped. Cosmic privileges are outside the domain of evolutionist/naturalist doctrine, because they are, by definition, benefits granted by an authority. Fortunately, you are (unwittingly) correct. The Creator God has bestowed us the privilege of living on this world.

Despite the fossil record?

I should be asking you that question, in response to your profession of evolutionism. The fossil record has had a rocky relationship with evolution (no pun intended), but is a helpful friend to the creationist. It is a great witness to the truth of the Biblical Flood account.

Despite the fact that genetics has showed the close relationship between taxonomically-similar species?

Which is not evidence for evolution.

Despite direct observations of evolution in action?

"Evolution" only by the elimination or rearrangement of genes. Show me where genetic information is increased. (Actually, the evolutionist must begin his progression from a point where there is no DNA at all!) By the way, speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.

Despite the Galapagos finches?

Which do not provide evidence of evolution. In fact, they are evidence for creationism.

In fact, despite all of the evidence supportive of the Theory of Evolution?

In fact, you have failed to show me any so far.

I plan to exercise a little curiosity and humility

That would be nice for a change. Let me know when you begin to implement your plan. :)

and find out a little about the world I'm privileged to live on.

Oops, you slipped. Cosmic privileges are outside the domain of evolutionist/naturalist doctrine, because they are, by definition, benefits granted by an authority. Fortunately, you are (unwittingly) correct. The Creator God has bestowed us the privilege of living on this world.

it has copious interlocking evidence on many different levels supporting the theory. ... Ultimately, what theory best represents the world as we see it?

Interlocking false premises, which result from biased interpretations of observations. Studying the unknown past is fraught with pitfalls. Read The Parable of the Candle.

Then we can glance at the fossil record and see that speciation long predates the presence of humanity which is contrary to your assertion and goes back to very simple organisms. This also brings up the point of how old the Earth is. Concensus is that it's between 4 and 5 billions years old based on examination of rocks from the Earth, Moon, and elsewhere in the Solar System (usually in the form of meteorites). Some creationists claim the Earth is as young as 6,000 years old despite copious evidence to the contrary.

*sigh* This is what I'm talking about. Khallow, you've got to unlearn so much of what you think you know before you can begin to see that our observations are in line with the history that the Holy Bible describes. In fact, they make sense only in light of Biblical accounts. See this article about fast fossils (more at Fossils FAQ).

More it seems the disagreement [between creationists and the ID movement] is in how the argument is pursued.

I think that's it. For Biblical creationists, the Bible is the foremost and clearest authority on how the earth came to be. The waging of a campaign to "fight the good fight" wherein invoking God is taboo and quoting the Bible is off-limits is offensive to some creationists. Moreover, it is seen as possibly being non-productive, as the ultimate goal in creationism is to see more people put their trust in a specific, identifiable, creative God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and accept His gift of salvation that was made possible by sending His Son, the Messiah, to die for our sins on a cross.

it has copious interlocking evidence on many different levels supporting the theory. ... Ultimately, what theory best represents the world as we see it?

Interlocking false premises, which result from biased interpretations of observations. Studying the unknown past is fraught with pitfalls. Read The Parable of the Candle.

Then we can glance at the fossil record and see that speciation long predates the presence of humanity which is contrary to your assertion and goes back to very simple organisms. This also brings up the point of how old the Earth is. Concensus is that it's between 4 and 5 billions years old based on examination of rocks from the Earth, Moon, and elsewhere in the Solar System (usually in the form of meteorites). Some creationists claim the Earth is as young as 6,000 years old despite copious evidence to the contrary.

*sigh* This is what I'm talking about. Khallow, you've got to unlearn so much of what you think you know before you can begin to see that our observations are in line with the history that the Holy Bible describes. In fact, they make sense only in light of Biblical accounts. See this article about fast fossils (more at Fossils FAQ).

More it seems the disagreement [between creationists and the ID movement] is in how the argument is pursued.

I think that's it. For Biblical creationists, the Bible is the foremost and clearest authority on how the earth came to be. The waging of a campaign to "fight the good fight" wherein invoking God is taboo and quoting the Bible is off-limits is offensive to some creationists. Moreover, it is seen as possibly being non-productive, as the ultimate goal in creationism is to see more people put their trust in a specific, identifiable, creative God, the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, and accept His gift of salvation that was made possible by sending His Son, the Messiah, to die for our sins on a cross.

I'll respond to your main points.

1. Creationists such as myself would not call evolutionism a theory. I would call it a hypothesis; one that must be accepted by faith. Evolutionism is hopeful speculation founded upon naturalist philosophy. It is a Tower of Babel consisting of layers of bricks of faulty conclusions, each set of accepted fallacies giving rise to a new set of fallacies.

2. Speciation is a pillar of Biblical creationism.

3. Many (most?) Biblical creationists are not greatly enthused by the Intelligent Design movement. Some oppose it, although not actively.

> So how come many scientists think the Earth-Moon system is 4.5bn years old? Maybe they just haven't done the math.
>
>Or maybe they're just way smarter than you?

That's quite possible! But the math doesn't change based on one's level of intelligence. Next time, maybe you can address the actual argument, instead of resorting to a silly ad hominem attack.

Now, if I had claimed that my superior intelligence led me to some new discovery, then questioning my intelligence would be an attack on my credibility, and somewhat justified. But I didn't.

There is nothing novel in what I posted. The consequences fall right out of the equations of motion & gravity, along with the actual physical situation. For those interested in the actual calculations: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i4/mo on.asp#r8

It's OK to come across an an anti-evolution argument that you find persuasive and to ask questions, but keep in mind that the experts in the field are certainly already aware of that issue and that the experts almost certainly have a good reason not to consider it a problem.

Your comments on the origins of life, the universe, and everything are reasonable, but they don't really get you anywhere as a scientific model. Finding a large gap in our understanding and filling it with magic is certainly one way of going philosophically, but because the model of an omnipotent intervening force fits with any possible observation, it's not really useful as a scientific model. It doesn't give us a chance to expand our understanding about anything.

I do believe that there is in fact a scientific debate still going about evolution, because so much about evolution seems to be pure speculation.

Well, you're right to some extent, but the debate is about details, not whether evolutionary theory is valid. You seem to have a picture of evolutionary biology that is common: everybody sits around and speculates and comes up with stories. That's only part of the work. There's a lot of data to examine, and there are a lot of tests to do. Hypotheses can be tested via genetics. Predictions about fossil locations can be made and tested. It's really not nearly as arbitrary as you're making it sound, or there would be a lot more critics than there are.

Your comments on the origins of life, the universe, and everything are reasonable, but they don't really get you anywhere as a scientific model. Finding a large gap in our understanding and filling it with magic is certainly one way of going philosophically, but because the model of an omnipotent intervening force fits with any possible observation, it's not really useful as a scientific model. It doesn't give us a chance to expand our understanding about anything. I believe that the majority of scientists are still religious in one way or another. They generally don't let the supernatural creep into their work, though, as it short circuits the scientific method in much the same way dividing by zero allows you to prove all sorts of wrong things algebraically.

First of all, you mentioned dinosaurs with feathers. Assuming that natural selection is the mechanism by which evolution occurs, what advantage do dinosaurs with feathers have? Certainly they couldn't fly, and certainly natural selection is not some intelligent force that had birds in mind for the future. Also, could you give me an example of a dinosaur with feathers?

Feathers and hair are very similar in that they're useful as insulators, much as flaps of skin shaped like wings are useful for temperature regulation. Archaeopteryx is an example of a dinosaur / bird intermediate with features from both dinosaurs and birds.

It's interesting that AiG is still putting forth the bombardier beetle argument. It originated with Duane Gish, who had a completely inaccurate understanding of how the mechanism worked. From the looks of it, they've corrected the technical inacuracies and turned it into a simple argument from incredulity ("I can't imagine how this evolved, so it's not possible that evolved."). Mark Isaak proposes a possible evolutionary pathway here, and discusses some of the particulars with examples from different species. True, it may not have happened that way, but the existance of a relatively obvious set of possibilities definitely shoots down the claim that it couldn't have happened that way.

More interestingly, there is a time in the fossil record when bombardier beetles didn't exist. And a time when humans, rabbits, and all sorts of modern creatures didn't exist. At those times, other creatures did exist (dinosaurs, early sponges, etc.). Evolutionary theory explains this. Most of the various creation theories can't explain it, and instead resort to claiming that everything lived at the same time. Do you subscribe to this belief, or do you have an explanation as to how rabbits came into existence somewhere along the timeline?

As far as scientists who do not believe in evolution, I found this list online http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/def ault.asp that contains many who do not believe in it (far more than two). These are just the scientists associated with this particular organization, so I am sure that there are many more. Some of the scientists also have written articles about themselves, and about what in their research led them to reject evo

The situation is even more dangerous for the famous "bombardier beetle." The bombardier is an ordinary-looking beetle, but it has an ingenious chemical defense mechanism. Imagine: here comes a mean ol' beetle-eater, a toad, creeping up behind the seemingly unsuspecting beetle. Just as he gets ready to flash out that long, sticky tongue, the beetle swings its cannon around, and "boom!" It blasts the toad in the face with hot noxious gases at the boiling point of water, and coats the toad's tongue with a foul-tasting residue. Now that doesn't actually kill the toad, but it surely kills its taste for beetles! Pictures show the toad dragging its tongue across the sand trying to get rid of the foul taste.

Successful firing of the bombardier beetle's cannon requires two chemicals (hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinones), enzymes, pressure tanks, and a whole series of nerve and muscle attachments for aim and control. Try to imagine all those parts accumulating by time, chance, and natural selection. One crucial mistake, of course, and "boom!" the would-be bombardier beetle blows itself up, and there's surely no evolutionary future in that! Trial and error can lead to improvement only if you survive the error!

Creationists and evolutionists agree that adaptations such as the woodpecker's skull, cleaning symbiosis, and the bombardier beetle's cannon all have survival value. The question is, how did they get that way: by time, chance, and the struggle for survival, or by pl

Stumble over to a creationism site, they're up to the eyeballs in investigations and arguments. Try Answers In Genesis or the Institute for Creation Research or Geoscience Research Institute for a few examples.

Hell, I can show you museums that show kind, gentle dinosaurs living in harmony with man. So what?

This museum is a parody site, right?

And at least one major museum has excluded Pluto from its planetary display.

Hell, I can show you museums that show kind, gentle dinosaurs living in harmony with man. So what?

Young fossils? (120 years)

Living fossils

"If you believe evolutionary dating mechanisms (old earth of 5 billion years old), which makes many unstated assumptions as fact both before and after the flood, then you would state that the flood was probably 20,000 to 50,000 years ago. This is why old earther's scoff at the search for the ark, as it is extremely unlikely any of the boat would have survived for tens of millennia. However, if the ark is actually scientifically documented to have survived, this would present a dilemma for old earther's, who typically rely on many generations being left out of the biblical genealogies.

If you question evolutionary dating mechanisms (young earth of 6,000-10,000 years old), then you would state that the flood was between about 5000BC to 2350BC, depending on how many generations were left out of the biblical genealogies. See the Link webpage for more information."

This page is quote facinating when taken in context with the geneology data:
http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v4/i1/noahs_f lood.asp

When was Noah's Flood? 1,981 years to AD 0 plus 967 years to the founding of Solomon's Temple plus 480 years to the end of the Exodus plus 430 years to the promise to Abraham plus 75 years to Abraham's birth plus 350 years to Shem's 100th birthday plus 2 years to the Flood. The Biblical data places the Flood at 2304 BC +/- 11 years.

This date is, as expected, in conflict with secular archaeology which regards the Flood as either local or a myth and the Biblical chronologies as irrelevant or inaccurate.

The placing of a catastrophic global flood in the year 2304 BC means that all civilizations discovered by archaeology must fit into the last 4,285 years.

not a reference to given statement, but:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/da ting.asp

What is newsworthy is that this is a shameless attempt to secularize mathematics. It's right in the name -- Fast Fourier Transformation. That's idolatry. What can a man know about signals that God hasn't already made clear in the Word? Come to our website, and you can learn all about Intelligent Factoring, which is on much sounder mathematical grounds because it develops entirely from biblical principles.

http://www.cosmologystatement.org/

You make the false assertion that only creationists disagree with the big bang. You also fasly claim that creationists models have never made predictions that were more accurate than those of the big bang model.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i1/ne ptune.asp

It's not nearly as clear cut as you would make it seem, creation scientists have been making great discoveries and have a lot to contribute to science, the less objection there is to new ideas the better off we'll all be.

A 2 February 2004 press release from the Royal Astronomical Society (RAS) was headlined as 'Corrupted echos from the big bang?' on their own website1 and 'Are galaxy clusters corrupting Big Bang echoes?' on the Spaceflight Now2 website. All the excitement was in response to a new analysis of data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP). A team at the University of Durham, led by Professor Tom Shanks, has reported that the variability in cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) data is significantly distorted by clouds of gas through which it has travelled. These headlines are amazing, as the WMAP data had been previously heralded as being the most precise measure of the early echoes of the big bang. They were called echoes because it was believed they were the result of the acoustic waves generated at the stage, after the big bang, where radiation separated from matter. The small-density fluctuations in the matter/radiation density at that time, which resulted in the echoes, is claimed to be the seed for the formation of galaxies and clusters later in the development of the universe. This new information may undo all that has been claimed by the proponents of the big bang. The high-precision resolution of many parameters of the standard hot big bang (BB) inflationary model of the origin of the universe may be all wrong. The RAS press release goes on to say: 'But if correct, they suggest that the rumours that we are living in a "New Era of Precision Cosmology" may prove to be premature! "Our results may ultimately undermine the belief that the Universe is dominated by an elusive cold dark matter particle and the even more enigmatic dark energy", said Professor Shanks' [emphasis added].

Ariel Roth of the Geoscience Research Institute has commented on the fact that estimates of net reef growth rates vary from 0.8 millimetres per year to 80 millimetres per year, whereas actual measurements based on soundings at depth are many times these estimates.3 Roth suggests a number of reasons for this difference.

Formation of the calciferous exoskeleton involves deposition of calcium carbonate by the polyps from calcium ions isolated from seawater. The rate of deposition, while varying greatly between species and environmental conditions, can be as much as 10 g / m2 of polyp / day (0.3 ounce / sq yd / day). This is however hugely dependent on light, with production reduced by 90% at night compared to the middle of the day[6].

"While the discovery of the CMB has been called a successful prediction of the big bang model, it is actually a problem for the big bang. This is because the precisely uniform temperature of the CMB creates a light-travel-time problem for big bang models of the origin of the universe. The big bang model assumes that the universe is many billions of years old. While this timescale is sufficient for light to travel from distant galaxies to earth, it does not provide enough time for light to travel from one side of the visible universe to the other. The big bang requires that opposite regions of the visible universe must have exchanged energy by radiation, since these regions of space look the same in CMB maps. But there has not been enough time for light to travel this distance. Both biblical creationists and big bang supporters have proposed a variety of possible solutions to light-travel-time difficulties in their respective models. So big-bangers should not criticize creationists for hypothesizing potential solutions, since they do the same thing with their own model. The horizon problem remains a serious difficulty for big bang supporters, as evidenced by their many competing conjectures that attempt to solve it. Therefore, it is inconsistent for supporters of the big bang model to use light-travel time as an argument against biblical creation, since their own notion has an equivalent problem."

Reshuffling requires random acts... when's the last time you conciously reshuffled your genes? Reshuffling is not evolution. Evolution ultimately teaches creation of new information, something never demonstrated by evolutionists. Besides, most reshuffling results in loss of information. For each step in the process, and whenever an evolutionist finds more detail about how something works in nature, that person should be required to calculate the probability of that particular detail evolving, and combining that with the probablility of everything else evolving, to put everything in perspective. ...Not that that would help. Your beginning premise is flawed anyhow.

From: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

Claim CB102: Mutations are random noise; they do not add information. Evolution cannot cause an increase in information.

Source:
AIG, n.d. Creation Education Center. http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/docs/CvE_repor t.asp

Response:

1. It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of
   • increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
   • increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
   • novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
   • novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

   If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

2. A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:
   • Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
   • RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
   • Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

   The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3. According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates info

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/youn g.asp

An interesting site.

Hi. Been searching the web for articles on the current topic of The Feature Article and found this link:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2006/0417ethio pian.asp

I thought you might find it an interesting read.

I will reply to your comments above a little later.

Regards.

Here's an example of fundamentalists attacking Dembski because he stipulates an old earth, etc.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2005/0207dembs ki.asp

It's kind of painful to read; they're wrong about Augustine too.

But yeah, it encapsulates what I said in a nutshell. Creationists like ID more than they like "Darwinism", but ID and Creationism are fundamentally antithetical ideas.

Here's AiG's list of articles on the topic.

Hello Blaise:

It's good to hear from you again, since the math books don't quite footnote your greatest accomplishment in life - the Great Wager.

It would seem the only real evolution occuring these days is in the hearts and minds of those scientists who purposefully choose to ignore the structured world around them. Furthermore, it's with great sorrow that I report back to you that these same "scientists" rely on innacurate radio dating techniques to gauge and base their new religion on. Yet, amongst all the evidence mother earth has presented to us yet, it's own history seems to be willfully ignored in substitute of manufacturing their own. We have thousands of reliable eyewitness reports testified and verified by their peers, countless compiled documents spanning some 6000 years with archaelogical evidence in supportive agreement with those same biblical transcripts (via excavation research), and both written and spoken tradition which attests to God's design and fulfillment of man's purpose by the death of his son who rose again from the dead in 3 days. And the only question left is why not who. Some cannot see it, but not all men have such insight or understanding when they stress the first I in intelligence over U, which when properly substituted is what they unfortunately suffer from. Oh, the urony of it all...

cya real soon in 30 or 40. Peace!

Hey everyone, here is some more info. They offer some rational explanations as opposed to the rather irrational news media of today!! AiG

Lets not jump to too many conclusions here! One stupid fossil and the worlds belief system is supposed to be forever changed? Here is the image (in Jap but you get the idea) http://www.chosun.com/economy/news/200604/20060406 0131.html Lets face it, ID was a nice try but its a joke even to creationist. Look here for some more scientific evidence. http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Ad hom.

Straw man. No creationist claims that a creature must evolve overnight.

For one thing, we can see clear signs of human adaptation. People in warm, sunny climates have darker skin than those living in colder climates. Humans living at high altitudes have expnaded lung capacity. People living in extremely cold climates have smaller bodies with shorter limbs than those living in warm climates. We see small changes on those levels all the time.

Creationists do not dispute the existence of microevolution. In the mainstream reconciliation of biblical history with modern science, God created genes to allow creatures to survive in all sorts of environments. Sin caused thermodynamics, which in turn caused mutations that disabled specific genes. Natural selection then caused individuals that lost those genes to thrive in niches where loss of those genes would be an advantage. For instance, Adam and Eve had several competing genes for stimulating and inhibiting production of melanin. Descendants in Africa lost melanin-inhibiting genes, while descendants in more polar climates lost melanin-stimulating genes. They dispute the validity of radioisotope dating and that E. coli and H. sapiens had a common ancestor.

I've yet to see a flower or a star with the words "God wuz here" writen on it.

That's because you skipped all the mushrooms. Haven't you played Super Mario? :-)

There is no evidence of God.

Other than that the prophecies of the Bible are falsifiable but have in fact held up? For instance, rchaeologists once believed Jericho and Nineveh were myths until they unearthed the cities' ruins. Psalm 22 contains a graphic depiction of a crucifixion, a method of execution that would not be practiced until centuries later when the Romans invented it.

You have it backwards. That route brought us science.

Or are we just supposed to accept the evolutionist indoctrination without justification? This is not a public school, you know.

If you read the link, they ARE linked to the Christian Science movement

But not the creation science movement, which is one of the main groups lobbying to have creation taught in schools. If you take a look at the site for their biggest outlet, you'll find that they have a little more of an agenda than the Christian Scientists. For example, here's an article written by CSMonitor during the Dover incident: http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1123/p11s02-legn.htm l

Why does the bible define PI to be exactly three?

And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: [it was] round all about, and his height [was] five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about.
1Ki 7:24 And under the brim of it round about [there were] knops compassing it, ten in a cubit, compassing the sea round about: the knops [were] cast in two rows, when it was cast.
1Ki 7:25 It stood upon twelve oxen, three looking toward the north, and three looking toward the west, and three looking toward the south, and three looking toward the east: and the sea [was set] above upon them, and all their hinder parts [were] inward.
1Ki 7:26 And it [was] an hand breadth thick, and the brim thereof was wrought like the brim of a cup, with flowers of lilies: it contained two thousand baths.

Oh I am aware that one can "explain" these sorts of contradictions by various interpretations of the various bits, I am just pointing out that doing so thereby removes one from the "literal" reading of the work, one is starting to "interpret". Similar interpretations are needed to preserve the "literalness" of the date for the expulsion from Eden and the spread of humanity across the globe, the lack of physical evidence for the flood, etc. It is very difficult being a literalist, as one has to make so many interpretations of the scriptures. In my mind this detracts greatly from the strength of the scriptures as a source of moral and theological knowledge.

The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.

Do not give in to rumors - all of this stuff is available online - try wikipedia or google - that's where I am getting most of it.

Well, YOU may know the only path to salvation, but I put forward to you that your knowledge is based on a restrictive reading of the scriptures. I quote from here: "It is pointed out, however, that Paul declared in Ephesians, Chapter 2, verse 9, "Not of works lest any man should boast". It is true that no man can save himself by his own works, but he must work according to God's plan in order to be saved. We are told in Philippians, Chapter 2, and the last part of verse 12, "Work out your own salvation with fear and trembling". Also, James states in James, Chapter 2, verse 24, "Ye see then that by works a man is justified and not by faith only". It is interesting to note that Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord according to Genesis, Chapter 6, verse 8, but that Hebrews, Chapter 11, verse 7, says "By faith Noah being warned of God of things not seen as yet, moved with fear, prepared an ark to the saving of his house, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is by faith". Noah was saved by the grace of God, through faith on his part which prompted him to obey God's commands. A person may be saved from his sins by the grace of God when he believes what God says and when he obeys the Gospel which is God's power unto salvation. Romans, Chapter 1, verse 16."

From this and similar analysis, one quickly comes to the conclusion, that of course one is "saved" by faith in the Lord, but with that statement it is very easy to believe that professing such faith is sufficient. In actual fact you must LIVE that faith. The scriptures are full of things that the faithful should be doing - giving up their cloaks to their neighbours, feeding the least among them, leaving their father and mother to follow Jesus. It is not that Acts without Faith will lead to salvation that Catholic theology professes, but rather Cathlics generally hold that Faith without Acts is, in fact, not Faith.

My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not.

I would argue that it is the other way around. Some non-Catholics might have some beliefs that could lead them to think they are saved when they are not.

Which do you think is more likely or troublesome: a) that someone will do good things, without accepting Jesus and yet think that they are going to go to heaven and then be dissapointed when the time comes, or b) that someone will not do good things, and trust that their faith in Jesus/professed acceptance of Jesus will get them into heaven and then be dissapoined when the time comes? In case (a) it seems unlikely that they will think

Yeah, no spell checking now. Forgive any errors. Yes it is but the lengths that have been gone through for what we have today I think we are doing just fine. In 2:1 it clearly states that all of heavens and earth are finished being created and God had entered into his rest from creation. Chapter 1 is the outline and chapter 2 is the focus on man. This sight goes into the Hebrew and indications from other scripture about it. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/ge nesis.asp Oh, I'm sorry. I never meant you to think that I thought Catholics were pagans. Just that a lot of the rituals incorporated paganism to make it more acceptable to pagan cultures. Oh and I do know a lot of Catholics. The ones in my church call themselves recovering Catholics. They are usually the most critical of that church. They never realized what was going on there until they came to a non-denominational church. Wow, please give me the scripture where saying Hail Mary full of grace..... is mentioned in the Bible as having been a ritual for anything. Well it is inferred since it's not a requirement for Heaven. Only acception Jesus and the one and only way into heaven. All baptisms in the Bible happened after the person believed in Christ. Your right, there are going to Catholics as well as Baptists etc. in heaven. My only point was that Catholics have some beliefs that could lead someone to believe they are saved when they are not. The real point is accepting Jesus is the only way the Bible makes that clear. So as long as that is what the Catholics believe than it's better thant he rumors I heard that Baptism is required and that we are saved by works and not grace.

I'm glad we can agree on this, even as we disagree!

In fact, Creation Science is probably the best example of how ad hoc adjustments can be made to save any claim, no matter how consistently and how thoroughly it fails.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. When you have a scientific theory, and new evidence proves a small part of the theory to be false, isn't adjusting the theory to take this new piece of knowledge into account the appropriate thing to do? As new discoveries are continually made, the theory will continually be shown to be false - but that doesn't mean we're holding to the old version of the theory in spite of the new data.

They actually even explain the lack of evidence for one Biblical miracle with several more non-Biblical ones!

Can you give any specific examples of what you're referring to? There are certainly a lot of holes in the theory of Creation, questions that haven't been answered (and perhaps some questions that, by their nature, can't be answered - we have no way to way to travel back into the past and observe what really DID happen, we can only try to figure out what COULD have happened, based on the remaining evidence available). Some of these holes have been filled with speculation - often, different competing speculations. Sometimes, a particular idea is shown to be false, which lends credibility to competing ideas, perhaps too much credibility - just because one of two ideas is shown to be false doesn't make the other true.

Of course, each one of these falsifiable claims has been falsified.

As you might suspect, this is where we disagree. I mentioned radiometric dating being a problem; if you accept it to be accurate, then clearly the existence of fossils or rocks or whatever that date back to before the time of Creation would prove the Creation theory false. I'll leave that issue alone for now. However, people have claimed Creation can't be true for a variety of other reasons (e.g. there's no way Noah could have fit two of every kind of animal into a boat), and these claims have usually been refuted. On both sides I think, we often only hear one side of an issue, and never hear the response from the other side.

Another problem is that a lot of evidence supporting Creation doesn't get a lot of press, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between an independent scientist who has done legitimate research and discovered significant new evidence, and some crackpot who just made something up. In many cases, both are reported as truth by whichever side the claim supports, without much investigation. Here's an example I just happened to come across about dinosaur an dhuman footprints discovered side-by-side; notice the italicized note at the bottom. While I believe dinosaurs and humans did coexist, I have no idea whether this particular discovery is legitimate or not. I heard once that somebody took rock samples from various different strata within the Grand Canyon, ground them up, mixed them together, let them settle in a wave tank, and they settled (based on density) into the same order that they appear at the Grand Canyon. Strong evidence to support Creation if it's true, but I've never heard it corroborated by anyone.

Anyway, I'm tired and rambling, so I'll shut up now. Welcome to my friends list.

I'm glad we can agree on this, even as we disagree!

In fact, Creation Science is probably the best example of how ad hoc adjustments can be made to save any claim, no matter how consistently and how thoroughly it fails.

I don't think I understand what you're saying here. When you have a scientific theory, and new evidence proves a small part of the theory to be false, isn't adjusting the theory to take this new piece of knowledge into account the appropriate thing to do? As new discoveries are continually made, the theory will continually be shown to be false - but that doesn't mean we're holding to the old version of the theory in spite of the new data.

They actually even explain the lack of evidence for one Biblical miracle with several more non-Biblical ones!

Can you give any specific examples of what you're referring to? There are certainly a lot of holes in the theory of Creation, questions that haven't been answered (and perhaps some questions that, by their nature, can't be answered - we have no way to way to travel back into the past and observe what really DID happen, we can only try to figure out what COULD have happened, based on the remaining evidence available). Some of these holes have been filled with speculation - often, different competing speculations. Sometimes, a particular idea is shown to be false, which lends credibility to competing ideas, perhaps too much credibility - just because one of two ideas is shown to be false doesn't make the other true.

Of course, each one of these falsifiable claims has been falsified.

As you might suspect, this is where we disagree. I mentioned radiometric dating being a problem; if you accept it to be accurate, then clearly the existence of fossils or rocks or whatever that date back to before the time of Creation would prove the Creation theory false. I'll leave that issue alone for now. However, people have claimed Creation can't be true for a variety of other reasons (e.g. there's no way Noah could have fit two of every kind of animal into a boat), and these claims have usually been refuted. On both sides I think, we often only hear one side of an issue, and never hear the response from the other side.

Another problem is that a lot of evidence supporting Creation doesn't get a lot of press, and it becomes very difficult to distinguish between an independent scientist who has done legitimate research and discovered significant new evidence, and some crackpot who just made something up. In many cases, both are reported as truth by whichever side the claim supports, without much investigation. Here's an example I just happened to come across about dinosaur an dhuman footprints discovered side-by-side; notice the italicized note at the bottom. While I believe dinosaurs and humans did coexist, I have no idea whether this particular discovery is legitimate or not. I heard once that somebody took rock samples from various different strata within the Grand Canyon, ground them up, mixed them together, let them settle in a wave tank, and they settled (based on density) into the same order that they appear at the Grand Canyon. Strong evidence to support Creation if it's true, but I've never heard it corroborated by anyone.

Anyway, I'm tired and rambling, so I'll shut up now. Welcome to my friends list.

Here's one article that shows what that might not have happened. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2/4341_endosym biont.asp Here's a longer one I found about eukaryotes but seems like it's probably less biased. http://blog.nerac.com/2005/08/25/actin-%E2%80%93-a n-ageless-protein-with-an-intelligent-design/ We should invest more resources in a time machine and end the debate once and for all;).

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

You said, "Information addition/increase is a known fact."

Again, this is where we disagree. There are quite a number of scientists who disagree with you there... many times more then just a few "fringe" scientists. I'm talking about published, respected professors and scientists in fields like biology and genetics. Again, I'm not a geneticist nor a geologist so I'm not prepared to discuss these things in depth. Here is an article that seems to approach this subject. It may be worth your time to read or skim over. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter2.asp Another, slightly different view, held by many "creationist" scientists is described at http://www.nwcreation.net/genetics.html. All I can do is give you these to think through and to show that there are quite a few scientists who disagree with the naturalistic position of "molecules to man" evolution.

Concerning the rest of your post, scientists have found real and valid problems with dating methods and assumptions currently employed (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i1/e arth.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/ra diodating.asp), as well as the interpretation of the fossil record as getting more complex through layers of "younger" rock (http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/e volution.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp , http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v14/i1/fossils. asp).

My point is that creation scientists have a wide variety of hypothesis to explain the same natural phenomena that naturalistic or atheistic scientists attempt to explain. There is a lot of work done in these fields.

Given that fact I think it is sad that, yesterday for instance, the Ohio Board of Education decided to delete standards saying students should be able to "describe how scientists continue to investigate and critically analyze aspects of evolutionary theory." The standards even included a disclaimer that they do not require the teaching of intelligent design. As I understand it, some evolutionists raised the issue of court action in Ohio if the Ohio State Board of Education did not remove that guideline. And Ohio Governor Bob Taft indicated a few days ago that over time he would be selecting new board members who would not be critical of evolution.

The late Dr Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, wrote a book, Evolution. In reply to a questioner who asked why he had not included any pictures of transitional forms, he wrote: "I fully agree with your comments about the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them ... . I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." The renowned evolutionist (and Marxist) Stephen Jay Gould wrote: "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Yet you are saying you and many evolutionists see the fossil record as consisting of nothing but transitional forms. Given the fact that even evolutionists debate over aspects of evolution as critical as these, I think it is truly sad tha

More breaking news on these topics at 11.

That really would be breaking news, because the vermiform appendix does have functions in the body, as even Talk Origins admits. (But then they claim that just because an organ has functions doesn't mean it's not vestigial. The new, lowered bar to qualify as vestigial is "suboptimal design" of function -- suboptimal in the eyes of humanity, which, of course, has complete understanding of the body. And wait, what is this talk of "design" by evolutionists?)

Look, if the appendix is left over from evolutionary predecessors, how come monkeys do not have an appendix? Yet, some rodents and marsupials do. I'm having trouble tracing the evolutionary tree here.

• FAQ on so-called vestigial organs

Sorry for the quick response... I will put more time into this as I can... for now, consider an alternate interpretation of the same facts in the "ring species" cases....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i1/bi rd.asp

Only a few.

You also have to ask yourself: what would you expect an evolution-dominated textbook to say? "We're presenting six hundred pages on evolution here, but we don't think it's important?"

Repeated assertion is not proof.

Evolution is a theory (perhaps I should say Theory) which attempts to explain Linnaeus' organisation. That it succeeds is what's in question here. The Creationists explain the same things which evolutionary principle has had kingship of claimed for it, many of them far more plausibly. They claim, with this as justification, that creation is the central organising principle of biology.

You assert that "creation science has yet to generate a single testable, falsifiable, hypothesis, which is the first step to becoming a theory", but you do so speciously. Creation science sites are awash in hypotheses and you simply haven't noticed. Fixed speciation is one such hypothesis, and it matches reality exactly. The absence of interspecies fossils is another prediction of Creartion, and so far they've won the day on that one pretty convincingly (the closest to a refutation we've come is that glorified hoatzin called archaeopteryx).

Early Creationists (at least in Europe) got too carried away with this and insisted that not just species but individual subspecies of animal were immutable. This in the face of cross-breeding programs. Mind you, this was back in the day when Spontaneous Generation was accepted as the scientifically valid opposition to this concept, so I'm inclined to cut both sides some slack here.

Go and actually read some Creationist sites -- know thy enemy and all that. They've got reasonable-sounding hypotheses on geology, astronomy, all manner of stuff. If you're going into a battle of wits, do remember to go in armed! Read some of the refutations of DDI (and DCD's errata) as well. Have an argument, not a shouting match! (-:

Meanwhile, there are many evolutionary biologists who would cheerfully donate a limb to the cause if they thought they'd get a naturalistic self-organising principle out of it. That alone should be a big hint that there's something major still missing from the panacea called evolution.