Slashdot Mirror

Not enough time or room here to post the every day events that contradict macroevolution. (You won't find those for microevolution... because microevolution is quite true.) Fortunate for anyone seriously seeking these answers, there is an extensive, well written, scientific website with great content for the casual observer... and detailed content for the most scientifically technical person.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

If the site name alone keeps you from checking it out... then one might want to ask themself... "Am I afraid that I might find the truth to be quite different from what I currently believe?" While I'm at it... an aside on belief/science... anyone asserting the truth about the origin of the universe is exercising a belief. We weren't there. Hypothesis can only be tested in our current environment. Theories without confirmed, recreatable processes to support it... by our own definitions of science... are still theories.

Christian theistic evolutionists have got some very hairy questions to answer....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejec ted.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/th eistic_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/th eistic_evolution.asp

Christian theistic evolutionists have got some very hairy questions to answer....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejec ted.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/th eistic_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/th eistic_evolution.asp

Christian theistic evolutionists have got some very hairy questions to answer....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejec ted.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/th eistic_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/th eistic_evolution.asp

Christian theistic evolutionists have got some very hairy questions to answer....

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i3/qu estions.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/0112rejec ted.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i4/th eistic_evolution.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i1/th eistic_evolution.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/ (though it pains me to link to it)

Could this actually mean that well intentioned christians are actually beginning to crawl out from under the thumb of the right-wing extremists like Dobson, Robertson, Bush, etc? I know this is only a small beginning and may be offering false hope, but at least its better than the complete lack of any hope for American socieity I'd been feeling recently.

The leaders said a poll they commissioned of 1,000 evangelical Protestants showed that two thirds were convinced global warming was taking place. Additionally, 63 percent said the United States must start to address the issue immediately and half said it must act even if there was a high economic cost.

Recently, both the Wheaton College student newspaper (this is a prominent Christian school near Chicago) and Chicago Tribune ran stories about the age of the earth in Christian colleges. Now, controversy in Christian colleges is not new. Nor is young-earth versus old-earth a new conflict in the church, for it's been with us for over two centuries. But, as the author of the Tribune article implied, this conflict might be getting worse.

So why is there a conflict? The rub comes from the fact that although 44-47% of the population seems to believe in something resembling young-age creationism, probably more than 90% of Christian colleges and their professors do not. With the exception of Seventh Day Adventist colleges, it's virtually impossible to find young-age creation taught at denominational colleges (Southern Baptist, Presbyterian, Nazarene, etc.), and some, such as (Southern Baptist) Baylor University, won't even teach Intelligent Design. The Christian colleges which teach young-age creation are few and far between.

For example, among the nondenominational colleges, the only regionally accredited Christian colleges where you can get a young-earth-oriented biology major that I know of are (listed with increasing size): Bryan College (Tennessee), Grace College (Indiana), Master's College (California), Cedarville University (Ohio), and Liberty University (Virginia). And, if you want a young-earth geology major ... well, you're simply "out of luck."

As an example, the Tribune article mentions three biology majors at Olivet Nazarene College who entered the school as creationists, but who are now theistic evolutionists. As a further example, the Wheaton College newspaper shows the results of a student survey (42% of the students responded) which showed that whereas 47% believed in a young earth before entering Wheaton (the same percentage which Gallup finds for the population at large in its polls), only 27% believed in a young earth by the time of the survey. The same survey indicated that Wheaton professors were a greater influence on their age-of-earth belief than their parents were!

'Creationists believe in microevolution but not macroevolution.' These terms, which focus on 'small' v. 'large' changes, distract from the key issue of information. That is, particles-to-people evolution requires changes that increase genetic information, but all we observe is sorting and loss of information. We have yet to see even a 'micro' increase in information, although such changes should be frequent if evolution were true. Conversely, we do observe quite 'macro' changes that involve no new information, e.g. when a control gene is switched on or off.

Ok, looks like this thread is winding down. I heartily thank all the people who have submitted works in response to my posting.

so I have:

"Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel -- this looks like a really interesting book, and I'm looking forward to it.

Darwin's Black Box by Michael Behe

Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Volume II http://www.icr.org/store/index.php?main_page=pubs_ product_book_info&products_id=2655 [icr.org]

Creation's Tiny Mystery by Robert V. Gentry

Bones Of Contention: A Creationist Assessment Of Human Fossils by Marvin L. Lubenow -- this sounds extremely intersting as well. I admit one eyebrow went up when I read the title, but I will dismiss that as I am reading.

Evolution on Trial by Dr. Thomas Kindell

Signs of Intelligence: Understanding Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski (Editor), James M. Kushiner (Editor).

The Design Revolution: Answering the Toughest Questions About Intelligent Design by William A. Dembski.

I'll check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ and see what's there

Miracles by CS Lewis -- I loved the Chronicles of Narnia, so I'm eager to read this as well... and no, I'm not going to go the the LW&W movie.

The Bible, though it is not specifically relevant to what I meant, it couldn't hurt to read it again.

Let me know if I missed any. Whew! Looks like I committed myself to a lot of reading, but after finishing my greek plays phase I've been looking for another reading project anyway :)

There is a reason that ID was dragged into this, and it wasn't the scientists who made the initial connection.

So Altshuler claims, without any supporting evidence, that unnamed "people" in the undefined "ID community" make a big deal out of the unknowability of bee flight mechanics, and that having disproved this unkowability, he's successfully countered their alleged arugment?

I have personally heard this canard repeatedly from creationists. They will do it with pretty much anything that science doesn't have a ready answer to at the time. The bee one was popular because for a while it was a well-known unsolved problem that Bubba Sixpack could readily understand.

Now, of course, they've switched sides on this one. Before, the mystery of bee flight was proof of God's majestic inscrutability. Now that we've scruted it, it's proof of how darned smart God is.

Wow, I applaud your openmindedness. Try checking out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ . The Get Answers tab has a lot of their main belifs and theories.

Here is an article from a Christian perspective that uses bees to argue ID.

I also would like to point out that drdino.com is probably not such a great place to be getting your data. At least point to answersingenesis.com if you want "analysis" that ignores refutations from the scientific mainstream. "Dr." Kent Hovind is sort of a laughingstock--so much so that even most other creationist organizations distance themselves from him.

Sure, birds and dinosaurs "could" have coexisted. But there's no real evidence that they did. The majority of the physical evidence points strongly toward them not existing in remotely the same time period. And of course, for the people who bemoan the lack of "transitionals" there's the archaeopteryx.

All right, no really, this is the LAST reply, and then I have to get on with the rest of my sorry life...:)

Regarding massive growth spurts: There would HAVE to be fossils for intermediate transitions. Let's take the fallacy of human evolution. Based on what we know of human growth population, and assuming that humans have been around for millions of years as postulated by evolutionists, the Earth would have to be littered with skeletons! There would literally be hundreds of billions (if not trillions) of ancient human fossils laying around, even accounting for plague, wars, ice ages, etc. This isn't up for debate - it's merely statistical. For a mouse to increase in size to an elephant, statistically there would have to be at least one intermediate fossil proving this! It's only common sense. The evolutionary record on this is remarkably shabby in this regard.

As to transitional animals being fully functional, this belies commonsense too. You can't take two completely different respiratory systems (for example), make an intermediate form of them, and expect them to "just work". They won't. We're expected to believe that ALL transitional forms of eyes, brains, respiratory systems, skeletal systems for ALL existing species were fully functional? This is completely unreasonable from a scientific point of view, and no reasonable man would believe this. If you do, you're wilfully suspending disbelief in order to support a world-view that fits your current lifestyle (which is the whole basis for evolution, in my opinion).

Regarding the trillions of positive mutations that would have to occur, you say, "There is selection for good mutations", I have to ask you, "Who is doing the selecting?" Since this is all supposedly random, the odds of any given complex system randomly assembling even over 250 million years is ridiculously absurd, even for simpler systems. Again, it's the law of statistics: let's say there are 10 microorganisms in a given complex system that have to work right for it to be "functional". The odds of them evolving together is 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10 * 1/10. That's 1 in 10 billion (if my math is right). That's just one very simple system, and the human body has billions of them! That makes the odds WORST than astronomical!

The "Whale of a Tale" article is linked to in the original article, which I repost here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp

There are many other arguments that counter evolution, such as the evidence of a massive worldwide flood, the fact that the sun would have increased in size to envelope the Earth over that time-span, etc. Many books have been written on this.

I don't have time to keep going. Bible prophecy is playing out before our eyes, and history, archeology and past fulfilled prophecy all tell us we can trust the Bible to know who we are and where we're going. Time is running out. I feel that with the recent very bad behavior from Iran recently, Armageddon is very near. Accept Christ while you still have time! Seacrest out...

Thanks for the link. Here's a refutation from the Answers In Genesis group: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp One thing the article points out is that the diagram showing the transition from a land mammal to the first sea-based one fails to show an important point: the two species are RADICALLY different in size. I'll let you read the article, but I will say that in regard to the aforementioned transition, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from what appears to be a fully functional land animal to a fully functional sea animal! I don't buy it! Why don't these transitional animals die off due to poor ambulatory ability, poor digestion ability, etc., which would be the result if the one were really changing into the other; evolutionists can't answer that one! Here's a much more technical refutation, but I'll admit: I only skimmed it since it goes over my head! http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp I believe God created ALL of these transitional forms in order to "fill in" different parts of our ecology, that is, the food chain. We don't know what role each of these animals played, but they all had a purpose. I'd also like to point out that radio-carbon dating is far from perfect. It was used (back in the '50s I believe) to date some lava flows (or some such) to 800 million years old, but it was later discovered from records that they were in fact only decades old. (I think the process relies too heavily on assumptions of the underlying material, where it was found, etc.)

>> Science has no absolute truths

Except one very important one. That everything can be explained by materialist means. Meaning, a God is not needed, is a fundamental part of science. Not science when it used as a tool, but when it used as dogma.

Interesting quote.

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

Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/ad mission.asp

>>Science makes no claim about anyone's beliefs. The very idea of whether there is or isn't a creator is completely out of bounds.

It's only out of bounds if you believe that God is not needed and that science can explain everything without him. Then true, whether he exists or not is not needed as part of discussion about how creation happened. But, if someone holds to the philosophy that science can't explain everything then if God exists it is very relevant to the discussion because God wouldn't have had to create the world using the rules of science.

easier to believe that God used quantum folding and cryogenic hybernation to pack all the animals in the world onto Noah's Ark than it is to believe that story is allegorical

Actually, neither quantum folding nor cryogenic hibernation is necessary.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v19/i2/an imals.asp

While they don't explicitly mention it on the page linked above, they accept speciation (with the exception that they don't believe that new genetic information is added), which explains a lot.

HTH,

If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God.

You urge us to go to the website of Kent Hovind, a tax evading Young Earth Creationist who's favorite arguments are so weak that even other creationists say he makes "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good". Hovind is a professional debater who depends primarily on one tactic; he throws out questions (most of which are irrelevant) so quickly that his opponents cannot answer all of the within the alloted time. He This tactic would fail in a written debate where the opposition had time to answer all his questions. That's probably why hovind dislikes standard debate formats and refuses to participate in online debates.

• Hovind's fake challenge
• Tax evasion and fake PhD's
• Hovind debates at UTK

If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God.

You urge us to go to the website of Kent Hovind, a tax evading Young Earth Creationist who's favorite arguments are so weak that even other creationists say he makes "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good". Hovind is a professional debater who depends primarily on one tactic; he throws out questions (most of which are irrelevant) so quickly that his opponents cannot answer all of the within the alloted time. He This tactic would fail in a written debate where the opposition had time to answer all his questions. That's probably why hovind dislikes standard debate formats and refuses to participate in online debates.

• Hovind's fake challenge
• Tax evasion and fake PhD's
• Hovind debates at UTK

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

To those who say ID is not science, check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/

ID is very much science, if you look at it properly.

Although it's from a Christian website, this link discusses and debunks that Art Bell story.

are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that.

I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation.

If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many. You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong.

Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact. If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.

" With all due respect, there is no debate. There have been no articles in respectable scientific journals that support ID" "There is no debate" are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that. I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation. If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many. You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong. Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact. If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.

Sure the world is full of evidence or "hammer marks," but to my eyes they look a lot more like fingerprints! Read about presuppositions here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/cr eation.asp

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Good web site, showing the christian objection to evolution in a way that all anti-creationists can understand.

And attached, an article wholy reproduced, stating a common christian objection to the 'but its not scientific', 'Creationism isn't science.' 'They don't understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.' objections:

jech

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/ru les.asp

The rules of the game
As the 'rules' of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion--even if true.
by Carl Wieland

'Creationism isn't science.'

'They don't understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.'

Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are 'breaking' is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls 'stunned indignation' to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let's examine these.

Correctibility
(1) 'Correctibility -- some acknowledgment that what we currently think can be changed by future discoveries.'
It is a common caricature of creationism to paint it as a fixed, immovable set of ideas that leaves no room for change or discussion, as opposed to 'real' science (read 'evolutionary theorizing') which is vibrantly alive with constantly changing ideas and concepts refined by new evidence. This is, of course, simply not true. There are, always have been, and presumably always will be many healthy scientific controversies among creation-oriented scientists. The speed of light decay theory is just one example that springs to mind (this is the belief that the speed of light is not constant, but has been decreasing).

It is true that there is a 'bottom line' in the creationist framework belief in the literal truth of Genesis. However, there is a 'bottom line' for evolutionary theorists too just as fixed and immovable, in my experience. It too is a belief that the world has made itself. Put another way, it is a belief that natural processes and causes must have been sufficient to build planets and people from particles.

There are indeed many controversies about the mechanism of this self-transformation. Opinions shift and scientists are often willing to correct and abandon their ideas about how evolution happened. But they are not prepared to abandon the bottom line, the belief that some sort of evolution did occur. To put it another way, the how of evolution is negotiable, but not the whether.

At the 1967 Wistar Institute Symposium, top-level evolutionary biologists and mathematicians met to mathematically test the idea of evolution by mutation/selection. When the super-computers finished crunching their numbers, it was obvious that the answer was 'impossible'. It was reported that when someone very cautiously (maybe even rhetorically) asked whether this meant that perhaps one should look at special creation as an option, there were loud cries of 'No!' 'No!' from the floor.

Study Nature
(2) 'A commitment to finding out how the world works by studying the natural world itself.'
Creationist scientists are of course equally committed to this statement, since you will notice it refers to 'how the world works'

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Good web site, showing the christian objection to evolution in a way that all anti-creationists can understand.

And attached, an article wholy reproduced, stating a common christian objection to the 'but its not scientific', 'Creationism isn't science.' 'They don't understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.' objections:

jech

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v11/i1/ru les.asp

The rules of the game
As the 'rules' of science are now defined, creation is forbidden as a conclusion--even if true.
by Carl Wieland

'Creationism isn't science.'

'They don't understand the rules of what science is,
or they deliberately ignore them.'

Comments such as these flow readily from the pens of the many critics of the modern creationist movement. Why are such comments so widely and passionately believed? I believe that the only rule creationists are 'breaking' is one which cannot be said to properly belong to a scientific inquiry into origins, and which effectively imposes a religious dogma upon science.

Rhonda Jones (Professor of Zoology, James Cook University, Townsville, Australia) is one who has reacted with what she calls 'stunned indignation' to the suggestion that science students should have evidence for creation presented to them along with evidence for evolution (Quadrant, August, 1988).

She gives two criteria which she feels are universal to all definitions of science. She insists that evolutionary theory meets both requirements, but creationism meets neither. Let's examine these.

Correctibility
(1) 'Correctibility -- some acknowledgment that what we currently think can be changed by future discoveries.'
It is a common caricature of creationism to paint it as a fixed, immovable set of ideas that leaves no room for change or discussion, as opposed to 'real' science (read 'evolutionary theorizing') which is vibrantly alive with constantly changing ideas and concepts refined by new evidence. This is, of course, simply not true. There are, always have been, and presumably always will be many healthy scientific controversies among creation-oriented scientists. The speed of light decay theory is just one example that springs to mind (this is the belief that the speed of light is not constant, but has been decreasing).

It is true that there is a 'bottom line' in the creationist framework belief in the literal truth of Genesis. However, there is a 'bottom line' for evolutionary theorists too just as fixed and immovable, in my experience. It too is a belief that the world has made itself. Put another way, it is a belief that natural processes and causes must have been sufficient to build planets and people from particles.

There are indeed many controversies about the mechanism of this self-transformation. Opinions shift and scientists are often willing to correct and abandon their ideas about how evolution happened. But they are not prepared to abandon the bottom line, the belief that some sort of evolution did occur. To put it another way, the how of evolution is negotiable, but not the whether.

At the 1967 Wistar Institute Symposium, top-level evolutionary biologists and mathematicians met to mathematically test the idea of evolution by mutation/selection. When the super-computers finished crunching their numbers, it was obvious that the answer was 'impossible'. It was reported that when someone very cautiously (maybe even rhetorically) asked whether this meant that perhaps one should look at special creation as an option, there were loud cries of 'No!' 'No!' from the floor.

Study Nature
(2) 'A commitment to finding out how the world works by studying the natural world itself.'
Creationist scientists are of course equally committed to this statement, since you will notice it refers to 'how the world works'

Well I'm a christian, and I think that christians should focus on spreading a more important message, than spend too much time on rather debateable points, especially things that don't actually form the foundation of the Christian faith (e.g. Jesus).

I too am a Christian, but one of those wacko fundie types. :-) While I agree that a belief in creationism is not a requirement to be saved, nor should it be the focus of our efforts of salvation, it is important to keep in mind that for many Christians, what they learn about evolution causes them to doubt the reliability of the Bible and therefore their faith. That's why groups like Answers in Genesis make Biblical authority, not creationism (despite what some might try to have you believe), their main point. Please see this article if you're interested in learning more:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

Well I'm a christian, and I think that christians should focus on spreading a more important message, than spend too much time on rather debateable points, especially things that don't actually form the foundation of the Christian faith (e.g. Jesus).

I too am a Christian, but one of those wacko fundie types. :-) While I agree that a belief in creationism is not a requirement to be saved, nor should it be the focus of our efforts of salvation, it is important to keep in mind that for many Christians, what they learn about evolution causes them to doubt the reliability of the Bible and therefore their faith. That's why groups like Answers in Genesis make Biblical authority, not creationism (despite what some might try to have you believe), their main point. Please see this article if you're interested in learning more:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

Creationists believe that Tyrannosaurs were originally vegetarian, but Adam's sin cursed them!

"Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/"

congratulations with your observations on the existence of a Deity (that supernatural origin of species). you're obviously more lucky than this mortal sinner is.

> a theory based on (shaky) arguments against a plausible theory is
> not viable. it doesn't matter whether GGP, you, or me are right.
Darwin's theory is only plausible if you accept a non-supernatural origin of the species as axiomatic, and then ignore the problems with it. For more information: http://answersingenesis.org/

> anyway, time and meme selection will weed out the idea that's
> least acceptable. whether it's on scientific grounds or not...
I hope it's on scientific grounds.

> then you write in reply to my little paradoxical attempt at humour: :-/ Yeah sure, after-the-fact humor covers a whole multitude of logic flaws.

>>> - science *is* by definition incapable of
>>> discovering the Truth. thruth is a construct.
>>> there is no such thing.
>> Your statement isn't true, then.
>ah, you got the point! mission accomplished ;-)
Indeed. Now only if you'd get the same point ;-D

While I respect your opinion, I disagree that all the the evidence points to all three of your summations: Common ancestor (no problem) Man descended from primates (where is the proof?) All life is linked through genetic transformations (again, where is the proof)? What we disagree on is the validity or sufficiency of the proof. And as far as the Bible is concern, where is the proof that the Bible is not factual? I refer to a very good site that provides evidence that the Bible is very factual. It's http://answersingenesis.org/

The "theories" of evolution have not been proven. It is therefore wrong to teach evolution as FACT. Students should be presented with BOTH sides of the issue so that they can make up their own minds. If evolutionary teachings are so shaky that they can't take criticism, there's something wrong! Maybe evolution is NOT the answer!.

> (I wish they would explain to me who Cain and Abel married)

Their sisters. Adam and Eve had daughters too (Gen. 5:4), and incest was not illegal until the law introduced in Moses time. The genetic makeup would have been near perfect at that time, so close marriage would not have produced the same problems as it does today.

See also this for more info.

If you say anything critical of darwinian evolution around on /. - you'll oft be modded a troll, for example linking the fossils that appear to challenge the darwinian evolution timeline
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v18/i4/di nosaurs.asp
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks.htm

Darwinian evolution is supposed to be a well grounded theory on origin, not a philosophy.
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/20 05/05/01/evolutionary_war/

The rise of ID or creationism, can be seen as a challenge to the humanist/atheist adoption of darwinian evolution.

Merely giving a voice to ID supporters, can be dangerous to your career in the scientific community.
http://www.rsternberg.net/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic le/2005/08/18/AR2005081801680.html
http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110006220

There are arguements to be made in favor of teaching ID
http://www.americanthinker.com/articles.php?articl e_id=4761

I take a more dialectic approach, instead of one based on censorship or herd mentality.

Linux is like Darwinian evolution. The code base mutates and the stronger strains survive. Sometimes parts of version cross into another, analogous to natural selection on individual genes.

And how do you think the code base mutates? Hint: it's not random power glitches flipping bits on the disk...

(No, I don't exactly support the "Intelligent Design" movement either, it doesn't go far enough.)

Obviously, if you believe the Bible, you cannot believe in Evolution. The two are complete opposites.

To quote Ken Ham and Dr Jonathan Sarfati's article "Why Is There Death and Suffering": "Belief in evolution and/or millions of years of history necessitates that death has been a part of history since life first appeared on this planet. If you believe that the fossil layers (containing billions of dead things) represent the history of life over millions of years, it's a very ugly record--full of death, disease and suffering." http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp

Clearly the Bible teaches:

"Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned" http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=romans %205&version=31

This, and many other similar passages, are not those kind of passages where we can wonder if it should or should not be taken literally. This is one of the very strong themes throughout the entire Bible and is meant to be taken literally. If we do not take this literally, then there is absolutely no point in the Gospel or God's redemptive plan.

No they don't ;-)

In a day and age with Google, you'd think one would research just ever so slightly before making false claims.

Answers in Genesis

"It is thus abundantly clear that the Bible does not defy geometry with regard to the value of p, and in particular it does not say that p = 3.0. Skeptics who allege an inaccuracy are wrong, because they fail to take into account all the data. The Bible is reliable, and seeming discrepancies vanish on closer examination."

I was reading Answers in Genesis the other day (yes, I was bored. It happens). It's a comparatively well-written Creationist site which, for example, comes down heavily on people who use dodgy evidence in support of creationist claims.

The author makes it a major plank of his argument that "if we Christians really understood that all evidence is actually interpreted on the basis of certain presuppositions, then we wouldn't be in the least bit intimidated by the evolutionists' supposed 'evidence.' We should instead be looking at the evolutionist's (or old-earther's) interpretation of the evidence, and how the same evidence could be interpreted within a biblical framework and be confirmed by testable and repeatable science." I was almost convinced... but then I whipped out the FSM test!

As far as I can tell, every single bit of this guy's argument as to why Christian creationism is equally valid is also applicable to FSMist creationism. Hence it is likely to apply to an infinite number of other hypotheses. Hence, as science attempts to find the most probable hypothesis, I must be missing something. Thus forewarned, I was able to visit the Talk Origins site and note that, for example, the AiG comments (later in the same article) about possible variability of dating techniques are dodgy as they provide no explanation for why a large number of diverse dating techniques would all vary in precisely the same way. That and a number of other points make it clear that it's not just a difference in presuppositions distinguishing creationism and evolution/abiogenesis/cosmology.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster saved my sanity! Repent and His Noodly Appendage can save yours too!

The Bible clearly states in many places that God created the world perfectly and that death and decay simply did not exist. Rather it states that death came into the world as a result of the "curse" at the fall of Adam and Eve. For the Vatican to believe in Evolution would imply that God used death in His plan all along. O death where is your sting? For some good articles on the Creation side of this topic check out http://answersingenesis.org/ .

Taking that Law, we can now turn to the most famous equation in the world, E=MC^2. This states that Energy is equals to Matter, times the square of a Constant. Energy and Matter are interchangable: Energy can turn into Matter, Matter can turn into Energy. When combined with the Principle of Conservation of Energy, you get this statement:

"Energy AND Matter can neither be created nor destroyed."

Now that we have established that, we can turn to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, which states:

"All work processes tend towards a greater entropy (disorder/lower energy density) over time."

The universe is getting more disordered and more simplified, as dictated by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. However, the theory of Evolution has the basic principle that everything is getting more organized and more complex.

My arguments summarized:

1. The Big Bang cannot be true as it contradicts the First Law of Thermodynamics.

2. Evolution cannot be true as it contradicts the Second Law of Thermodynamics.

My opinion on the universe:

1. The universe started as a complex and orderly living entity, which, over time, began to expand. As it aged, it began to expand, and the life began to DEVOLVE until it reached our current state, humans. You can even witness this devolving process. Think. 10 or so years ago, we didn't have so many hurricanes, earthquakes, or other devastating natural disasters. People are becoming stupider by the day.

2. As for where the entire mass of atoms came from, either there is a God(which is possible), or the universe has always existed, and there in some incomprehensible way, time started a billion years back, and the universe came into existence with time. And remember this. There might be something larger than a universe...

References:

http://www.physicalgeography.net/fundamentals/6e.h tml
http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/thermo1f .html
http://www.taftan.com/thermodynamics/FIRST.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermod ynamics
http://www.entropysite.com/students_approach.html
http://www.secondlaw.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/370.asp
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermod ynamics.html

This is what I understand the laws to mean...if I'm wrong, by all means, correct me...

But doesn't recent research demonstrate that the Earth is only thousands, not millions, of years old? How can the Vatican ignore something as dependable as the Institute for Creation Research?

I'm so confused....

This is itself a religious statement. You make a moral statement ("should not") that is founded on atheistic humanism. You are using your atheistic worldview to condemn my Christian one. You can hardly expect me to be impressed by such double standards.

In reality, there is no legitimate (i.e. testable, repeatable and falsafiable) evidence supporting the existence of god or creationism and the very fact it is impossible to prove (or disprove) god's existence shows that creationism is not science and can't be treated as such.

There is no testable, repeatable evidence of macro-evolution. (Micro-evolution -- that is variation within a kind -- and natural selection are not in dispute.) All you have are many inferences which are needed to support your atheistic worldview and in turn depend upon it. There is no way to test them, because no one has the length of life necessary. There is certainly no way to repeat macro-evolution.

As for falsifiability, one would have thought that the insane violence done to probability by the evolutionary hypotheses would be sufficient, but since evolution is actually a religious dogma, that turns out not to be the case.

On the other hand, ID is founded on the practice of many branches of science, such as archaeology, cryptography, information theory, criminology, and inded the SETI project. All of these assert that it is possible to distinguish the action of intelligence from random events. Why should biology and cosmology be exceptions?

If you don't agree I encourage you try to come up with an verifiable and repeatable experiment which could prove (or disprove) either the existence of god...

The existence of God is the first axiom of the Christian worldview. You do not prove your axioms. By that token, I should require you to prove the truth of atheism. However I can offer a sure way of verifying God's existence. Rethink your life and surrender to him; put your trust in Jesus and you will know him and receive the Holy Spirit from him. That will be all the verification you could desire.

...or the biblical account of creation.

There can be no repeatable experiment to prove an historical event. The debate between creation and evolution is between two historical accounts. All that one can do is to examine the visible evidence in the light of each and see which better fits the data. Our contention is that the data matches the creation account much better than it does the evolutionary one.

There is no debate! There is no scientific evidence for creationism and no legitimate scientists treats creationism as science.

Since you define science to exclude the possibility of creation, that is true -- on your terms. However, that is a stupid way to define science, since it means that one half of the possibilities are excluded from your enquiry. If the right answer lies in the half you have excluded, you will never find it.

One needs only to look at the parent post to notice that the only sources of "evidence" for creation cited are Answers in Genesis and True Origins which are political preasure groups founded with the express purpose of trying to get creationism into public schools and funded by religious groups and are not legitimate or scientific institutions.

True Origins is a personal website. This is explicitly stated in the FAQ, so I must presume you are speaking out of ignorant prejudice or actual malice here. AiG is an avowedly Christian organisation. However, AiG has a strong staff of scientists, qualified in a number of different fields and therefore able to provide informed criticsm of the suppos

This being said, I believe in ID. My opinions may or may not be true, but they are not automatically false because I am a Christian.

Parent poster: You seem to be like the three year old who says "What a stupid looking car. I could make a better one then that!"

• Why is mankind created with a spine that is perfectly designed for waking on all fours when we walk on two? In fact, the spine is designed so horribly badly for bi-pedal movement that any engineering student could do significantly better after the first 6 months in engineering school.

Why is this not fixed yet? Survival of the fittest and all that. For part of my answer, see this link. Yes, it's on a Christian website. (Unless you want to engage in Bulverism, I suggest you attack the info, not the author.)
Also, another interesting theory I've seen said that back damage occurs when the muscle surrounding it has not been sufficiently exercised. This actually seems to to make sense to me, I've noticed that I have better posture after I've been exercising. This also seems to imply that God prefers that we not spend all day hunched in front of a computer screen reading slashdot, but I digress. ;-)

• What kind of idiot would design a sea-living mammal like the whale, with the remnants of legs inside its lower abdomen? What on earth would a whale do with legs in it's abdomen?

Ah, but they are not legs - we don't know what they are. It's only theory that they are the remnants of legs, not fact. They might serve a purpose, many things previously thought useless have. However, until either someone discovers a useful purpose for these things or a whale with complete legs is found, I'm remaining neutral.
I will admit, this is sort of a trick point though. If a use is not found, evolution wins. If a use is found, then it's like, "Wow, evolution worked when it developed this amazing ingenious mechanism."

• The human pain system is designed in a marvellously stupid way. If I suffer from a small amount of tooth decay, I suffer significant pain, this in spite of the fact that the tooth decay is not at all dangerous to my life. On the other hand, if I get a cancerous growth in my lungs, I notice nothing until it is too late to save my life. What kind of moron would design a warning system like that?

Because, to the body, cancer seems like a normal cell. There is absolutely no reason for pain to kick in.
Cancer does not directly cause physical pain. It is the build-up of cancer cells that causes pain. (And when pain kicks in, it quite effectively. The system works.) If the body somehow could tell the difference between them, we'd likely have a cure for cancer by now.

Also, the results of tooth decay can be highly dangerous. Why would dentists make such a big deal about avoiding it is it was not? (Can someone back me up on this? I read some stuff about it a while back, but I don't remember enough of it to make a good point.)

• A bi-pedaled entity like the human would be able to walk faster, suffer less back pain and in general be fa

The AiG website includes this page of links to articles about it. Walt Brown proposes this hypothesis for how it was triggered and all its effects.

Answers in Genesis is one of the best resources for supporting Creationism.

Science class, where a completely unproven theory with zero supporting evidence is given credibility alongside rigorously proven theories.

The difference between a theorem and a theory is that one cannot "prove" a theory with mathematical rigor but only demonstrate that it's unlikely to be falsified by observations in the near future. As for your claim that creation has "zero supporting evidence", have you read AIG's questions and answers about creation and the science behind it?