Slashdot Mirror

However, the issue is not really one of evidence but of conflicting world views. The same data are interpreted in radically different ways.

Materialists assume that there is no God and therefore no creator; therefore everything that exists must somehow have come into being on its own. It doesn't matter how much probability is strained, because for a materialist there is no other possibility.

Biblical creationists assume that God exists and that the bible contains his word to us. This word is reliable because it is given by God; in particular it is certified to us by Jesus whose own reliability is attested by his having been raised from the dead. Any scientific investigation is informed by the folowing certified history:

• God created a perfect world
• The first man disobeyed him; as a result, the whole creation is under a curse
• Men's sin became so bad that God wiped out all air-breathing life on earth, with the exception of Noah's family and the animals he took on board

Correct; this is called inductive logic and it relies on the idea that the world is consistent and that previously observed behaviour will be repeated. That is the foundation of the scientific method.

Where does that idea come from? It comes from biblical Christianity. Our first scientists knew that God is consistent in the way that he manages the world and that it was therefore worthwhile to investigate how it works. Without him, there is no foundation for science, because there would be no logical reason to expect the world to act consistently.

Incidentally, C14 dating is only good for 60,000 years or so, because of the short half-life of C14. None at all should be present in anything older than that. It is interesting that C14 is apparently found in all carbon on earth, including coal deposits and even diamonds that are supposedly millions of years old.

Unfortunately, in speaking of the design of the human eye you don't actually understand how it works, any nore than the people you got this idea from. It is indeed true that the nerves go across the front of the retina, and the blood vessels are behind. If it were reversed, the huge blood supply needed to keep the eye operating at peak efficiency would block light to the receptors, whereas the nerves are almost transparent. The blind spot is 15 degrees off the focal point, which means that it has no practical effect on our vision. All design is a compromise between different objectives, and the design of the eye is similarly constrained, but it is as close to perfection as can be achieved.

Here is an interviews with Dr George Marshall, Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science at the University of Strathclyde, demolishing this particular anti-design idea and here is another by a retired consultant opthalmologist. Both these, incidentally, demonstrate that there are top-class scientists who do not accept Darwinism. They also demonstrate that creationists tend to produce facts whereas evolutionists tend to produce rhetoric.

Arguments about the perfection of design are irrelevant to the Intelligent Design theory, which does not attempt to identify the designer. The fact that something is designed does not necessitate that the design is perfect. If you tried to do it, the result would be a lot worse, wouldn't it? Nevertheless, what you produced would still be designed.

For a Christian, the imperfections in the world are the result of the curse that is on the whole creation as a result of sin. So again, problems in nature are not evidence of bad design but of the curse.

As for vitamin C, we are designed to eat fruit (Gen 1:29) and our present omnivorous diet is a later change (Gen 9). Still, no one suffers scurvy unless for some reason they are deprived of greens, either by misfortune or by poor diet, which is usually the result of ignorance or oppression. So this problem is a result of the curse combined with human actions or misfortune.

Finally, there is a huge amount of supporting evidence for creationism. It is just the same data that evolutionists use to support evolution. However, since your world view excludes God you cannot interpret it correctly. There is no profitable argument between world views; all that can be done is to compare them fully and then decide which makes better sense. That is the reason for presenting both sides of the debate in school and elsewhere.

Well, I guess it's already been decided that creationists can't be scientists. I wonder where science would be without these creationists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/def ault.asp

Evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so its not like modern scientists or Darwin were 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.

Oh, and How many missing links do you want? How many more well-referenced testable and falsifiable evidences for macroevolution can scientists put together while we all wait for IDers to put together one? How many times will creationists in this Slashdot thread say that scientist are ignoring a creationist claim when in fact its been answered so many times they made a FAQ (or sometimes Slashdotters'll use something from the list of claims that a major creationist group asks people to stop using)? It'll be interesting to watch this thread and see the last question being answered.

It is equally stupid to believe that the fossils were put there to "test our faith" as it is to believe that fossils took long to become what they are now.

  Does anyone know the name of the fossilized tree that was found with upper half being different material than the bottom. If fossilization takes millions of years, the upper part would not exist. Also please explain the concept of a jelly fish being fossilized over millions of years. There was an observable discovery of a hat being completely fossilized within time of 50 years in an abundonned mine.

Just a question of personal oppinion, is it logical to suggest that if there was a global flood that sediments would have been massively moved around? Also have you heard many accounts saying there's lots of dead fish lying on the sea floor?

Sad for you, the more scientists discover the more it agrees with the Bible. What doesn't agree is understanding. Facts are facts, but conclusions we draw from them can just be speculations at best. Also letting falacious logic off the leash doesn't produce good results either.

Please take a look here, you might find a thing or two interesting. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i1/ho wold.asp

4) Many processes, which we have been told take millions of years, do not need such time-spans at all.
a) Coal formation.
Argonne National Laboratories have shown that heating wood (lignin, its major component), water and acidic clay at 150C (rather cool geologically) for 4 to 36 weeks, in a sealed quartz tube with no added pressure, forms high-grade black coal.

Just a comment regarding 4a 8 month is needed to produce something that resembles coal powder.

Time and time again I have found that in both Christian and secular worlds, those of us who are involved in the creation movement are characterized as 'young Earthers.' The supposed battle-line is thus drawn between the 'old Earthers' (this group consists of anti-God evolutionists as well as many 'conservative' Christians) who appeal to what they call 'science,' versus the 'young Earthers,' who are said to be ignoring the overwhelming supposed 'scientific' evidence for an old Earth.

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

Recently, one of our associates sat down with a highly respected world-class Hebrew scholar and asked him this question: 'If you started with the Bible alone, without considering any outside influences whatsoever, could you ever come up with millions or billions of years of history for the Earth and universe?' The answer from this scholar? 'Absolutely not!'

That is from http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1866.asp

I highly doubt that date. For one thing, does anybody believe that the blood really could have lasted that long no matter what it was preserved in? And not too long ago we had those millions of year old bones with blood in them.

From what I studied of the dating methods in College I put no trust in them.

This site has an in depth study of carbon dating. I know it's a biased site, but it does have good information.

I know that god put this spider in this amber just to fool us.

BS. The Lord God doesn't lie to believers. What really happened is that the Great Flood of 1656 (post creation) led to rapid preservation of things in an anaerobic environment.

Learn more about creation science's position on fossils

Sir,
You speak big words against God. You will give account for that after you die. In the mean time, during the time that you are alive here on earth, do read some evidence that unbelievers don't want to see, and 'scientific' (where's the missing link?) magazines will not print - too painful! Like most truth is.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Best regards,
    Peter

Unless the Compsognathus dinosaurs were a couple of cm's tall.
Well i was joking in fact .. though the article did exist and was thoroughly debunked in short measure.
If you want a real laugh about idiotically stupid dinosaur theories http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/2.asp

  a few choice quotes

"creation of the Earth and animals (including the dinosaurs) occurred only thousands of years ago (perhaps only 6000!), not millions of years. Thus, if the Bible is right (and it is!), dinosaurs must have lived within the past thousands of years."

"God therefore commanded him to build a great ship (the Ark) so that all the kinds of land animals (which must have included dinosaurs) and Noah's family could survive on board while the Flood destroyed the entire Earth (Genesis 6:14-20)"

"Creationists, of course, would not be surprised if someone found a living dinosaur"

"In fact, there is no proof whatsoever that the world and its fossil layers are millions of years old."

That whole site is full of comedy gems ... Well it would be a lot more funny if they didn't actually teach this nonsense to children .

... or so they would have you believe.

... or so they would have you believe.

Even if confirmed, these findings would only be yet another confirmation of microevolution. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microevolution Intelligent design and creation theory both readily accept microevolution. This is observable science. http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/RE2/chap ter4.asp

Only one mother? I didn't know my mom was your mom too...

well, according to AiG, there is scientific evidence that we are all descended from the same woman, so...

"The fossils that we dig-up are not bone. They are stone."

Fossilization can occur quickly. There's actually been a fossilized ham found. Likewise there has been a fossilized baby found in a 3,000-year-old grave. Mt. Saint Helens has fossilized trees.

It doesn't take a lot of time, just the right conditions. See Dinosaur bones--just how old are they really?. And this was written before the discoveries of soft tissue within dinosaur bones.

One of the quotes from the article:

"The amount of time that it takes for a bone to become completely permineralized is highly variable. If the groundwater is heavily laden with minerals in solution, the process can happen rapidly. Modern bones that fall into mineral springs can become permineralized within a matter of weeks."

"So how do those young earthers explain fossils?"

The record of destruction of the flood. The regularized sequence is explained by three causes: ecological zonation, hydrodynamic sorting, and differential escape. The mechanism for producing the flood is catastrophic plate techtonics.

For a good overview of the young-earth view, two good books are Origins: Linking Science and Scripture and Understanding the Pattern of Life (links are using my Amazon referral link because I'm a selfish, greedy bastard). A description of the current theory of the flood is contained at globalflood.org. All of these are by practicing scientists, although the author of "Origins" has not been publishing in the secular world for a while. Todd Wood, coauthor of "Understanding the Pattern of Life" is well-published secularly (you can search for "Wood TC" on medline). Likewise, the author of the global flood website is well-published (the first few publications listed are creationist, the rest are secular), and is a scientist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory.

More detail about the fossil sorting of the flood is available in the book Flood Geology, though I think some of the articles there are a bit dated, and I have not personally read through it all.

If you're interested in a good young-earth website, see Northwest Creation Network's Wiki, or the more comprehensive but not always as good Answers in Genesis website.

As Ken Ham would say -- "what would you expect from a global flood? Billions of dead things buried in rock layers laid down by water all over the earth."

Personally, I lean young-earth but have not done enough study both biblically and scientifically to make a decisive stand on the topic.

The majority of Christians are wrong about a lot of things. For instance, the Bible clearly states that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. Why do Christians think it is Sunday? The story behind the "Sunday sabbath" is ugly and evil, and it has nothing to do with theology or honest disagreement about Scripture.

YOU say that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, but THE POPE said they are NOT incompatible.

The Pope parted ways with the original church over 1600 years ago. I protest the Roman Church more than Protestants do.

A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the earth does not move and that the sun goes around the earth

When I say "literalist," I primarily mean that I believe the text is true, as opposed to the disciples of "higher criticism" who interpret Scripture in such a way that, by the time they're done with it, its historical integrity is doubted and its impact and relevance for today is greatly weakened. Sure, there are parables. There is a great deal of metaphorical speech in the Bible. But the Creation account must be interpreted mostly in a literal way. Why? Because the earth exists! We are here. It's about concrete things.

If you think the earth is 6000 years old then you are rejecting geology and astronomy and chemistry and pretty much EVERY field of science.

When I took geology in college, I began to learn what a fraud evolutionary science is. Geologists start from the tenet that evolution is true. They use the evolutionary conjecture of what organisms evolved first, and in their minds, they place different organisms and their fossils into geologic periods. So they go out into creation with their *cough* scientific charts, and lo and behold, the earth disagrees with them. So they come up with cockamamie ideas to explain why their evolutionary beliefs don't match up with nature.

If you think the earth is 6000 years old then you are rejecting geology and astronomy and chemistry and pretty much EVERY field of science.

Science has been hijacked! People are brainwashed. The interpretations are skewed. Christian scientists (not referencing the sect by that name) are not immune to extra-Biblical influences. Nearly all of Christian thought in the West is Hellenist, and today, we are living in the shadow of secular states and media. It's no wonder that most Christians accept unbiblical beliefs.

They have studied the universe and the universe is screaming that the earth is four and a half billion years old.

The earth screams that Genesis is true.

Put God's works first. God did not create a universe to lie to us.

Amen and amen. The universe doesn't lie, but people who study it do, granted, mostly unknowingly (I hope).

If it doesn't jibe with reality, if it doesn't jibe with God's direct text (the universe itself), well them maybe some human along the line made a mistake.

Here your bias is exposed. "well them maybe some human along the line made a mistake." That's exactly what I'm saying! Why not assume that human scientists made mistakes in their assumptions about an "old earth" and biological evolution instead of devout Christians (a phrase you used earlier to bolster those of your position) who translated Scripture (sometimes under death threats of THE POPE)?

Caution: If you are a Christian, questioning doctrines by assuming faulty Bibles is a dangerous, slippery slope. You don't want to legitimize this avenue of attack.

Granted, at least a few Bible versions (there are hundreds in English) are faulty, and most Bible versions seem to have a number of instances where the translation is unacceptably/borderline off the mark, i

The majority of Christians are wrong about a lot of things. For instance, the Bible clearly states that the Sabbath is the seventh day of the week. Why do Christians think it is Sunday? The story behind the "Sunday sabbath" is ugly and evil, and it has nothing to do with theology or honest disagreement about Scripture.

YOU say that evolution is incompatible with Christianity, but THE POPE said they are NOT incompatible.

The Pope parted ways with the original church over 1600 years ago. I protest the Roman Church more than Protestants do.

A literal interpretation of the Bible says that the earth does not move and that the sun goes around the earth

When I say "literalist," I primarily mean that I believe the text is true, as opposed to the disciples of "higher criticism" who interpret Scripture in such a way that, by the time they're done with it, its historical integrity is doubted and its impact and relevance for today is greatly weakened. Sure, there are parables. There is a great deal of metaphorical speech in the Bible. But the Creation account must be interpreted mostly in a literal way. Why? Because the earth exists! We are here. It's about concrete things.

If you think the earth is 6000 years old then you are rejecting geology and astronomy and chemistry and pretty much EVERY field of science.

When I took geology in college, I began to learn what a fraud evolutionary science is. Geologists start from the tenet that evolution is true. They use the evolutionary conjecture of what organisms evolved first, and in their minds, they place different organisms and their fossils into geologic periods. So they go out into creation with their *cough* scientific charts, and lo and behold, the earth disagrees with them. So they come up with cockamamie ideas to explain why their evolutionary beliefs don't match up with nature.

If you think the earth is 6000 years old then you are rejecting geology and astronomy and chemistry and pretty much EVERY field of science.

Science has been hijacked! People are brainwashed. The interpretations are skewed. Christian scientists (not referencing the sect by that name) are not immune to extra-Biblical influences. Nearly all of Christian thought in the West is Hellenist, and today, we are living in the shadow of secular states and media. It's no wonder that most Christians accept unbiblical beliefs.

They have studied the universe and the universe is screaming that the earth is four and a half billion years old.

The earth screams that Genesis is true.

Put God's works first. God did not create a universe to lie to us.

Amen and amen. The universe doesn't lie, but people who study it do, granted, mostly unknowingly (I hope).

If it doesn't jibe with reality, if it doesn't jibe with God's direct text (the universe itself), well them maybe some human along the line made a mistake.

Here your bias is exposed. "well them maybe some human along the line made a mistake." That's exactly what I'm saying! Why not assume that human scientists made mistakes in their assumptions about an "old earth" and biological evolution instead of devout Christians (a phrase you used earlier to bolster those of your position) who translated Scripture (sometimes under death threats of THE POPE)?

Caution: If you are a Christian, questioning doctrines by assuming faulty Bibles is a dangerous, slippery slope. You don't want to legitimize this avenue of attack.

Granted, at least a few Bible versions (there are hundreds in English) are faulty, and most Bible versions seem to have a number of instances where the translation is unacceptably/borderline off the mark, i

An amateur Christian, as well, apparently. Not an insult, just an observation. We're all still growing.

I am increasingly disturbed by an administration that ignores whole chunks of the Bible

I feel the same way, except my issue is Israel, not Creation. See my journal for details.

(namely, nearly every word of Christ) in favor of pandering to a small and crazy fringe group who wants an untenable literal interpretation.

If you read the words of Christ, you'll see that He was a literalist. He taught, making references to the flood of Noah's day. And if you read the polls, you'll see that a majority of Americans believe that God created the earth. However, some of them may be "theistic evolutionists."

The literalist interpretation of the Bible is not what's untenable. What's untenable is the materialist interpretation and practice of science.

I understand why someone in your shoes should be frightened. To believe in both evolution and Christianity causes a crisis of faith. They are not compatible, and, understandably, you don't want to be mocked and made fun of by the unbelieving world.

You have a crisis because you are judging the Word of God by the "reality" as defined by the prevailing wind of philosophy, which has hijacked science. Christianity has not been hijacked; science has been hijacked -- by materialists; those who refuse knowledge of the supernatural. You should be judging what you hear humans saying by what God has said. You have reversed the order. Instead of reexamining and reinterpreting the scientific data, "scared-to-death" Christians like yourself marginalize, water down, and "spiritualize" into oblivion the supremely authoritative words of the Creator.

Put God's words first. He was there! And got the t-shirt to prove it. If some "science" doesn't jibe with what God said, throw it out! (And wait for more research.) That may sound radical, but come on now. If it's accurate, rest assured, it will not - it cannot! - conflict with the Holy Bible.

You said you were a Christian.

Whom. Do. You. Trust?

Do some soul searching. Make your decision. If the answer is not "God," please stop calling yourself a Christian. If it is, halleluyah! Start putting His authority and intregrity far above that of mere men, who whither as grass (Isa. 40:7).

Furthermore, I think that the creation story from Genesis is reasonably accurate, given that it was written by the son of slaves roughly 2300 years before the discovery of quantum physics. Let's see: there was nothing, then there was light, then land with oceans, then plants, then sea creatures, then birds, then mammals, then man. Given that birds are widely held to be directly evolved from dinosaurs, that seems like a pretty close fit to modern theory.

Replace "days" with "exponentially shrinking units of time" and the timeline doesn't even seem too far off.

Really? You might find this interesting...

Same old arguments. Same old answers.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
Eveything Explained!!! Enjoy.

I disagree that such an event has been verified by scientific methods beyond unreasonable doubt. There has been much study by reputable scientists that suggest that the Bibles account of history is infact correct and that the correct interpretation of the evidence fits perfectly with the timeline given in the bible. Here's one such study on the example you gave.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v16/i1/columbia .asp

It is an interesting site and one that I'm going to spend more time reading. But from the little I've been able to see so far, it seems to grasp tightly on to a problematic method just like Intelligent Design as a whole:

- http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter7.asp - "...a well-known solar system scientist, Dr Stuart Ross Taylor, has said in a recent book, 'The ultimate origin of the solar system's angular momentum remains obscure.'

The lack of understanding does not equal God's hand. I've read a few articles on everything from anthropology to astronomy and they frequently do this...scientist such and such admits that they have no good explanation for this. We don't understand. That's fine! As humans, I feel our primary mission is to learn, to figure out those questions that sick in the back of your skull and you can't get past. That is what drives us.

We don't know where the solar system's angular momentum came from. We don't know where the pre-Big Bang material came from. We don't know exactly how neandertal related to homo erectus. But that doesn't necessarily mean that God, G_d, YWHW, Allah, Vishnu, Zeus, Odin, or PeeWee Herman is the cause of those things. It only means we don't understand them yet.

1 Kings 7:23.

Of course, you can wrangle a way to make it make sense if you look hard enough. Or even come up with a plausible way for it to be a rounding error. Or, y'know, a guess. There's plenty else to mock in the Bible.

--grendel drago

http://www.answersingenesis.org/

Funny we're looking at all the same evidence and it all fits perfectly with creation, only difference is we have an eye witness account, evolution beliefs don't.

And just for the record your beliefs about origins have no bearing on real operational sience. Ask any of the many scientists featured on the site. Many of whom are experts in their fields. Also note that we are not advocating mandatory teaching of creation in schools.

While I'm not an expert in eye physiology, I hope I can point you in the right direction. To answer your first set of questions, God did design everything the way He wanted, "in the beginning". There's a huge difference between the Intelligent Design movement and Biblical Creationism. IDers do not address *who* the designer is. Could be God, Allah, Buddha, Homer Simpson, etc. Biblical Creationists have a worldview founded in the Holy Bible, which makes their worldview cohesive. Because of Man's rejection of God in the Garden of Eden, the original creation became corrupted. This introduced death, both physical and spiritual. So Adam did die in noth senses of the word: he died immediately (spiritually) and began the process of dying physically (as we do once we reach physical maturity). As for the design of the eye, I would direct you to Answers_in_Genesishttp://www.answersingenesis.org/ . This site has answers to many questions from a Biblical Creationist point-of-view, written by PhDs in many fields including biology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, etc. For the record, I have a PhD from NC State University in molecular biology, and I am a Biblical Creationist. Evolution does not adequately explain our origins, and is itself *not* science. It's a naturalist/humanist religious belief. No one has ever observed organisms changing from one kind to another (ie. canines always have canines, felines always have felines, etc.). Since no one can recreate the past, and none of us physically observed the creation of everything, it is an untestable hypothesis. This is why we should teach evolution AND creation, warts and all. This way students can make up their own mind as to what to believe. Hope this helped!

> Not sure that I would use these [answersingenesis.org] guys as a credible referance.

Especially given their Statement of Faith. Notice in particular the final item:

By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Not sure that I would use these guys as a credible referance.

"I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications."

The reason you don't see ID fossil research publications is that most people in the ID crowd have no problem with the standard interpretation of the fossil record. In additions, the methods of ID deal with systems, which are not present in fossils.

Creationists do deal with fossils. The creationists are few enough in number that they don't have highly specialized publications, but they do have publications that include fossil research. Two I am aware of are the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now just called TJ), and the Creation Research Society Quarterly, often abbreviated CRSQ. The Baraminology Study Group just finished having a conference, and, while not dealing very much with fossils, they are doing interesting work and the conference proceedings are online.

Answers in Genesis ministries actually spends a lot of time and money on Dinosaurs and their bones. In fact, they recently funded a trip to Alaska to search for bones, and I've heard they brought back 200 pounds worth. They are opening a museum in Kentucky, and have a very talented Dinosaur modeller working for them.

As far as how and where Dinosaurs lived, creationists actually do a lot of research on this, but secular scientists usually do not give it any credit, because it goes against what they assume to be true. Specifically, there are many historical accounts of Dinosaurs which the creationists often research. The Thunderbird of the Indians is exactly like a Pteradactyl, even to the crown on his head. There have been numerous accounts of Dinosaur activity throughout history, not just in fanciful tales of dragons, but in plain, direct reporting as well. In fact, John of Damascus was tired of all of the fanciful tales about these creatures going around, and in the 700s wrote a book about them, telling their biology and life-cycle and encouraging people not to believe the fanciful myths about them. Unfortunately, this work is only available in Latin and Russian at the time being.

An interesting account of ancient history with some reference to dinosaur reports throughout history is Bill Cooper's After the Flood.

If you're curious about creationist biology, I would encourage you to look at the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.

"I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications."

The reason you don't see ID fossil research publications is that most people in the ID crowd have no problem with the standard interpretation of the fossil record. In additions, the methods of ID deal with systems, which are not present in fossils.

Creationists do deal with fossils. The creationists are few enough in number that they don't have highly specialized publications, but they do have publications that include fossil research. Two I am aware of are the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now just called TJ), and the Creation Research Society Quarterly, often abbreviated CRSQ. The Baraminology Study Group just finished having a conference, and, while not dealing very much with fossils, they are doing interesting work and the conference proceedings are online.

Answers in Genesis ministries actually spends a lot of time and money on Dinosaurs and their bones. In fact, they recently funded a trip to Alaska to search for bones, and I've heard they brought back 200 pounds worth. They are opening a museum in Kentucky, and have a very talented Dinosaur modeller working for them.

As far as how and where Dinosaurs lived, creationists actually do a lot of research on this, but secular scientists usually do not give it any credit, because it goes against what they assume to be true. Specifically, there are many historical accounts of Dinosaurs which the creationists often research. The Thunderbird of the Indians is exactly like a Pteradactyl, even to the crown on his head. There have been numerous accounts of Dinosaur activity throughout history, not just in fanciful tales of dragons, but in plain, direct reporting as well. In fact, John of Damascus was tired of all of the fanciful tales about these creatures going around, and in the 700s wrote a book about them, telling their biology and life-cycle and encouraging people not to believe the fanciful myths about them. Unfortunately, this work is only available in Latin and Russian at the time being.

An interesting account of ancient history with some reference to dinosaur reports throughout history is Bill Cooper's After the Flood.

If you're curious about creationist biology, I would encourage you to look at the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.

"I can't help but wonder why I don't ever see ID or creationist fossil research publications."

The reason you don't see ID fossil research publications is that most people in the ID crowd have no problem with the standard interpretation of the fossil record. In additions, the methods of ID deal with systems, which are not present in fossils.

Creationists do deal with fossils. The creationists are few enough in number that they don't have highly specialized publications, but they do have publications that include fossil research. Two I am aware of are the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal (now just called TJ), and the Creation Research Society Quarterly, often abbreviated CRSQ. The Baraminology Study Group just finished having a conference, and, while not dealing very much with fossils, they are doing interesting work and the conference proceedings are online.

Answers in Genesis ministries actually spends a lot of time and money on Dinosaurs and their bones. In fact, they recently funded a trip to Alaska to search for bones, and I've heard they brought back 200 pounds worth. They are opening a museum in Kentucky, and have a very talented Dinosaur modeller working for them.

As far as how and where Dinosaurs lived, creationists actually do a lot of research on this, but secular scientists usually do not give it any credit, because it goes against what they assume to be true. Specifically, there are many historical accounts of Dinosaurs which the creationists often research. The Thunderbird of the Indians is exactly like a Pteradactyl, even to the crown on his head. There have been numerous accounts of Dinosaur activity throughout history, not just in fanciful tales of dragons, but in plain, direct reporting as well. In fact, John of Damascus was tired of all of the fanciful tales about these creatures going around, and in the 700s wrote a book about them, telling their biology and life-cycle and encouraging people not to believe the fanciful myths about them. Unfortunately, this work is only available in Latin and Russian at the time being.

An interesting account of ancient history with some reference to dinosaur reports throughout history is Bill Cooper's After the Flood.

If you're curious about creationist biology, I would encourage you to look at the book Understanding the Pattern of Life.

Arguing with the wind? No, there are actually people who believe this shit.

as we can see (scroll to "Different dating techniques should consistently agree" heading), radiometric dating techniques often leave quite a bit to be desired.

At any rate, the date is far less important in this discovery than the implications it raises about the maturation of dinosaurs.

• Here is the detailed Index of Creationist Claims which provides short answers to a very large number of oft-claimed claims. Each has the terminology and links to allow a much fuller exploration of the answer.
• Very well-written and filled with references 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ. For each of the 29+ evidences, they provide predictions and ways to falsify the claim.
• Arguments that even creationist themselves have said should be retired as arguments. Interesting how many of these arguments still get used.

For your specific points, these are very common questions / issues from creationists and others (except the bone question), so the Index is useful:

1. Chance and probability: CB010
2. Information and mutations: we do see beneficial mutations (CB101) and we do see information increasing mutations (CB102), and the 2nd law is irrelevant to evolution (CF001.1 to CF001.5) in our not-closed system. Intelligence: Here's a single mutation thats corrolated with increasing our ancestors' intelligence.
3. You want transitions? how many different types of transitional series do you want? (aka Dinosaurs-Birds, reptiles-Mammals, apes-humans, land mammals to whales.) Look closely at the 20 main hominids between apes and modern humans. Check out this picture. Where is the bright line between human and ape? They're all transitional.
4. unreliable dating methods (CD010.1 to 010.5. Dating methods have been used badly, and the bad applications are caught by science, but which dating method is itself unreliable? (And, because it is often mentioned, fossils and rocks don't circularly date each other, Ham to the cute quote contrary.)
5. aka abiogenesis. Of course, evolution as a theory (alleles change in a population over time) only applies to life. Fast answer: Evolution doesn't fail without a theory of abiogenesis. See also CB000 through CB090and the abiogenesis and probability FAQs. (Also cosmic, stellar, chemical and organic "evolution" have nothing to do with biological evolution. Same word, different meaning.)
6. Each of the falsifications in the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ provides a way to falsify Evolution, in exactly the way that creationists tend to not provide ways to falsify creationism.
7. We have very good ideas of how the eye evolved: (and see also

It is irresponsible for Slashdot to link to nonscientific extremist propoganda sources like the BBC. Where is the journalistic integrity? At the very least check the facts at a scientifically reviewed resource.

It is well known and mathematically proven that the specified complexity of metamorphic triggers of the butterfly is so high it is litterally off the scale. Yet extremist secularists stybbornly refuse the acknowledge the basic math and continue to deny the existence of an intelligent creator. They continue to try to force everyone to believe that which cannot be observed!

I have faith that the Slashdot crowd can see through the smoke and mirrors of the extremist naturalists and see the truth. As for the others, God forgive them for they know not what they do.

Actually, technically, given the passage of time, the probability tends towards 0, ie. 0%. An example ripped (badly) from HGTG:

If the universe is infinite, and filled largely with emptiness or uninhabited planets, then as we increase the size of the universe, the ratio of square metres to one person tends towards 0. Hence, you could say, we technically don't exist.

Yes, like I said, it was badly ripped, but I don't have the book in front of me, so :P The point was, your maths is wrong. It approaches 0%, not 100%.

Also (and mod me down if you like), I find it interesting that you assume that life on earth evolved. There's actually quite a bit of evidence (scientific and otherwise) to suggest life on earth was created. Check out http://www.answersingenesis.org/ or a book called "In Six Days: Why 50 scientists choose to believe in Creation". Basically, have an open mind, and investigate for yourself.

Cheers,

Sampizcat

I am in disagreement with a couple aspects of your post. I'll address the simpler issue first.

"Firstly, the word day is not a very good translation." The word "day" is the correct translation. The original word was "yom", and a review of usage throughout the Bible shows that any time it is preceded by a number it refers to a 24 hour period. Also, Genesis also specifies "evening and morning". This is not consistent with the day-age hypothesis. For further reading: Answers in Genesis. Also, figures throughout the Bible state a belief in a literal six days, including Jesus.

...My next point was going to be that science and religion are not entirely separate, as both make truth statements. Then I decided that, while scientists make many claims contradictory to Biblical teaching, science itself does not. So I'm in agreement with that point, just in dissent with a certain interpretation of what constitutes science (I feel science can only speak regarding the present, not the past, as its roots are in experiment).

I will disagree that science explains to us the reasons we exist. I could agree that it explains how our existence is continued, but that isn't how your statement (paragraph 5) reads. Science can explain how certain chemicals interact within us, but fails to explain what actually provides that spark of life.

"If Adam and Eve were the only two people, where the heck did Cain get a Wife???"

Many people bring this issue up, but the answer seems quite simple. Adam and Eve surely had more children than just Cain and Abel, and some of those children were likely female as well (Genesis 5:4 states that Adam had other children). Back then, the gene pool was definately purer (given all the source material was coming from two humans freshly created), and genetic defects weren't really a problem yet. Marrying your sister may seem like a gross thing to do nowadays, but there wasn't much of a choice back then.
Of course, if God can create one woman from a rib, He could create more. Indeed, a God who could create a universe from just speaking wouldn't need a rib to make a female.
I'm not good at explaining things late at night, so here's a good resource to get some answers from (a lot of fluff on there, but scroll down about half way and you'll find some answers).

I usually hear that God created the world and universe fully developed, as he did Adam. Therefore, there should be signs of age within the world, but there should also be signs of youth. An example of the latter (I am not an expert in the area, so don't assume this is correct) would be the continuous increase in distance between the earth and the moon. Assuming current models of gravity are correct, the earth and moon would have been in contact 1.4 billion years ago. Therefore, the earth-moon system must be younger than that. For further reading: Answers in Genesis.

Its been published many times. here's one proponent of the argument:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/ch ance.asp

you can google probability+evolution for many many others.

Hey Bun, It seems that you are willing to consider evidence that could challenge the current theory of evolution. One thing to consider deals with genes. This is a big oversimplification, but Darwin observed that some population groups develop certain traits based on natural selection. Mutations aside, what this leads to is a decrease in the gene pool and no new species, rather than an increase and new species. Anyway, some other stuff to read can be found at www.icr.org www.reasons.org www.answersingenesis.org e.g. an interesting interview: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/ph ysics.asp Happy reading! -- Eric

Actually the reason by many papers supporting ID are not published in some reputable scientific journals is not because they are philosophical, but rather because they are scientific and prove things that the editors (who don't accept ID) don't want to accept. It's really sad that many in the scientific community do not accept such scientific work because it conflicts with their own bias, and put the label "unscientific" on good scientific research to pressure people into believing that God does not exist and that science has proof. It's just a cover for their insecurity. They are afraid that God exists. The same holds for anyone who subscribes to macroevolutionism. Sure, creationists have a bias too, but the goal of science is knowledge of the truth. Either this Universe was created or it wasn't. One of those facts is true. Scientists supporting creation don't have all the answers and they know that. Many have differing opinions on what exactly happened during creation and when that all happened. We disagree on some points, but agree on the most important point that this universe was created. It's also funny to note how some "non-ID" scientists have unknowingly (or knowingly) supported creation theory and published their work in reputable journals. Readers have had to accept this work and do so with reluctance. I guarantee that if the exact same research is done by a creation scientist and includes a note saying how this research supports a young earth, then that paper will not be accepted in any journal other than ones dealing specifically with creation science. For an interesting interview with Dr. Russell Humphreys, who has some interesting theories and shows you what I mean, go to http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v15/i3/ph ysics.asp He notes that of the several hundred ways of dating the earth, about 90% of them support a young earth. Evolutionists focus on the 10% and refuse to acknowledge the rest of the data. Creationists note the 90% and analyze the 10% and try to see how it fits with the rest of the data, and are showing more and more that that 10% actually supports a young earth. Now I ask you, who are the real scientists? Real scientists look at all the data. Macroevolution is more of a faith or philosophy than a science. -- Eric It's good to have an open mind, as long as you close it on the truth. You don't want your brains spilling out.

I agree.

I am one of those nutty creationist, but I do not expect an unbeliever to accept the biblical account. I am dead set against teaching creationism in schools along side evolution as some kind of balance. I think to do so would be a disservice to the student.

Today, a well rounded education is defined in ways that are in opposition to christian beliefs. But the answer is not for christians to demand balance in the classroom. Christians should instead teach their children discernment. We should teach our children how to recognize the patterns of this world.

What business is it of mine how an unbeliever conducts his or her life? What business is it of mine how an unbeliever raises his or her children? Maybe when we christians can demonstrate by, for example, getting that divorce rate lower than the non-christian rate, then we might have a leg to stand on in the realm of family values. Besides, Paul tells christians in I Corinthians 5 not to judge those outside the church.

I think evolution is pretty far fetched, but I can't come up with a theory that science would swallow either. If I'm fine with an account of our origins that is so awesome and far fetched to the unbeliever, why would I expect something more believable from the unbeliever?

Furthermore, while a discovery like this soft tissue business is certainly interesting, if I already believe the bible is the authority on our origins and such, why would I need external evidence like this? I'll read it and move on. It doesn't rock my world.

Dr. Walter Veith, B.Sc. (Hons), M.Sc. (cum laude), Ph.D., noted for his biological research, a distinguished professor from South Africa:

Would you expect anyone who believes in creation to be well published? Of course not, because of the prejudice against it. However, as long as the articles written don't give away the beliefs of the author, but only deal with facts, some creationists manage to get published in spite of the bias in the system. Of course, most would rather sneer at creationism than provide a counter argument.

Read this for more background:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/pr ofessing_creation.asp?vPrint=1

There is a whole bunch of information on both sides of the argument, and I'm only familiar with some of it. I like http://www.answersingenesis.org/ as well as http://icr.org/ for alternative viewpoints. Some of the better authors on the ID side are James Perloff, Dr. William A. Dembski, and A. E. Wilder-Smith.

It's worth reading just to find out what the non-crazy ID people come up with. Scientists have a bad habit of not questioning what is already accepted (how many models of the atom have we had in the last 70 years? How much bitching was there when we discovered that there was no Aether, and that Phlogiston was a myth?). Intelligent ID-ers like the ones mentioned above do bring a very critical scientific eye to areas of science that is mainstream scientists as dogmatic.

I'd just be happy if high schools would realize that there are some well-educated and intelligent ID-ers out there, instead of dismissing us as uneducated rednecks.

I'm really happy to see this discussed again, this debate is finally warming up again in the 21st century!

I consider myself a strong Biblical literalist, and as such I must say that I strongly disagree with several of BytePusher's characterizations of "fundamentalists". I don't want to demean him, I'm just chipping in my two cents to provide an alternate view of our externally and broadly defined group.

True Christian fundamentalists by definition believe that the God of the Bible is the intelligent Designer and Creator of the universe. The inspired account of this Creation resides in Genesis, and that account contradicts the concept of macroevolution. (I hate to repeat this obvious point: microevolution is undeniable fact. The only problem arises when vastly different creatures like whales and elephants or monkeys and humans are purported to be ancestrally linked) Genesis has an uncanny way of stating that Creation occurred in 7 literal days: "And there was morning, and there was evening..." Furthermore, macroevolution intrinsically requires death and suffering, whereas Genesis cannot tolerate their presence since God pronounced everything to be good until the fall of man.

Fossils provide strong evidence for a worldwide flood. Creationists and evolutionists see the same evidence, they simply interpret it differently. The difference is, when you interpret it in the light of the Bible, it actually makes sense! :-) We have no problems like those of the evolutionists with their "missing links". You might still be wondering about the ages of "millions of years" tacked onto various fossils. Consider first that these dates are modified frequently, plainly revealing their inaccuracy. Secondly, dating methods are widely abused and use statistically improper extrapolation techniques. See the resources below for details.

As always, I encourage you to check out http://www.icr.org/ and http://www.answersingenesis.org./ Some of the materials they endorse are simply amazing to read. "Darwin's Black Box" in particular is a really fun and interesting book. (I should be getting paid for this. ;-) )

What you fail to remember are the Laws of Thermodynamics and that entropy, chaos, is increasing

Oh, come on! This is really basic stuff!
Even most creationists have abandoned this one by now. Heck, even the site that YOU cite (answersingenesis) lists this one on their Arguments we'd advise creationists NOT to use page (i.e. failed arguments against evolution)

For a more detailed overview, read this and consider the fact that you obviously don't know as much about evolution OR thermodynamics as you thought you did... so where else might you be wrong?

"Particle size does not produce the layering seen in the geologic record. (if it did we wouldn't see millions of layers with similar structure, but a few dozen layers with radically different composition)."

Why not look at the experiments?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v3/i1/laminatio n.asp

"2) The is huge evidence that oil is made over a period of millions of year in nature. It is true that by using a process discovered in the last decade one can produce oil in hours. There is *zero* evidence that this is how nature did it."

"3) No one is saying that it always takes a long time to petrify something. In fact, it is commonly known that under the right circumstances it is trivial to petrify things. One example of "the right circumstances" would be a global flood. If that had actually happened there would be millions of times more fossils than are actually found in the geologic record."

How many would there be?

"5) The uranus prediction is utter nonesense since it seems to predict any field. Plus, it's very amusing that he brags about being published in a "peer reviewed creation journal". Oh well, I suppose that's what you do with your memo after it's rejected by actual journals."

Well, Humphreys gave a number range, and it was _within_ his, and it was NOT IN the range given by others. His ranges did not overlap theirs.

"It's very amusing that the creationists think *they* understand science but that the entire scientific community has missed the boat"

Except that you are separating creationists from scientists. There are many creationists who are scientists. One of the more influential in biology was Mendel, who showed that the genetic traits he discovered disproved evolution.

The scientists you are referring to are going off of a priori assumptions of naturalism, and for naturalism to be true, there must have been long ages that have passed. But when you remove that assumption, you find that the interpretations of the data that give long ages were more a product of the assumption of naturalism than the only reasonable method of interpretation.

One thing I will say about this is Evolution is a Theory. Creation is also a theory. Both need to be taught and discussed.

I happen to be on the creationist side and feel that there are holes in evolution. The thing that convinced me the most is that evolutionist want me to believe that we evolved by chance. What you fail to remember are the Laws of Thermodynamics and that entropy, chaos, is increasing (the reason my aptartement never cleans itself and just gets worse). For a single cell thing to become more entropy would need to decrease. That can't happen without work being done. This is simple Physics 101. Also we look for Aliens using the Intelligent Design. An evolutionist looking for E.T. needs to ask himself 'How do we know that the organized pattern of radio waves we are looking for didn't just evolve by chance like we did'. If you take a critical look at evolution you will see it is as full of holes as they claim creation to be.

I am not a biologist and admit I probably could not convince any biologist/evolutionist of creation. However, I have known some trustworthy biologists who were creationists and they explained it well. A good web site for reading more on the creation theory is Answers In Genesis.