Slashdot Mirror

This weekend I watched an amazing PBS series, "Evolution". I would higly reccomend it to anyone interested in this topic, regardless of where you stand on the issue. It catches you up to date on all of the current research and scientific evidence.

One of the segments was entitled "What about God?" which included a segment about a leading creationist Ken Ham. One of the absurd things he told his audience was, "If someone tells you millions of years ago, respond to them by saying 'Were you there?'"

So I looked up this guy, and he is building a CREATIONIST MUSEUM!!!!!! It is somewhere in Kentucky, and they are installing the exhibits right now. I seriously thought this was a joke when I looked at the virtual tour.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

Bacteria resistance is only proof for natural selection not evolution (i.e. gaining information from non-information, e.g. "from goo to you"). Natural selection is repeatable, observable science. Evolution theory uses natural selection as a mechanism, but requires information-adding mutations and many of them (often at the same time) in order for them to be "selected". Yet there are no such examples of information being added. In every case of bacteria resitance, no new information in being added, maybe duplicated, but usually only lost. For example, the bacteria (through mutation, copy errors, etc.) looses the ability to eat a certain food (say, a certain protein). The anti-bacterial agent we use poses as that food. The resistant bacteria survives and multiplies but is less, not more than it's parent. - moements http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/508.asp

"It's very funny to think that the neo conservatives go to war over oil - the compressed remains of million year old creatures, yet believes the world is young."

There is no evidence that oil is made over millions of years. In the lab it is produced quickly, just as coal, opal, petrified objects, fossils, stalagtites and stalagmites are formed.

There is a museum that has a petrified ham, which was petrified in only one year. Likewise, stalagtites and stalagmites can grow in just 50 years. Layered sedimentation is actually based on particle size of flowing material, and not of millions of years of layering. An entire layered sediment canyon was created in 3 hours by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders .htm

Some other interesting links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/ca nyon.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1209misso ula.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/su rtsey.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-155.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

Also note that a young earth creationist correctly predicted Uranus's electromagnetic field, while those believing in millions of years were incorrect.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm

"It's very funny to think that the neo conservatives go to war over oil - the compressed remains of million year old creatures, yet believes the world is young."

There is no evidence that oil is made over millions of years. In the lab it is produced quickly, just as coal, opal, petrified objects, fossils, stalagtites and stalagmites are formed.

There is a museum that has a petrified ham, which was petrified in only one year. Likewise, stalagtites and stalagmites can grow in just 50 years. Layered sedimentation is actually based on particle size of flowing material, and not of millions of years of layering. An entire layered sediment canyon was created in 3 hours by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders .htm

Some other interesting links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/ca nyon.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1209misso ula.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/su rtsey.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-155.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

Also note that a young earth creationist correctly predicted Uranus's electromagnetic field, while those believing in millions of years were incorrect.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm

"It's very funny to think that the neo conservatives go to war over oil - the compressed remains of million year old creatures, yet believes the world is young."

There is no evidence that oil is made over millions of years. In the lab it is produced quickly, just as coal, opal, petrified objects, fossils, stalagtites and stalagmites are formed.

There is a museum that has a petrified ham, which was petrified in only one year. Likewise, stalagtites and stalagmites can grow in just 50 years. Layered sedimentation is actually based on particle size of flowing material, and not of millions of years of layering. An entire layered sediment canyon was created in 3 hours by the Mt. St. Helen's eruption.

http://www.creationism.org/sthelens/MSH1b_7wonders .htm

Some other interesting links:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i4/ca nyon.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2003/1209misso ula.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v17/i2/su rtsey.asp
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-155.htm
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-157.htm

Also note that a young earth creationist correctly predicted Uranus's electromagnetic field, while those believing in millions of years were incorrect.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-203.htm

Plenty of interesting issues regarding this. Take a read here http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2002/0809_cdk_ davies.asp

I have read many of the comments here. Many of them I find revealing as to the amount of knowledge the poster has on the subject. I do not claim to be an expert, but I do claim to have studied this topic from both sides of the fence. I can assure you that many of the posters do not understand this subject. 1. There are scientific explanations for creationism. Every last morsel has an undisputable argument saying creationism can be true, literally as the Bible says it is. 2. There are no transitional forms between species. None have been found that all scientists agree are real. There have been many hoaxes in this area, but no undisputable transitional forms. Again, if you read up on this topic you would get the truth. If you really want to give this topic a fair shake, then take some time to hear out some Christian scientists arguments on this topic. These guys are SCIENTISTS that adhere to any and all scientific truths (but not all theories). The following websites will give you the truth, not myths and half-truths of which you will find many on this page. You want the truth? If so, check out these sites. If not, keep arguing with the uninformed. Excellent site on this topic: http://www.answersingenesis.org/ Another one: http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/home.html My intentions are not to offend anyone, just to make a point without writing for an hour. If you want the truth, seek it. It is there. Thank you, Joe

The weirdest thing is these guys just sap the every last bit of spirituality out of Christianity. They're just so filled with hate and paranoia. That's what sucks more than anything.

Ciao

I hate to burst thine bubble, sir. But apparently you've never studied much religion. Reason is used entirely throughout religion and a lot of it makes more sense than primodial mud giving rise to anything. Read the Catholic Catechism.

There is no evidence for evolution (don't even think of quoting TIME bs). In the same way, there's nothing concrete to support creation. It all boils down to assumptions and where evidence points.

Like someone said earlier, we'll never no for sure what happened. We just have to take a very educated guess. Which way does the evidence point? It's already very plain that there was something similar to a global flood (hmm....Genesis....). There's tons of stuff that points towards creation. So far, I have seen nothing at all that would give any evidence of evolution. Nothing. Show me something, and I'd be grateful. I am not entirely convince either way. But more and more I see the fallacy of evolution.

These people seem to have a few things in order

I think you are mis-representing many well-educated and scientists who are creationists. The one simple piece of evidence that they keep asking for and has not yet been found is an observable example of a mutation or genetic variation that has actually increased the amount of genetic information in an organism. A vast amount of such mutations would be necessary for evolution to hold water. But not a single one has yet been demonstrated. The question was put to Richard Dawkins who was dumbfounded and reverted to the old - "well it takes a lot of time, you know" argument. You can see it here.

here's a good reason why from the Creationist point of view things must be "static"

the bible says NOTHING that a wiseman goat-herder would/could have known 2,000 years ago

nothing about biology, germs

maybe you haven't noticed, but the account of creation in the bible LITERALLY/UNEQUIVOCALLY does NOT expound on any long time-scale,

Is the fact anyone believes in evolution at all !
Come on evolutionsists. Name just ONE example of where genetic mutation increased information and functionality. Geuss what, mutations cause an increase in disorder. eg, I have a genetic condition called osteogenesisimperfecto, or weak bones. Does it cause me to die. No. Does it make me not repoduce. No. Do 'normal' people have it. No. When was the last time you heard of a friend gaining biological functionality!
You are all so blind that you can't see life started out being created with no 'bugs' and has been decaying ever since.
Life is like taking perfect object orientated operating system (way more complex than the zillions of intelligent non random coding hours man has spent) and every few thousand copies or so changing a bit of the object code. Sometimes the result causes death (still birth) because it effects a core piece of the OS, and other times just a nuciance (like my bones). But the undeniable fact is we only observe corruption/decay.
But OK, lets say 1 in 100 times a mutation occurs, something beneficial happens, and of the 99 non beneficial 50% cause death & 50% are a nuciance. Well, holy shit batman! We still have way more decay than beneficial outcomes.
Get a clue people.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/muta tions.asp

> And we also know that Peter was the one that failed (ie, denined) Jesus quickest. In what way is thinking he killed Judas silly?

Because he was a coward. His faith in Jesus was shaken, his faith in his own courage had perished, he was on the run for his life and cowered behind locked doors and windows -- the last thing you expect is a blood vendetta against Judas.
And then he met Jesus resurrected - what then is the need for vendetta?

> > "Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building."
> Why?

Well, lower = warmer I imagine.

> > it is almost certain that variability exists at the subseasonal or storm level,
> > at the annual level, and for various longer periodicities (2-year, sunspot, etc.).
> > We certainly must entertain the possibility of misidentifying the deposit of a
> > large storm or a snow dune as an entire year or missing a weak indication of
> > a summer and thus picking a 2-year interval as 1 year."

> > Besides subannual oscillation, other non-precipitation variables such as snow dunes, can add subannual layers.

> That's a big list of objections. Just as well the ice cores are taken from different locations hundreds of miles apart
> to reduce the chance of a freak weather event making a mess of the results.
> You'd almost think the people doing this work were being careful or something!

Where would we be without your brilliant intellect cutting through previously impenetrable problems? You'd (almost) think those (non-creationists) experts raised those warnings just to play with our mind. Almost.
It's a bit hard to correlate layers that are less than paper thick, don't you think? Or can they say: "Aha - both cores have a 11 mm layer, sandwiched between a 7 mm layer, and a 18 mm layer -- a definite pattern."

> BTW, staligmites and other mineral formations show seasonal layers too....
And you were timing the same variation that causes problems in ice cores cannot happen here eh?

They can also form in decades - not millenia or hundreds of thousands of years.
read up

> > The Gospels are clear - Judas hung himself.
> Acts is clear - Judas died in his field after a horrific bursting incident.
But you are muddled. Acts simply says Judas' body burst after "becoming headlong" in his field. It does not say he "died" in that field.

> "Becoming headlong" is not really "he hung himself" or even "he was burried",
Yes, it simply means : "Becoming headlong" - deal with it.

> in fact the translation to "fell" seems like a sensible translation of an otherwise odd passage/phrase.
What? You don't like considering the Greek source? You'd rather take it on faith from a translator?

> Paul was in fact quite worried when he last saw James because
> he had been caught out telling gentiles things he had told James he would not.
Quote chapter and verse .... Paul opposed Peter to his face, because "he was in the wrong" - and Peter came around to his position. James gave Paul "the right hand of fellowship."!

Read this

Even those "who seemed to be something" added nothing to Paul; that is, they exerted no power over his message. In fact, it became obvious to men like Peter, James and John that Paul was preaching the same message to the Gentiles that Peter was preaching to the Jews (Gal. 2:6-10). Peter, James and John "perceived the grace that had been given to" Paul, and so they "gave" him and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship." They expressed no desire or influence on Paul to change his message; they only desired that they practice benevolence. To this Paul said: "the very thing wh

Guys,

They say a little science will draw a man away from God and a lot of science will bring him back. Just as unstudied scientists may not know the teachings of the Accadamy of Science very well, unstudied christians may not know the teachings God very well. The solution is obvious, study more.

There are many great minds teaching in the Acadamy of Science and many great minds teaching in churches across the world. Indeed I would expect you'll find many more beliving scientists than either of you would expect. You'll probably even find some teach at both the Academy of Science and in the churches across the world.

Seeking the truth should be a practice of every intelegent person on the planet. Believing in God will only come when He calls you (study this scientifically and academically in scripture and you'll find this to be true both ways).

Evolution is a very misrepresented word. It's akin to saying a bird flies through the air and rocks fly through the air too. A rock falls through the air, but because when it's thrown it falls like a flying bird it's refered to in a similar manner. And all the evidence to prove a bird flies doesn't support the idea that a rock flies. It's also like seeing beaver tracks on both sides of a river and saying the beavers can fly. And if beavers were all dead, how could you prove it wasn't true?

Micro evolution is observable. All the other forms of evolution are unsupported theories. Many seeking to earn a name for themselves or promote their beliefs have fabricated lies to support evolution. The same is true in christian circles teaching things like the OT is irrelevent since Christ came and died for our sin. This in does discredit some of the honest teachers in both circles, since they trust these sources until they learn the truth.

I have not met a person yet who belives the entire theroy of evolution as expressed by Darwin (or any other form of it since). They speak in terms of maybe and could have been when they get to parts they don't agree with. I myself was an avid evolutionist and taught others about how the theory works. I find myself in crowds explaining how evolution is not as stupid as many christians say it is (giving explainations to explain those statements) and not as smart as many non-christians say it is (also with evidence to explain those statements).

I have met people who belive every word of the bible is true, even though they don't understand how it can be. Indeed I am one of these people. I know there is an explaination, even if I don't know what the explaination is. Never be afraid to confess you don't know.

The overwhelming evidence to support things that are in scripture leads to the obvious conclusion that if it's right about all those things it must also be right about the other things I don't understand. And so begins the search for an explaination. Yes Jesus walked on water, Yes God parted the Red Sea for the nation of Israel to pass through. We've found the walls of Jerico fallen straight down. The flood happened, many many cultures have veriations of the story including Noah and his boat full of animals (Native Americans, Chinese...)

Do you see how neither science nor religion are belief w/o evidence, but rather, belief based on the trustworthiness of the source.

For more information on evidence and theories check these sites:
http://www.nationalacademies.org/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/


William at phodex.dot.us

Since you will rather make up an imaginary conversation in your head, and discount the capabilities of the lab, than read what is plainly mentioned in the article, you probably love fiction rather than truth. Anyway, here is what the page I had linked to right at the top said:

Note from the editor: Although it is never possible to be absolutely certain that contamination and sources of error have been eliminated, a laboratory's reputation depends on delivering 'good' results. At the time this test was done (1985), the head of this laboratory was on the Board of Editors of the international journal Radiocarbon. Also, the author of the article rang the laboratory in October 1996. The laboratory confirmed that the determination (done in the traditional way, not by the newer AMS method) had included everything possible to eliminate contamination, which included doing what is known as a d13CPDB correction. This is a critical test in regard to the possibility that the wood may have been contaminated by more recent microbes while in the ground or later.

Job's desire to save the lives of two guests under his protection went to the extent of offering his unmarried daughters to the men of his town. Nowhere in the Bible is it said this was a righteous act. It is just plain unemotional matter of fact reporting. But Job had a smigden of faith and believed God - it was that belief that saved him from being destroyed with the rest of Sodom and it was this belief that was counted to him as righteousness in God's eyes. But having stayed from God's will, he ended up alive, but with a destroyed life.

About realistic believable stories in the Bible, the plain matter of fact spirit of the Bible wins every day. What were the relationship between Bathsheba, David, and David's prime advisor and how did it influence their actions? (Hint: you don't need to go outside the Bible and make stuff up)

Yes, Baal and similar were unclean spirits, probably the spirits of dead people. I've seen similar. Your Western upbringing handicaps you to a lot of the home truths that are obvious in the Bible.

Monty Python? I haven't seen the movie either, but apparently it's a spoof about Moses dropping a stone tablet. But I imagine the commandments were the same. The fact that this webpage ends up in several proxies didn't mean it was created millions of times.

You're right - the "hung, swelled up, fell down, and burst" theory of Judas' hanging and "fall" is a bit difficult to believe. However, there is no "tripping" mentioned in the Bible passage about his bowels gushing out. The scriptural passage simply translated commonly as "falling" is simply Greek 'ginomai' whose meaning is "becoming" or "being made" headlong. Judas must have gone and hung himself at some place as the gospels say, then was cut down, and buried in his own field (by others) thus "being made headlong". Perhaps rough handling of his body would account for the his bowels gushing out from a rotting body when he was laid into the grave.

The idea that Peter went and murdered him is silly - Christ himself told Peter to keep his sword back in the scabbard when Judas was right in front of them and Jesus taught doing good to those that despise and persecute us.

Regarding your ice cores, see this:
Furthermore, the ice sheet during the Ice Age would have been lower and warmer at the time the snow was building. This would have resulted in more melt or hoar frost layers (cloudy bands), which is one of the variables used for annual layer determinations. Therefore the uniformitarian scientists are claiming as annual variations oscillations that occur within the year.

The variables used to determine annual layers can be produced many times during a year in the creationist model. Very short term oscillations representing as little as a day or two show up in the variables (Groo

"It was exactly like looking at a slice of modern bone. But, of course, I couldn't believe it. (emphasis mine) I said to the lab technician: 'The bones, after all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells survive that long?'"

1. Philip J. Currie and Eva B. Koppelhus, 101 Questions about Dinosaurs, Dover Publications, 1996. Currie is a well-known dinosaur authority. He is Curator of Dinosaurs at the Royal Tyrrell Museum of Palaeontology, Drumheller, Alberta, Canada. Koppelhus is a visiting researcher at the same institution. Return to text.

Quote:

For one thing, it says:

'Bones do not have to be "turned into stone" to be fossils, and usually most of the original bone is still present in a dinosaur fossil.'2

Ok, but even if the actual bone is not replaced by rock minerals, some fossil dinosaur bones are rock-hard, and show under the microscope when cut that they have been thoroughly 'permineralized.' This means that rock minerals have been deposited into all the spaces within the original bone. Doesn't this show that the formation of these fossils, at least, must represent a long time? Think again. The same authoritative work also tells us:

'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.'


> > Can you provide a link: I thought Carbon 14 is no longer absorbed once a living entity dies.?

> Sorry, that's mostly true, I should have said
> " the background radiation in the test chamber",
> not "absorbed by the fossil". It's 3am here and I fluffed my memory roll!

You did worse than fluff it. You allege: "In other words, all ancient fossils will give a more or less random date between 30 and 40 thousand years old." The reason you say, is "the background radiation in the test chamber".

However the page you pointed to DID NOT back your allegation. Rather it said:
The maximum range of radiocarbon dating appears to be about 50,000 years, after which the amount of 14C is too low to be distinguished from Quick Facts about: background radiation
Radiation coming from sources other than those being observedbackground radiation.

i.e. If a fossil exists that is older than 50000 years, it can't be reliably dated since the C 14 level is too low to detect above background radiation. With such low levels of C14, the item will appear indeterminately *older* than 50,000 years.

> There's a link here but there is information all over the place.
If you have more i

Of course this backs Biblical Creation.

This fossil was apparently 70 million years old and found embedded in sandstone.

For an account of dating problems with another sandstone fossil, see:
In 1984, I was on a geological excursion in Mägenwil (Switzerland). I collected some sandstone samples with fossilized mussels in it...

To see how quickly sandstone fossils can form, see the latest 'Creation' print magazine by the publishers of that website. It shows they can form in a few decades. The pictures shows several such 'recent fossils' found by kids on a beach - bits of glass cemented together with sand, even a car's gearbox cemented into sandstone.

It would have been helpful if the scientists had provided a hypothesis on the preservation of the tissues.

Maybe they didn't want to sound stupid.

(via Boing Boing)

<sarcasm>Well somebody give Ripley a call, because I can't believe that a fundamentalist just went and entered a debate with more rhetoric than fact.</sarcasm>

Why do you fundamentalists insist on fighting the use of reason and rational, empirical processes whenever and wherever possible? If you cannot countenance the fact that mankind's one and only method for obtaining emprical answers to his questions is actually bearing fruit, feel free to patronize your own Creationism museum. Watch out for the T-Rex, who was apparently a contemporary of man!

BTW, which assclowns gave you 4 points!?

So, what was that fellow saying about stupidity being painful? There's a preview button, ya know.

Before this gets any more painful: A Working Link to the article you were trying for.

Lol at me messing up my link

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.as p

WRONG

http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs2004/1106ng.as p

However, some scientists who examined the remains, contest the study's conclusions and argue that the Hobbit belongs to the Homo sapiens species.

Professor Maciej Henneberg, head of anatomy at Adelaide University, said he thought the bones were simply those of a normal human stunted by microcephaly.

Henneberg spent several days in Jakarta last month helping to document the bones.

Harry Widianto, a paleoanthropologist at Yogyakarta's Archeology Agency, said that the Hobbit was best regarded as a sub-species of Homo sapiens in its evolutionary stage between 18,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Harry said that the debates over the Hobbit's species were a consequence of theoretical differences over human evolution

Dr. Dean Falk of Florida State University came to those conclusions by analyzing virtual endocasts of a variety of skulls, including a microcephalic, Homo erectus, modern human and Flores.
...

First, and most important, it is radically different from the microcephalic specimen she compared it to. This isn't a conclusive denial of Jacob's claim that Flores is nothing new -- one skull isn't enough -- but Flores and the microcephalic are so different it's hard to imagine how they could be one and the same.

Infants with microcephaly are born with either a normal or reduced head size. Subsequently the head fails to grow while the face continues to develop at a normal rate, producing a child with a small head, a large face, a receding forehead, and a loose, often wrinkled scalp. As the child grows older, the smallness of the skull becomes more obvious, although the entire body also is often underweight and dwarfed. Development of motor functions and speech may be delayed. Hyperactivity and mental retardation are common occurrences, although the degree of each varies. Convulsions may also occur. Motor ability varies, ranging from clumsiness in some to spastic quadriplegia in others.

However, some scientists who examined the remains, contest the study's conclusions and argue that the Hobbit belongs to the Homo sapiens species.

Professor Maciej Henneberg, head of anatomy at Adelaide University, said he thought the bones were simply those of a normal human stunted by microcephaly.

Henneberg spent several days in Jakarta last month helping to document the bones.

Harry Widianto, a paleoanthropologist at Yogyakarta's Archeology Agency, said that the Hobbit was best regarded as a sub-species of Homo sapiens in its evolutionary stage between 18,000 to 30,000 years ago.

Harry said that the debates over the Hobbit's species were a consequence of theoretical differences over human evolution

Dr. Dean Falk of Florida State University came to those conclusions by analyzing virtual endocasts of a variety of skulls, including a microcephalic, Homo erectus, modern human and Flores.
...

First, and most important, it is radically different from the microcephalic specimen she compared it to. This isn't a conclusive denial of Jacob's claim that Flores is nothing new -- one skull isn't enough -- but Flores and the microcephalic are so different it's hard to imagine how they could be one and the same.

Infants with microcephaly are born with either a normal or reduced head size. Subsequently the head fails to grow while the face continues to develop at a normal rate, producing a child with a small head, a large face, a receding forehead, and a loose, often wrinkled scalp. As the child grows older, the smallness of the skull becomes more obvious, although the entire body also is often underweight and dwarfed. Development of motor functions and speech may be delayed. Hyperactivity and mental retardation are common occurrences, although the degree of each varies. Convulsions may also occur. Motor ability varies, ranging from clumsiness in some to spastic quadriplegia in others.

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

At least make sure you get the story right.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v16/i2/fl atearth.asp

Let's also not forget that evolutionism has brought us such choice individiuals as Hitler and Stalin. While I am not saying that all who believe in evolution are mass murders or as evil as Hitler. The point is that evolution has been the justification for it's fair share of atrocities. Which brings us to the problem we have had since the dawn of time. It is neither religion or evolution, it is our sinful nature and rebellion against God.

"The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God." Psalm 14:1

Atheism is not new

Please see the following information on why origins has very little do with the scientific process in the operational sense.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/crit ics.asp

Creationists are looking at the same evidence as everyone else, and it is my opinion and that of many other's that the evidence fits with a creation model much better. This includes very prominent and educated scientists that are experts in the fields of biology, genetics, and geology.

:) To think that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith is foolish. Most biblical creationists do not believe this. If you wish to have a more informed view on what Creationists believe for future reference and posts I recommend reading the following: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dino saurs.asp

Seriously, if you want a nice review of the topic of scientific consensus, here's a bit from a speech given by Michael Crichton

Wow ! Similarly if you want a review of the consensus on Evolution, check out Answers in Genesis. And if you want to know more about the consensus on AIDS prevention, birth control, etc., just ask the Catholic Church !

Michael Crichton does not believe in significant man-made global warning. He's on the minority side. So of course he will use his writing skills defend minorities against the big bad "consensus".

He goes on to explain that many important scientific discoveries have been in direct conflict with the consensus.

And have been accepted instantaneously if they were backed by evidence, at least after from Newton onwards. See Newton, Maxwell, Einstein and Bohr for details.

Crichton is a MD and a writer, I do not doubt his level of education, but he's not a scientist.

Thomas-

One article I read in response to Kantor was from Answers in Genesis (an overtly Christian group of scientists) who basically argued against Kantor's claims. And quite successfully, in my opinion.

If you are interested or have time, I recommend reading both. Admittedly I don't know much on the subject myself, that's why I'm referring to other people's arguments. Anyone else have any other comments?

It does not attempt to make claims about life's origins, nor should it.

Besides, in my personal opinion anti-evolution is a political tool. It's a form of misdirection designed to keep people in line inside their religious community, and focus their attention in manageable ways so they wouldn't start asking themselves why the core principle of Jesus' teachings (helping those in need) is so ignored by today's political establishment

Same thing with abortion. It's all politics.

Click here, here, here, or here. There's also this bloke who while not a PhD still has a string of interesting achievements to his name.

You could have more names if you cared, but you evidently don't. You got these by not posting as an AC.

Click here, here, here, or here. There's also this bloke who while not a PhD still has a string of interesting achievements to his name.

You could have more names if you cared, but you evidently don't. You got these by not posting as an AC.

Click here, here, here, or here. There's also this bloke who while not a PhD still has a string of interesting achievements to his name.

You could have more names if you cared, but you evidently don't. You got these by not posting as an AC.

Click here, here, here, or here. There's also this bloke who while not a PhD still has a string of interesting achievements to his name.

You could have more names if you cared, but you evidently don't. You got these by not posting as an AC.

Click here, here, here, or here. There's also this bloke who while not a PhD still has a string of interesting achievements to his name.

You could have more names if you cared, but you evidently don't. You got these by not posting as an AC.

Considering that ten of thousand years is nothing in evolutionary time, it's pretty big that we spot anything at all on human timescales.

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.

If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp

Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?

How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/bu rial.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/oy sters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/no ah.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleosol s.asp

And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?

I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp

Let me clarify: by species, I mean that we have never observed an 'organism' changing from one type (say, a bird) to another (a fish). A salamander giving birth to a salamander with a slightly different skin pattern (or different body shape) is not an indicator of what most think evolution is. This will not get you to the point of a single-cell organism (originating from wherever), evolving over millions of years into humans. A salamander is still a salamander.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/bi ters.asp

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

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria .asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/dependen ce.asp

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

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteria .asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/dependen ce.asp

#1 relies on the debunked "irreducible complexity" argument. Supposedly "irreducible" functions in organisms already have a rather detailed explanation. Some information on the claims of irreducible complexity.

#2 makes a claim without substantiating it. Information in DNA is not like information in spoken languages, despite the dishonest creationists who continue to make this comparison. Essentially, you've gone from not wanting to make an argument by "because I said so" by instead deferring to someone else who does exactly the same thing.

#3 is just outright false. The person writing the article is either woefully misinformed or an outright liar.

#4 is an appeal to the debunked "law of thermodynamics" argument. Only complete and total morons appeal to this attempt to assert that evolution violates the principle that entropy always increases in closed systems. It doesn't help their argument that earth is not a closed system.

The "2nd law of thermo" argument is one that Answers in Genesis even says that creationists should NOT use. The author of the piece really demonstrates his fundamental lack of education on the matter.

#5 is a subjective claim. There is a plethora of transitional fossils and living forms, but creationists always seem to want N+1 no matter how many N specimens are found. Here's just a small sample of evidence of transitional forms.

#6 is a common claim from creationists who don't bother to actually understand the evidence. It's funny how many creationists assert that one fossil is "A man, just a man!" while other creationists claim that the same fossil is "an ape, just an ape!".

#7 is outright false. There are multiple dating methods, and no single method is ever used at one time. Findings are always cross-checked with multiple dating methods in order to rule out a possible discrepency with one of the methods involved. Yes, there are conditions that can skew dating methods, but those conditions are often known and worked around in advance, and for the unknowns, there is cross-referencing to detect such discrepencies. Creationists frequently nitpick dating methods without knowing a single thing about how the dating methods are used.

A bit of information on Isochron dating.

#8 is a fundamental lack of understanding of the meaning of "vestigal". Vestigal organs are not necessarily completely unused, it simply means that they do not serve the same function as they did in the past.

#9 is an outright lie. The theory of evolution says absolutely nothing whatsoever about how life ultimately came to exist. Once again, the author demonstrates that when he can't attack evolution with facts (or rather, with his total lack of understanding of facts), he's willing to use lies to support his claims.

It is a common creationist tactic to attack "spontaneous generation", and they also misrepresent the work of Louis Pasteur -- who simply demonstrated that fully grown flies do not emerge spontaneously from rotting meat, NOT that life cannot emerge from non-life under any circumstances whatsoever -- as an attack on evolution. This is because creationists don't actually bother studying evolution before they consider themselves educated enough to attack it. It would be like someone attacking the "absurdities" of Christianity without reading a single page of the Bible.

#10 is an assertion that we can never draw conclusions about past events based on evidence. By this reasoning, we can never claim to know anything about history, and our criminal justice system will fall apart, because there's no way to "prove" that a murder ever occured, much less that an accused committed it.

Again, I ask, where is ANY proof of the earth being more than about 10000 years old? Everything we are taught in science/biology class is based on several assumptions. None of our methods used to date items are accurate (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dat ing.asp) My proof of younger earth: the Bible, which has been upheld by science and archaeology many times.