Slashdot Mirror

The largest absorption band of carbon dioxide is not far from the maximum in the thermal emission from ground, and it partly closes the window of transparency of water; hence its major effect.

Increasing CO2 partly plugs the hole, increasing trapped heat. Increasing water will have much less effect as there is already lots of water blocking those wavelengths anyway.

Peer reviewed studies also show what happens if there is ever too much water in the air, it falls down. And we already know that can't happen again. So no need to worry.

"God created only two people, Adam and Eve, and told them to have lots of children—“Fill the earth!” Scripture mentions only three of Adam and Eve’s children by name (Cain, Abel, and Seth). However, Genesis 5:4 makes it clear that they had multiple sons and daughters : After he begot Seth, the days of Adam were eight hundred years; and he had sons and daughters. "

https://answersingenesis.org/b...

God then cursed the serpent, imposed reproductive difficulties upon Eve and "cursed the ground for [Adam's] sake" [Genesis 3:17]. From that moment, everything that Adam – and mankind since – ate had grown in the cursed ground. Cell by living cell, Adam began to very slowly change from his initial state of eternal perfection to mortal imperfection, and he finally died at the age of 930 years [Genesis 5:5]. Nevertheless, Adam and Eve's immediate offspring would have been very close to physical perfection while brother-sister marriages were the only unions possible! Further, according to the genealogies given in Scripture, pre-flood longevity was about the same as that for Adam, so families were very large compared to those of today. Brother-sister unions were not only unavoidable, but they undoubtedly became traditional and expected.

http://www.creationmoments.com...

The 1mm/1000 years figure is flawed. It is based on an incorrect value of 14 millions tons of dust per year computed in the early 60th. More recent figures are 100 to 1000 time smaller.

Even creationists websites do not use anymore moon dust as an argument. For instance look at the last paragraph in the Conclusion section of https://answersingenesis.org/a...

"Calculations show that the amount of meteoritic dust in the surface dust layer, and that which trace element analyses have shown to be in the regolith, is consistent with the current meteoritic dust influx rate operating over the evolutionists’ timescale. While there are some unresolved problems with the evolutionists’ case, the moon dust argument, using uniformitarian assumptions to argue against an old age for the moon and the solar system, should for the present not be used by creationists."

I would think that when the Mantle went Boom basically the entire world had around of WILL IT BLEND!!
  you can't really say that This Mountain was in place PreFlood.

refs
Gen 7:11
"11 In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened."

https://answersingenesis.org/t...

but yeah Meteor or Flood i would bet that 90% of the species (hint "kind" is not species) got wiped out.

and Hmm having a very literal ARK with a bunch of Proto-Critters and Keepers would be right handy for making sure Life Carried On

You're obviously an intelligent guy. If you're willing, please read the following two links. It shouldn't take too long.
Proving God's Existence
Does God Exist

Thanks, but I stopped reading comic books and fantasy novels decades ago.

And if god really does exist and faith healing works, why has god never healed an amputee?

You're obviously an intelligent guy. If you're willing, please read the following two links. It shouldn't take too long.

Proving God's Existence

Does God Exist

Where do these people get their science?

The Bible.

A friend shared a page from AnswersInGenesis.com about how carbon dating isn't necessarily accurate. I stopped reading when I got to this passage:

When a scientist's interpretation of data does not match the clear meaning of the text in the Bible, we should never reinterpret the Bible. God knows just what He meant to say, and His understanding of science is infallible, whereas ours is fallible.

So yes, you are absolutely right. People do get their science from The Bible. Because it's the absolute word of God. As heard by man. And told to other men. And eventually written down by man as best as they could remember. And translated by man. And reinterpreted by man to fit their various beliefs even if they are self contradictory. But exactly verbatim what God said.

Take a look at this article from Answers in Genesis".

Do you actually know any fundamentalists? They are the people most likely to believe in alien abductions, crop circles, astrology, etc. They don't really care that these beliefs may be incompatible with scripture (which they mostly haven't actually read). Besides, I don't see any incompatibility between the Bible and ETL. God could have created ETL the same time He created life on earth. It would be no more "proof" of evolution than all the other overwhelming evidence that is already ignored by fundamentalists. Some Mormon fundamentalists have an affirmative belief in ETL, and see no incompatibility between that belief and the Bible.

The discovery of some bacteria on Mars is not going to cause the collapse of religion, and will make no difference at all to most people's beliefs.

Extraterrestrial life is an evolutionary concept; it does not comport with the biblical teachings of the uniqueness of the earth and the distinct spiritual position of human beings.

So, Earth is special, Jesus is special, so humans are special, so aliens don't exist.

Nice try. Thanks for playing. But instead of straw men that they don't actually believe in, here is their own statement of their top 10 beliefs about creation:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

Here is their science (wait, you thought they didn't have any). Read up. Educate yourself on the debate:

https://answersingenesis.org/answers/

Some creationists dismiss the fossil record, geological evidence, and other physical evidence of the claims made by modern science as decoys, an elaborate ruse created by some god in order to mislead those who lack faith. However, few of these same people are willing to acknowledge that a very similar argument could be used against the existence of their god, holy text(s), and/or prophet(s). Is it not equally plausible that Yahweh, the Christian Bible, and the story of Jesus and his homies are all just be an elaborate ruse created by Satan to test his followers? Why the abundant application of skepticism when it comes to everything we can observe in the natural world but total lack thereof when it comes to unverifiable stories that other humans tell us? Seem inconsistent to me.

Nobody at the conference will be saying this. Here's what they will be saying:

Fossil record: https://answersingenesis.org/f...

Geological evidence: https://answersingenesis.org/g...

Anything else: https://answersingenesis.org/a...

Some creationists dismiss the fossil record, geological evidence, and other physical evidence of the claims made by modern science as decoys, an elaborate ruse created by some god in order to mislead those who lack faith. However, few of these same people are willing to acknowledge that a very similar argument could be used against the existence of their god, holy text(s), and/or prophet(s). Is it not equally plausible that Yahweh, the Christian Bible, and the story of Jesus and his homies are all just be an elaborate ruse created by Satan to test his followers? Why the abundant application of skepticism when it comes to everything we can observe in the natural world but total lack thereof when it comes to unverifiable stories that other humans tell us? Seem inconsistent to me.

Nobody at the conference will be saying this. Here's what they will be saying:

Fossil record: https://answersingenesis.org/f...

Geological evidence: https://answersingenesis.org/g...

Anything else: https://answersingenesis.org/a...

Some creationists dismiss the fossil record, geological evidence, and other physical evidence of the claims made by modern science as decoys, an elaborate ruse created by some god in order to mislead those who lack faith. However, few of these same people are willing to acknowledge that a very similar argument could be used against the existence of their god, holy text(s), and/or prophet(s). Is it not equally plausible that Yahweh, the Christian Bible, and the story of Jesus and his homies are all just be an elaborate ruse created by Satan to test his followers? Why the abundant application of skepticism when it comes to everything we can observe in the natural world but total lack thereof when it comes to unverifiable stories that other humans tell us? Seem inconsistent to me.

Nobody at the conference will be saying this. Here's what they will be saying:

Fossil record: https://answersingenesis.org/f...

Geological evidence: https://answersingenesis.org/g...

Anything else: https://answersingenesis.org/a...

dismissing all their actual arguments without hearing them out

Here, they're not hard to find: https://answersingenesis.org/a.... Scroll down to topics and read away.

The problem is there is no credible physical evidence to support creationism. None whatsoever, it doesn't exist.

Here is the physical evidence:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/the-10-best-evidences-from-science-that-confirm-a-young-earth/

You may not agree with it, but to say "None whatsoever, it doesn't exist," shows a remarkable ignorance about the debate. The reason there EVEN IS a debate is because there are severe problems with the theory of evolution that are not answered easily.

Ah in fact, they helpfully even compiled them all into a list:
https://answersingenesis.org/c...

But I warn you: the amount of stupid contained there in is at least 10X the lethal dose.

The conditions that create coal during the Carboniferous era no longer exist.

*created coal during

That is correct but the cool thing about eras is that no matter what there is always a brand spanking new one right around the corner.... so in a million years or so the coal that will exist (but probably won't need to be used) will have been created during the era of misinformed slashdot commenters because Coal formation is a continuing process (some of our newest coal is "just" a million years old) unless you believe these stone cold fuck nuts

https://answersingenesis.org/b...

in which case a few thousand years is enough to make coal

the woolly mammoth was actually contemporary with man.

So were the dinosaurs. God said so. Would you argue with Him?

"As you add up all of the dates, and accepting that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, came to Earth almost 2000 years ago, we come to the conclusion that the 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."

http://www.answersingenesis.or...

Let's assume the Earth is only a few thousand years old. Where did the oil come from? Was it created in the ground with the rest of the Earth?

Did you even read the articles you linked, or did you just google random keywords and copy the links in your post, expecting that nobody would ever challenge your pseudo-scientific babbling?

The origin of oil is clearly explained (your link: http://www.answersingenesis.or...):
"Vast forests grew on land and water surfaces in the pre-Flood world, and the oceans teemed with diatoms and other tiny photosynthetic organisms. Then during the global Flood cataclysm, the forests were uprooted and swept away. Huge masses of plant debris were rapidly buried in what thus became coal beds, and organic matter generally was dispersed throughout the many catastrophically deposited sedimentary rock layers. The coal beds and fossiliferous sediment layers became deeply buried as the Flood progressed. As a result, the temperatures in them increased sufficiently to rapidly generate crude oils and natural gas from the organic matter in them. These subsequently migrated until they were trapped in reservoir rocks and structures, thus accumulating to form today’s oil and gas deposits"

This makes more sense than your foolish theory of oil being plankton or dead dinosaurs rotting for millions of years. I know that evolutionists start with their dogma and then work backwards to conveniently adapt "facts" by coming up with unprovable claims backed by hack science, but even the most fervent darwinist must be able to se that this dinosaur/oil thing is pretty ridiculous. How can it be that some dinosaurs became oil but at the same time people keep finding dinosaur bones in their backyards?

Your emperor (Darwin) has no clothes. You can keep pretending so the other nerds will not ignore your handle on the old fart ham radio network but in the dead of night, when you are alone in the basement playing with your radio shack breadboard, you must have this gnawing feeling that there is more to life than what your mind can comprehend. Just like the rational husband in those haunted house movies who is always the last to acknowledge that "some kind of magnetic interference" does not truly explain how silverware got perfectly piled up in the middle of the living room or how blood can ooze from the disconnected tv.

In order to preserve their cherished notions about the "origin of mankind", creationists screw up pretty much everything about science. That's the "issue" you're not seeing.

Is this the hypocrisy in your comment? Have you even gone here and viewed the scientific evidence? Even once? http://www.answersingenesis.or...

This assumes that Intelligent Design is the model with less observational evidence and more fairy tales. In reality, it's the other side where you often find stuff like this video. http://www.answersingenesis.or...

Over 300 years ago, Isaac Newton discovered the laws of gravity which describe the attractive force between all objects. Newton’s laws of motion predicted the orbits of the planets around the Sun. Because he used approximations when calculating the forces of the planets upon each other, he came to the conclusion that the orbits are unstable and would decay after thousands of years. Newton suggested that God occasionally intervened with a miracle, by sending a comet or other object with just the right direction, size, and velocity, to gravitationally nudge the planets back into their correct orbits. Years after Newton, Pierre Laplace found better methods to solve Newton’s equations, showing that the planetary orbits are indeed stable. When asked by Napoleon, “Monsieur Laplace, why wasn’t the Creator mentioned in your book on celestial mechanics?”, Laplace replied, “Sir, I have no need for that hypothesis.” Laplace was likely an atheist, but we know that his findings about planetary motion were true. If he were a believer, he could have just as well said, “We don’t need to explicitly invoke God’s miraculous intervention when describing planetary motion.” Two hundred years prior, John Calvin wrote, “If the Lord has willed that we be helped in physics, dialectic, mathematics, and other like disciplines, by the work and ministry of the ungodly, let us use this assistance. For if we neglect God’s gift freely offered in these arts, we ought to suffer just punishment for our sloth.”

To this day, Newton’s law of gravity and his equations of planetary motion hold true, but we have a much better understanding of them through Einstein’s special and general relativity, and a much richer understanding of cosmology from hundreds of years of subsequent research, much of which was done by Christians. Interestingly enough, Einstein’s theory was also met with pseudoscientific criticism [XIII-3]. In a 1920 letter to a colleague, Einstein wrote, “This world is a strange madhouse. Currently, every coachman and every waiter is debating whether relativity theory is correct. Belief in this matter depends on political party affiliation.”

  - Excerpted from the online book at: http://truecreation.info/

References:

[XIII-1] Haarsma, Loren. Does Science Exclude God? Perspectives on an Evolving Creation. 2003, William B. Erdmans Publishing Company. Grand Rapids, Michigan. pp. 88-94.
[XIII-2] http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cm/v3/n3/history-of-ideas
[XIII-3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_relativity_theory#Hundred_authors_against_Einstein
[XIII-4] Van Dongen, Jeroen. “On Einstein’s Opponents, and Other Crackpots.” Essay review of “Einsteins Gegner. Die àöàÇffentliche Kontroverse um die Relativitàößtstheorie in den 1920er Jahren” by Milena Wazeck. (arxiv.org/pdf/1111.2181)

They believe the facts are on their side. And they just want all the facts to be taught in the classroom, not to leave out all the ones that are uncomfortable for evolutionists. If you want to stop misunderstanding their position, you could start here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

"About 100 feet deep and somewhat wider, it is about 1/40th the scale of the mighty Grand Canyon. This canyon was formed in one day from a mudflow."

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/05/17/helens-evidence-for-genesis

Observable science for the win!

When proof of something is held before us, we do not stick our fingers in our ears and chant "I can't hear you" repeatedly because it might disagree with my personal belief system.

Cool. Go to this site and check out all the scientific evidence. Come back when you have finished reading all the repeatable verifiable science that disproves evolution or gives evidence for a young earth. When you are finished, come back and have a civil discussion with us about the evidence that you so readily accept.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

Remember, you're not going to stick your fingers in your ears or reject it out-of-hand because it disagrees with your personal belief system.

Do you have a coherent thought or just rambling on because I don't follow your prescribed version of reality? And they are cowering, otherwise they wouldn't care what I believed (or didn't believe). I threaten them because I can make fun of them. And there is nothing funnier than evangelical Atheists.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/assets/images/articles/2010/03/atheist-billboard.jpg

Evangelical (adj) - marked by ardent or zealous enthusiasm for a cause.

What other "non-beliefs" can we put billboards up for?

"Don't Believe in Pink Unicorns? You're not alone"

"Don't Believe in UFOs? You're not alone"

"Don't Believe in Leprechauns? You're not alone"

So, most of the other responses here meet most of the major relevant issues. But one thing that's curious is that while some young earth creationists clam they accept "microevolution" what they mean by this is quite hard to pin down. One common claim is that by microevolution one means evolution below the species level. But Answers in Genesis, the world's largest YEC ministry lists claiming that speciation does not occur as an argument that creationists should not use because the evidence for speciation is so strong. http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use. Now, here's the really neat bit: A variety of ID proponents argue that speciation doesn't happen. There's an interview in Expelled where one of the ID proponents says that speciation doesn't happen. This isn't the only example. So it looks like the ID proponents are frequently even more reactionary than the most sophisticated YECs. That's what happens when you are constructing viewpoints to sound just plausible enough to have an appearance of controversy and not actually trying to figure out the truth.

Contrary to the /. wisdom, the creationists have come up with scientifically based counter-arguments to a lot of the evidence that might tend to disprove Genesis. They don't rely exclusively on the "magic" explanation.

I think radiocarbon dating is fairly compelling evidence against the biblical narrative of creation occurring ~6k years ago, but they have an explanation for that too:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-c14-disprove-the-bible

Well most of the god-tards have moved on from disputing that things evolve.

Incorrect. According to Answers in Genesis, over 50% of science professors at Christian Universities do not believe in evolution.

Rather their new shit is intelligent design, which says that god works behind the scenes, controlling how things evolve and change.

Incorrect. That view has nothing to do with intelligent design. Intelligent design says that life is designed, not evolved. The only question is whether the designer was God or an alien race.

So they aren't disputing the fact that change happens, they are disputing the theory as to why.

Incorrect. They are disputing everything from the age of the earth (finding a lot of evidence for 6000 years as well as a lot that has upper limits of 100,000 years, 1 million years, etc., all of which disprove evolution in their minds), the genetic age of man (said by non-creationists to show a lack of mutations exactly 6000 years ago), that dinosaurs died off 65^h6 million years ago (there is evidence that dragons have been spotted throughout history into the 1600s as real creatures), that the fossil record shows evolution (even prominent atheists say it looks as though life "showed up" in all it's forms overnight, with little evidence of any intermediate forms), the Oort cloud (it's a fantasy to save evolution because comets otherwise show the solar system to be less than 100,000 years old), etc., etc., etc.

However their counter is not a theory, since there is no way to test it, and hence has no place in science class.

You could say the same about evolution. What testing was done to align the 66 million year old comet strike with the end of the dinosaurs? Do you really consider that science? Seems like 2 stories that happened to fit together. This science is very little like observational science. And yet people accept it readily with zero critical thinking and bash anyone who disagrees. Why? People who disagree with the truth will eventually be shown wrong. Science should never "choose sides". That's politics, not science.

In any event, if you really care about the science of creationism, you can study it yourself very easily here:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers

All the categories are there if you would like to see what they believe and the science they use to prove their theories. But I assure you, they follow the scientific method very carefully and many of their challenges are very good science and difficult to counter. There is a lot to learn by looking at both sides.

Even if it is right, it is not science as it is not something one can test. Any time you mention god, by definition outside of the universe and untestable, you aren't talking science.

That might be true if they were trying to scientifically prove the existence of God (they're not). Instead they are scientifically proving the following:

1. The earth is less than billions of years old. They have some compelling evidence that the earth is 6000 years old, mostly centered around radiohalos and helium deposits.

2. Man did not evolve from apes, sludge, etc. They have some compelling genetic evidence that man had a perfect genome free of mutations 6000 years ago.

3. The earth's current state was caused by a global flood. The Grand Canyon could happen very quickly (proven by the formation of extremely similar canyons near Mt. St. Helens after the 1980 eruption). That a single ice age would necessarily be the result of a global flood. That fish fossils in Kansas, for example, are the result of a global flood. That almost all the fossil record is cataclysmic in nature and caused by the flood (fossils giving birth or eating show a very quick burial). That the mountains caused by tectonic plate movement require rapid move

Young Earth creationists have some rather incorrect beliefs regarding dinosaurs.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2000/04/03/dinosaurs-on-noahs-ark

Do you see any to get them to accept the scientific consensus?

We have a much more accurate value than Asimov's in Genesis 6:3

"After that Jehovah said: 'My spirit shall not act toward man indefinitely in that he is also flesh. Accordingly his days shall amount to a hundred and twenty years.'" (Genesis 6:3, NWT) That verse could be referring to the fact that God was about to flood the inhabited parts of Earth 120 years later to wipe away the interference of the Nephilim, right after Lamech and Methuselah were about to die. Noah was born when Lamech was 182, Methuselah died when Lamech was 782, and Lamech died at 777. (Genesis 5:25-31) So both Methuselah and Lamech died fairly shortly before Noah turned 600 and the flood came. (Genesis 7:6) The parallel view of Genesis 6:3 suggests that the authors of some paraphrase translations, such as the New Living Translation, didn't consider this possibility, even despite Abraham's over 170-year life.--Genesis 25:7.

So you're saying that all those Biblical creationists, if they hadn't been spoon-fed Bible verses in their childhood, would have arrived at the notions of Earth being 6000 years old and a global flood having been a real event, purely by "man's own reasoning"? That somehow doesn't compute to me.

It may not, but Creationists arrive at that number by doing scientific experiments. Here are some of their arguments and the science behind them if you are truly interested: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v7/n4/ten-best-evidences?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+AIGDaily+(Answers+in+Genesis+Daily+Articles)&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher

Facts are the fossil record, genetics, the redshift of distant starts, the amount of oil under the ground, erosion rates...

I can use each of those scientific facts to logically 'prove' that the earth is young. Other use those same facts to 'prove' that the earth is old. Other's use those same theories to 'prove' the universe is only a big hologram. The entire debate about young vs. old earth is a debate about assumptions of how the universe works. Let's settle for a concrete example: does red-shift prove a young earth or old earth? answer: neither.

Stepping back to philosphy/mathematics: logically, we can not be 100% which is true until we make an infinite set of assumptions - Godel's Theorem

I think we could come closest with something along these lines: 'each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits'. It was described this way in an article I read -

"Perhaps each created kind is a unique combination of non-unique traits. Look at people, for instance. Each of us has certain traits that we may admire (or abhor): brown hair, tall stature, or even a magnificent nose like mine. Whatever the trait, someone else has exactly the same trait, but nobody has the same combination of traits that you do or I do. Each of us is a unique combination of non-unique traits. In a sense, that’s why it’s hard to classify people. If you break them up according to hair type, you’ll come out with groups that won’t fit with the eye type, and so on. Furthermore, we recognize each person as distinct.

We see a similar pattern among other living things. Each created kind is a unique combination of traits that are individually shared with members of other groups. The platypus, for example, was at first considered a hoax by evolutionists, since its “weird” set of traits made it difficult even to guess what it was evolving from or into. Creationists point out that each of its traits (including complex ones like its electric location mechanism, leathery egg, and milk glands) is complete, fully functional, and well-integrated into a distinctive and marvelous kind of life."

This was taken from a discussion on the topic here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind

No, I just don't believe that speciation is evidence for true macro evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cfl/species-kind

Basically, when it comes to biology and geology you're gonna want to take these courses offered by Answers in Genesis.

And why do apparently educated Americans claim to believe something that was shown to be false over 200 years ago?

Because there is so much scientific evidence.

Please define for me why murder is wrong. What moral ground work to you have to stand on? Who decides? The majority? That is nothing more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what is for dinner. I can give you a reason for why it is wrong.

I would like to put forth that only Biblical Creation can account for the so called "preconditions of intelligibility", or more simply put, how we can know what we know. How do you know for sure that your memory or senses are accurate? How do you account for logic? Why would you expect a degree of uniformity in nature? (note, I am NOT espousing uniformitarianism) What basis do we have for morality? I can account for all of these, you can not. I will make the bold statement that, if Atheism were true, we could not know anything.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/atheism-irrational

You should present this testable, repeatable, quantifiable, verifiable, and falsifiable evidence of your particular god for your certain Nobel Prize, sir.

Go ahead, I'll wait.

So, you're saying that I lied? Where? Did I say *all* theists?

No, I didn't.

I read /. at 4 - I didn't see any other posts saying what I said. There's plenty of evidence that what I said is true - therefore, not clueless.

Do you or any of your christian friends vote GOP? If so, you're actively supporting politicians like Santorum, Perry, Palin, Bachmann, and other like-minded Talibangelicals who want to turn our secular nation into a christian theocracy. That's not an opinion - it's a demonstrable fact.

Also, if you don't think christians deny global warming, try reading this link - if nothing else, it clearly shows this particular group of young Earth creationists are clinically insane;

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v3/n4/global-warming

As for the truth, you wouldn't know it if it smacked you upside the head with a Greenpeace sign.

Lastly, how do psychotic apparitions to delusional people count as evidence of anything besides mental illness? Oh, and once again, you deliberately lie about what I said, yet again - I said there never been any fact-based, empirical evidence of any of the thousands of deities mankind has kowtowed themselves to over the millenia; your personal anecdotes, while quaint, do not meet the criteria. I've only stated the truth again - I've never asserted anything but that simple fact.

Science requires evidence - faith denies evidence. I pity anyone denying reason, logic, and reality - like yourself.

>Really? Have you actually ever heard one say this, or is this just the Straw Man that came most quickly to mind?

Yes, I have heard them say this repeatedly. It is the core of the creationist dispute with evolution. For example look here.

>There is controversy among scientists. When you deny this, reality will remain precisely the same, that there is controversy among scientists.

I see you're trotting out one of the vintage creationist canards. Intelligent design is not science, since it offers no testable hypotheses. Even the US Supreme Court has ruled that ID is religion, not science. Panspermia is an interesting hypothesis about the origin of life, but has nothing to do with evolution.

>Behe, as usual, is a good place to start on the biological level.

Trolling for sure. Quoting from the court decision in the Dover School case, where Behe testified for the plaintiffs,"Consider, to illustrate, that Professor Behe remarkably and unmistakably claims that the plausibility of the argument for ID depends upon the extent to which one believes in the existence of God."

Thank you for playing.

Creationists agree that starlight is billions of years old. They just believe the solar system, what with its young comets and all, is young. Answers in Genesis does a good job of bringing a lot of creationist articles together. And by the way, they don't refute relativity at all. Relativity's gravitational time dilation is one of the theories as to how the universe can be old while the earth is young.

You can see their articles on Astrophysics here. Don't be surprised to see that most believe in old stars:

Astrophysics

If you would like to read what they believe about the age of the earth and why they believe it is young, Answers in Genesis sums it up here:

Young Age Evidence

Rather than continuing to misunderstand about the creationist perspective, read up and see what they believe. Then, if you disagree with them, you can at least stop with the unfounded attacks.

Creationists agree that starlight is billions of years old. They just believe the solar system, what with its young comets and all, is young. Answers in Genesis does a good job of bringing a lot of creationist articles together. And by the way, they don't refute relativity at all. Relativity's gravitational time dilation is one of the theories as to how the universe can be old while the earth is young.

You can see their articles on Astrophysics here. Don't be surprised to see that most believe in old stars:

Astrophysics

If you would like to read what they believe about the age of the earth and why they believe it is young, Answers in Genesis sums it up here:

Young Age Evidence

Rather than continuing to misunderstand about the creationist perspective, read up and see what they believe. Then, if you disagree with them, you can at least stop with the unfounded attacks.

So then, according to Genesis 1:29–30, God originally created men and animals to be plant eaters. God’s statement in Genesis 9:3 strengthens this restriction placed on man. ... if man obeyed God, he would not have eaten meat until after the Flood and most certainly not before the Fall of Adam. ... There is another confirmation that the finished creation was to be vegetarian. We can see this by the change in both the animals and man, and that this change took place at the Fall of Adam.

They are quite clear on the means by which herivores suddenly grow teeth, claws and a taste for meat though:

A clear examination of the biblical record suggests that a sudden change in nature took place. The suggestion that God reprogrammed the genetic material of animals and plants does have support from the text.

I remember the old meat-plant quite clearly, but it looks like my memory is just outdated: AiG favor a new theory now. http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v5/n2/diet

From a creationist perspective, also see:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tj/v3/n1/human-veriform-appendix

Regarding rabbits and 'night pellets': after being excreted, these are eaten whole by the rabbit and redigested in a special part of the stomach. (source: wikipedia)

There was an old controversy regarding the Bible classifying rabbits as animals that 'take up' again what they first ate:
http://creation.com/do-rabbits-chew-their-cud

The discovery of this 'night pellet' redigestion process confirmed this.

The Bible does not list an age for the Universe, nor even for planet Earth.

Tell that to these guys.

I was blissfully ignorant of the idea that anyone really believed that science supports a young Earth.

Gaze upon the abyss, and be dismayed.

Here are some great science sites that I, and many of my fellow countrymen, can recommend.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/news.php

One question I'd like to ask Darwin, if he were still alive, is this: If man evolved from apes, then why do we still have apes? Why didn't all species evolve like man supposedly did?

Seriously, pick-up a decent book on evolutionary biology. Even AIG advise against this argument.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/arguments-we-dont-use