Slashdot Mirror

Wrong on all three points.

1) abiogenesis is not part of evolution. Evolution is a separate hypothesis that explains how life diversified once it was around. For all evolution cares, life could have arisen by abiogenesis, or poofed into existence by God or Cthulhu or the Invisible Pink Unicorn (Praise unto her name. May her holy hooves never be shod)

2) Irreducible complexity is not a problem for evolution. Systems can evolve where every part is needed to function. This is due to a number of processes: 1) Parts of the system can have other functions in earlier forms 2) A system can evolve in a non irreducibly complex way and then evolve to require part to function even if that part was previously optional (this occurs when systems evolve to optimize functions they could already do somewhat well). In fact, J.B.S. Haldane almost a hundred years ago predicted as a consequence of evolution that we would see such systems.

3) Others have already answered this. But to just demonstrate how incredibly wrong this is, , one of the largest young earth creationist ministries on the planet, and Answers in Genesis, the largest young earth creationist ministry on the planet, both agree that the evidence for speciation is so overwhelming that they list the claim that no speciation has occurred as an argument creationists should not use: http://creationontheweb.com/content/view/2996. That's how good the evidence for speciation is. Even the YECs agree it occurs.

Instead of claiming that this is about amorphous beliefs against beliefs please try to actually look at the evidence and learn a bit. Also, note that nothing in science is ever "provable." Proof is for math and alcohol. However, scientists can talk about evidence for or against a hypothesis. And the evidence for evolution is very strong.

Here is an interesting explanation for it by a PhD. with the following credentials:

Beginning in 1979 he worked for Sandia National Laboratories (New Mexico) in nuclear physics, geophysics, pulsed-power research, and theoretical atomic and nuclear physics. In 1985, he began working with Sandia's 'Particle Beam Fusion Project', and was co-inventor of special laser-triggered 'Rimfire' high-voltage switches, now coming into wider use.

The last few years at Sandia had seen greater emphasis on theoretical nuclear physics and radiation hydrodynamics in an effort to help produce the world's first lab-scale thermonuclear fusion. Besides gaining another U.S. patent, Dr Humphreys has been given two awards from Sandia, including an Award for Excellence for contributions to light ion-fusion target theory.

Here's his explanation: ( Includes physics equations. )

http://www.creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j21_2/j21_2_61-70.pdf

In fact, most ID'ers are not young earth creationists. Interesting though that the dino bones found not long ago perhaps contained blood proteins. A short article (incl. contrary link) on a creationist site here: http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/606/

I cited the articles to show that creationists have considered these issues, as the parent post apparently thought their "modest proposal" was a new thought.

The original (or at least, 'one I haven't seen presented this way') thought isn't "creationists haven't considered where oil, coal, etc. have come from". (Of course, 'The huge deposits of coal came from the more than 60% of the forests before the Flood that were actually floating on the surface of the oceans, but somehow none of the species of plants involved in such a hypothetical aqueous forest managed to survive the Flood or leave a single fossil' is not exactly convincing.)

The original thought is that, if creationists were right, and believed they were right, that should have concrete economic consequences. Oil companies spend hundreds of millions of dollars hiring geologists to find oil. Literally hundreds of billions of dollars are riding on them finding oil. Which kind of geology do they actually use, mainstream or "Flood geology", and what does that say about which kind actually delivers the goods?

I don't expect to crack any creationists out of their hermetically sealed little mental compartments. But this is a simple, obvious, testable notion that illustrates to others exactly why and how creationism is wrong.

You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:

Forked seams sabotage swamp theory

Oil in less than a century?

Too much coal for a young earth?

You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:

Forked seams sabotage swamp theory

Oil in less than a century?

Too much coal for a young earth?

You may not agree with creationists, but they are hardly ignorant of questions like this. Here's a couple of links which indicate they have at least explored these issues:

Forked seams sabotage swamp theory

Oil in less than a century?

Too much coal for a young earth?

The evidence for a world wide flood go together. Most people have heard of the idea that if you put a dam at the Grand Canyon that most of the Midwest would turn into a giant lake. There is even evidence that it could have once been a giant lake, fish bones and such in desert. Basically the idea is that if there has always been a river and then there was a flood, the river could have become blocked as the water left, evaporated, gone down into the Earth, and froze at the poles. Then when the dam broke water rushed out and carved the Grand Canyon. The idea is also supported from the fact that rushing water takes the path of least resistance and thus would explain the randomness of its path.

The idea with lunar dust is that over time dust collects on the moon's surface. That is a fact and because of that when the lunar lander was created they gave it long legs. NASA expected there to be a couple of feet of dust since it would have been collecting for hundreds of millions of years. However once on the moon they found that their was only a couple of inches, only enough for a few thousand years.

The Earth's rotation is slowing over time, by about 2 milliseconds a year. This means that billions of years ago when the Earth was so-called created the days were about 13.5 hours. The Earth's rotation would be so great that gravity would make it impossible to live and survive.