Slashdot Mirror

Check out this

Of course it doesn't make sense from evolutionary points of view. That's because evolution doesn't make sense. If you doubt me, ask people here http://www.icr.org/

Sickofthisshit,

As I understand it, the reason they are using bacteria is because it is a living fossil; in other words, it is the same bacteria we find in the fossil record which means it would be the same bacteria that would have evolved.

Are you implying the biologists working on the Genome project are not main stream?

Are you familiar with Einstein's Gulf? Here is a link using Einstein's Gulf to support their position that macro evolution is not possible: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-327.htm.

If you have not figured it out yet my problem is with macro evolution not being provable and even worse not being supported by standard scientific methods. My bigger issue is with out of date text books that teach macro evolution concepts that have been falsified, the list is huge.

As far as having 3 billion years to evolve, that is even in question with recent discoveries of the quantization of the redshifts; this is not what would be predicted to happen in an expanding universe. Hubble's Law stands on its own, Hubble's assertion that the universe is expanding does not, another possibility is that an expansion took place and we live in a static universe that is finite, has an edge and a center. This is consistent with our observations of quantized redshifts and the theory of general relativity.

For the past few years I have been studying the various sciences on a daily basis trying to understand evolution and the age of the universe, the answer is not as clear cut as main stream science would have you believe. I began the study as a sort of a joke because someone told me the age of the earth and macro evolution was in question; I thought, what a joke everyone knows that is absolutely ridiculous. Well, in three years spending countless hours researching the subjects I have not found any evidence that proves the young earth scientists are wrong or macro evolution is even possible.

I am not the smartest guy in the world so I just read everything I can get a hold of on the subject and try my best to understand the various arguments. I am smart enough to realize there are arguments on both sides and not proofs because people agree on proofs; for example, there is no disagreement about Hubble's Law, micro evolution, giraffe's necks didn't grow long because of stretching, embryos don't have gills and proteins that are created using high voltage in an unnatural environment do not survive let alone evolve.

Concerning your ancestry back to Adam; it is not widely published, the best prehistory record of man's generations is found in Genesis 10, generally labeled the table of nations, secular scholars use it as a reference all the time.

As far as the lineage from Noah back to Adam, this not agreed upon because it cannot be proved or disproved so the following statement is subjective based on the lineage of Adam to Noah. If you can trace your lineage to a specific region you can also trace your lineage back to Adam, I personally go back thru Japheth.

It might be interesting to note that pterodactyls or flying lizard would need an atmospheric pressure that is at least twice the density of our current atmosphere in order to support flight. The Biblical record of the ages of the people before the flood is consistent with this dense of an atmosphere that would block UV; thus, prolonging the aging process. It is even more interesting, if you calculate the number of people that would be on the earth at the time of the flood based on a standard birth rate there would have been about one billion people, you can do the same calculation for after the flood and you get approximately 6 billion people.

Does this prove anything? Not really; though, it does show the Bible is consistent with what we know and understand about the physical requirements of pterodactyl flight, prehistory migrations of man, the current population of the earth and aging in a greatly reduced UV environment.

As far as my standard

It seems as though you are accepting the fundamentalist position of a strict, literalistic reading of a translation of scripture as being the only possible position. It is only in the last couple of centuries in the U.S. that this has been so, and it is due to a particular brand of Christianity that has grown up in the U.S.

You really don't know anything about Catholicism, do you?

Next time you make "predictions" like this, it would be nice if you tell the rest of us.

What contradicting evidence?

First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.

Quote:
Evolutionist Quote of the Week

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.

For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:

Notice the credentials of the author:
Joseph W. Francis
Associate Professor of Biology
Cedarville College, Ohio

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm

I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.

Scientists speak about evolution:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1 .htm#top

More information about evolution the atheists don't want you to know:

http://evolution-facts.org/

More links:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/

One of my favorites: "The Origin of Language and Communication"
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.

BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.

Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or

He does go into more detail in some of the papers he references, but they're on similarly shaky ground.

The paper The Creation of Planetary Magnetic Fields contains a number of faith-based a priori assumptions. To wit:

To calculate the magnetic moment of a planet at creation, we must know the original material. In the previous article I presented Scriptural evidence that God originally created the Earth as a sphere of pure water.

The paper then proceeds from this assumption, calculating the magnetic moment of water, and so on.

You could proceed logically from such a questionable assumption, and come out with an equally questionable result. At least that would give you "if you accept premise A, I can show you that B is correct". However, there is more heavenly interference going on (I'll be adding my own italics - they're not in the original, of course):

All the magnetic moments cancel out, so that water normally has no net magnetic moment of its own. However, God was under no requirement to create the water molecules in their normal order. For example, He could have created all the molecules with their proton magnetic moments lined up in a given direction, producing the maximum magnetic moment possible from the protons. Or, He could have lined up the protons of the third ortho group (Figure 4(D)) along the field axis. Figure 5 shows this order. This would produce a field having one-fourth of the maximum strength with a minimum of deviation from the normal order. I do not know from Scripture what proportion of the protons God aligned in each case. In the previous article I put an arbitrary factor, k, into the equations. This alignment factor represents what fraction' of the maximum field God chose.

So, not only do we have to take on assumption that the earth started out as a sphere of water, but that, contrary to the current laws of physics, God is artificially aligning the water molecules to create a magnetic field.

The earth starting out as a sphere of water would presuppose as well that either the water can turn into rock (if you can find it, you can follow into his similarly-styled paper on "Is The Earth's Core Water?" - looks like it may only be in paper form or for subscribers only), or attract rock from nearby space (which would throw off the initial masses considerably - and which it doesn't look like he's promoting).

I would reiterate: the creationists are not being scientifically discriminated against, they're invoking supernatural powers to create just the right starting conditions and occasionally interfering with their development in order to arrive at the right already-measured values. That is not scientific, because it can never be proved wrong; the conditions and interference can be changed to suit.

I will actually levy the same charge against the current crop of cosmologists as well. They have made their theories so flexible that they can tweak knobs on equations at will, which means that it has lost nearly all predictive power.

The exchanges between Humphreys and Ross are pretty interesting :) Ross' side of the storm can be found at Reasons to Believe. Humphreys' side is peppered into numerous headlines at the ICR.

I'm inclined to believe Ross' reasons for reticence; ICR-sponsored debaters are known for being charismatic, picking the venue for maximum layman and supporter audience attendance, and coming with a well-prepared slick presentation and pitch, which their opponents, expecting an actual debate, come off as being boring, pedantic, and constantly on the defence. Ross has the right to be scared of that. Moderated debates, such as those on radio and television, do much better, and that goes as much for political debates.

Cheers, Eric

-- Ritchie

Oh my god; scientific my great hairy behind. If there was ever a case for setting up theories that "evolutionists" don't actually believe in, and have nothing to do with, it would be this.

Here is one of Humphrey's publications.

It cherry-picks pieces from a handful of scientific articles, and footnotes other CR papers for the majority of the rest.

From what I can gather, he asserts that magnetic fields must wind down over time (referring to Barnes' creationist paper)...

Not all creationists agree with my hypothesis that the original material was water, but all agree that once a magnetic field existed, it would decay over time.

...then he takes guesses and estimates, with no method for estimation given, that a creation 6,000 years old (according to an exact chronology given in Genesis) with winding down magnetic fields agrees with his mysterious estimates.

Using accepted models (which are really only guesses) of the cores' and an age of 6,000 years,6 I estimated the present magnetic moments for the Sun, Moon, and all the planets for which we had magnetic data in 1984.2 The values I got agreed well with the measured values shown by the solid dots in Figure 1.

On top of lumping everyone who believes in a universe, never mind an Earth, older than 6,000 years an "evolutionist", which is a mischaracterization itself (paint all old-earth geologists with that brush, why don't they?), the paper positively drips with False Dilemma, the belief that since a feature was not predicted, that their own personal after-the-observation-was-made guess validates the philosophy their brown thumb estimates came from, and that their view versus picked, made-up, or long-abandoned scientific hypothesis are the only two choices to be made.

These folks are not being turned away at the gates of scientific journals due to persecution or blindness. They have fundamental difficulties at the "show your work" stage.

I call shenanigans.

here is an entire organization of them: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalsc ientists.html

What is notable about creation "scientists" is that they never seem to accomplish anything of note in biology. Hardly any of them have publications in major scientific peer-reviewed journals. None have won any of the major scientific awards. While scientists who use evolution as a research tool are making discoveries not merely in evolution, but in fields as far afield as biochemistry, genetics, pharmacology, and molecular biology, creation "scientists" don't seem to do anything but creation science. The ultimate test of a theory is how useful it is in providing a basis for discovery. Many scientists don't even care about evolutionary issues per se, any more than they care about number theory. They use evolutionary theory for the same reason that they use mathematics--because their experience has shown them that it is an indispensable tool in their own area of study.

here is an entire organization of them: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalsc ientists.html

Damn cultists.

"Can you name more than a handful of actual practicing scientists in biology or genetics"

here is an entire organization of them: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalsc ientists.html

"Do you think teaching students a blatant lie that there is some conflict going on, is appropriate?"

you mean like telling people the world is flat? Popular opinion does not a fact make.

"Look, the ID advocates have already pretty much stopped trying to hawk their pseudo-scientific argument from incredulity directly."

I know some that would disagree. And do we really have to start the name calling? Just because we're talking about the Kansas school system doesn't mean we have to act like we're in it.

I'm not interested in a yelling match so take a deep breath and relax. The internet is a highly restrictive communication medium, so let's take it slow.

Lest your gross generalizations take hold, have you read these:

http://www.icr.org/faqs/Biology_Evolution/

I'm far from capable of explaining every last minutiae in this discussion, but I am having trouble understanding what exactly you are suggesting. It's entirely likely you are far more intelligent than I and I can't hold a satisfying conversation for you.

Perhaps you could take it one step at a time.

I've done a lot of research on ID/evolution, and here are some points i'd like to make. Note: when I started reading this thread, there were 3000+ posts already; I could only skim it. So please bear with me if I'm repeating anything.

I'm getting much of this information from In the Beginning, an excellent book about Creation Science. It lists 135+ evidences against evolution, and introduces Hydroplate Theory, a theory that attempts to explain the Flood and just about ANY geological feature you can think of, and many you can't.

First, some points I picked up on the thread:

1. Where did the fossils come from?
The fossils were laid down during the flood. An interesting experement was done once in which they took some dead animals of various different types (reptile, amphibian, bird, mammal, etc) and placed them in a tank of water. As they sunk, the "lower" animals were the first to sink, followed by the "higher" animals (e.g. Sorted by amphibian, reptile, mammal, bird, etc.). This information came from the book but can't seem to find it. If I can find it, I will post the web address.

2. Macroevolution/Microevolution
It is a established fact that life forms adapt to their enviroment; if they did not, they would go extinct. But this does not mean they can turn into an entirely different species; there are limits to how far a life form can change. This is why you do not see, e.g. horses breed down to the size of weiner dogs. Book references: http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces2.html, http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/LifeScie nces6.html,

Now some points of my own:

1. Problems with the fossil record
Despite the thousands and thousands and thousands of fossils found, NOT A SINGLE TRANSITION FOSSIL has been found. All "early man" fossils have been shown to be either a hoax (Piltdown Man), Modern man (Neaderthal), primate/ape (Lucy,or not even close to human! (Nebraska Man). Fossilized human footprints have been found right next to dinosaur footprints!
References:
23. Fossil Gaps
Notes for above. This is especially interesting, as it is evolutionists saying most of this.
24. Missing Trunk
25. Out-of-Place Fossils
26. Ape-Men?


2. Bacterial Flaggela
Flaggela are an amazing machine bacteria use them to move around. They can spin up to 100,000+ RPM, stop on a dime, and rev back up in the other direction in a fraction of a second.
Bacterial flaggela are made up of 40+ distinct parts, most or all of which must be present for it to operate. There is no way such a thing could evolve, as the other parts are useless without the others.
Some have said that it evolved from a pump that shares similar parts. But it only shares about 10 parts with it. Where did the other 30 come from? And where did the pump come from?

3. Origin of life
Life is so complex, that to create even a single self-replicating RNA sequence or a protein, is so unlikely as to basicaly be impossible. References:
28. Chemical Elements of Lif

also check this site for the rebuttals to your points.

http://www.icr.org/faqs/

Sorry it took so long for me to post.

I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm

and this site rebuttals most of the statements that have been made about evolving bacteria and the such.

http://www.icr.org/faqs/

I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm

and this site rebuttals most of the statements that have been made about evolving bacteria and the such.

http://www.icr.org/faqs/

I'm pretty sure this is going to be my last post on this topic. It's pretty much because I don't have the time to continue posting. All i want is whoever is reading this to go here and read this article. It explains how the length of evolution can't be as long as some scientists say.

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-082.htm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One of the other common errors is explained in your statement: The same principles apply at lower or higher levels of evolutionary development. The problem is that there exists no biological metric to describe what these are! Humans have rather average numbers of genes compared to other mammals, more than some types of bacteria, less than others, more than some types of plants, MUCH less than some others (one species of bean has about 1000 times as many base pairs as humans IIRC). The number of generations is similar as well.

The only thing I have been able to find that this Dr. Veith has ever done is health quakery and a handful of forgettable papers.

Good info at http://www.icr.org/.

1. intelligent design is not exclusively Christian
2. seperation of church and state does not mean that that theories put forth by scientific groups, or even purely religous groups should not be taught as theories in a classroom.
3. there seems to be a lack of defense for ID, and a lot of wild flaming, so i would encourage people to investigate things, rather than taking anything said here as a basis for any credible information on the issues. I have yet to see any information or links provided to current research being done into ID. Most references are being drawn from older purely "creationist" material.

Here are some links...
Institute for creation research...yah these are are Christians scientists supporting ID and creationism... so go ahead and get angry if that offends you.
http://www.icr.org/index.html
http://www.icr.org/research/

here is the site of a college ID group. has a lot of links, and im sure there are some people willing to debate with anyone interested in actually hearing someone defend ID... not that it seems anyone here is.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml

there must be more "good" ID links, but i do not know them. if anyone else has some i would encourage their being posted

I have heard what are... to me... very credible arguments for ID, Though i do not have the knowledge or time to defend it in this forum.
well, my shift at work just ended, so its time to get productive. hope this post has made this a more rational place -ben

1. intelligent design is not exclusively Christian
2. seperation of church and state does not mean that that theories put forth by scientific groups, or even purely religous groups should not be taught as theories in a classroom.
3. there seems to be a lack of defense for ID, and a lot of wild flaming, so i would encourage people to investigate things, rather than taking anything said here as a basis for any credible information on the issues. I have yet to see any information or links provided to current research being done into ID. Most references are being drawn from older purely "creationist" material.

Here are some links...
Institute for creation research...yah these are are Christians scientists supporting ID and creationism... so go ahead and get angry if that offends you.
http://www.icr.org/index.html
http://www.icr.org/research/

here is the site of a college ID group. has a lot of links, and im sure there are some people willing to debate with anyone interested in actually hearing someone defend ID... not that it seems anyone here is.
http://www-acs.ucsd.edu/~idea/index.shtml

there must be more "good" ID links, but i do not know them. if anyone else has some i would encourage their being posted

I have heard what are... to me... very credible arguments for ID, Though i do not have the knowledge or time to defend it in this forum.
well, my shift at work just ended, so its time to get productive. hope this post has made this a more rational place -ben

"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

http://www.icr.org/

The Institute for Creation Research

Whole bunch of them.

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,

Ok, I have to say that list (and the list here: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalsc ientists.html ) demolishes the idea that people never graduate from a biology doctorate program as a creationist. That shows how effective creationists are in using faith to recruit scientists to compromise their integrity.

Ok, I have to say that list (and the list here: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalsc ientists.html ) demolishes the idea that people never graduate from a biology doctorate program as a creationist. That shows how effective creationists are in using faith to recruit scientists to compromise their integrity.

I'm a materialist, but I see that as a theory not a religion. I'm open to contrary evidence, but I just haven't heard of anything credible yet. There are certainly lots of ways in which materialism could potentially be falsified.

Is there anything which would convince ID proponent's they're wrong, short of an infinitely detailed materialistic explanation of everything in the world?

On the other hand, most of the ID organizations have a statement of faith that they are not prepared to consider changing, no matter what. It is a point of pride that they are not interested in contrary evidence. This insistence that their doctrine is right and above questioning is fundamentally antiscientific, and a pretty good demonstration of the difference between religion (assertion of authority) and science (search for truth).

What's weirder is that IMAX theaters normally are *in* science museums. You'd think that the Fundies wouldn't set foot in such "ungodly" places and that the people who do go are those interested in science.

There is quite a bit of unjust discrimination in the previous comment. Not all Fundamentals are completely ignorant of science. Many Fundamentals are very interested in science. The problem lies in the uneducated masses that take the words of their pastors/bishops/priests are the words of God. Accepting a view of science from someone who has little scientific knowledge. It truely saddens me that statement could be said honestly by someone.

Within the Christian Community this is a major debate and science is a top issue. Many (ultra) conservative scientists such as Ken Ham hold a young earth creationists view. Where as Old Earth creationists take a view that much better harmonizes the Bible and science. Hugh Ross is the leading scientist with a very interesting research on Astrophysics.

the thing that annoys creationists is when "scientists" want to pretend their naturalistic fairy tales are better than everyone else's fairy tales

Well, it has the advantage of being true. Maybe that doesn't matter to you, in which case you can choose whatever story makes you feel good.

Mainstream science is consistent with observed facts, goes some way to explaining those facts, and adapts in light of new information. Creationism is none of those things. Saying, as ICR does, that the Bible is infallible and completely authoratitive is anti-scientific from the word go. They simply cannot be taken seriously. You should never hear a scientist say that about a textbook.

I'm sure this does annoy creationists, which is one of the things that make them so funny, as is the idea that the whole "scientific" community (in scare-quotes) is engaged in a coverup.

Naturalism or empiricism is an axiom you are free to accept or reject. However, most of modern science is built on that axiom (or something like it), and if you pull it out you lose a lot of valuable knowledge, not to mention the computer you're using now. Personally I think it is a pretty good axiom, but if you want to believe god made the universe last Tuesday I cannot disprove it.

Saying evolution explains the differences between blue-green algae and man is just as silly as saying the earth was created by God in 6 days

Sorry, but you're wrong. It gives a reasonably good account, which I won't reproduce here as it's done in any number of pop science books.

(You can have an epistimological quibble about "explains". It is arguably impossible for any finite statement to explain the boundless detail found in the universe. One can always ask for more detail, and current scientific knowledge runs out at some point. But that doesn't mean it's a fairy story.)

So there's no thing as an areligious position in anything?

Carbon dating does work, when done correctly. It can give ridiculous results, for certain situations. It is *known* why carbon dating doesn't work with (say) freshwater clams. I quote from the "Institute of Creation Research" webpage (http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm):

MYTH #3. The shells of live freshwater clams have been radiocarbon dated in excess of 1600 years old, clearly showing that the radiocarbon dating technique is not valid.

The shells of live freshwater clams can, and often do, give anomalous radiocarbon results. However, the reason for this is understood and the problem is restricted to only a few special cases, of which freshwater clams are the best-known example. It is not correct to state or imply from this evidence that the radiocarbon dating technique is thus shown to be generally invalid.

The problem with freshwater clams arises because these organisms derive the carbon atoms which they use to build their shells from the water in their environment. If this water is in contact with significant quantities of limestone, it will contain many carbon atoms from dissolved limestone. Since limestone contains very little, if any, radiocarbon, clam shells will contain less radiocarbon than would have been the case if they had gotten their carbon atoms from the air. This gives the clam shell an artificially old radiocarbon age.

This problem, known as the "reservoir effect," is not of very great practical importance for radiocarbon dating since most of the artifacts which are useful for radiocarbon dating purposes and are of interest to archaeology derive from terrestrial organisms which ultimately obtain their carbon atoms from air, not the water.

(This is from an essentially creationist website; they appear to be more scientific than most, which is not too difficult)

Also there are some assumptions on the decay of carbon-14--which are turning out to be false. Recent evidence has scientists baffled because they can't understand why some earth estimates on some things only come out to be a few 100,000 years old.

Some light reading to start:

http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-189.htm

http://www.answers2prayer.org/bible_questions/Answ ers/carbon_dating/carbon_dating.html

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/science/f lood.html

Thanks for the link to the journal, I appreciate it and will check it out! You are correct that I do not read much about this subject, and when I do read I tend towards books and articles that are not predisposed against creationism. Every individual and organization on this planet carries a bias, but some are more willing than others to bring that bias into the open. (That, incidentally, is why I think it was a mistake to suppress the freedom of speech of those who attached stickers to these textbooks. All they were trying to do is reveal the hidden bias of the textbooks to the students who use them and are unable to recognize that bias themselves.) I appreciate that organizations like Answers in Genesis are willing to reveal their bias and cut through the piles of papers produced on this topic (most of which are biased by their dedication to uncovering the "missing link") to reveal relevant information for those who are devoted to other areas of research and provide a counterbalance to the overwhelming tide of pro-evolution material that you don't even need to seek out. I would guess that evolution-minded individuals tend to avoid reading publications by research institutions like ICR, but saturate their minds with material from fundamentalist evolutionist publications instead, consciously or not. (although no fundamentalist evolutionist publications would label themselves as such) We're not so different in that respect.

I agree that I mis-worded my statement about science "proving" things, simple slip of the fingers on the keyboard in a quick posting. There is a movement, as demonstrated by the very small act of putting a warning sticker on a textbook, to provide the fair chance for all ideas that you refer to as an ideal for science. I subscribe to that ideal just as you do.

I agree, evolution undeniably does happen, but it does not provide bridges between vastly dissimilar organisms like fish and birds. There is no universally convincing evidence to support that position. (This is a point that we have already disputed, we will not reach an agreement on it.)

The Bible says that God created an original set of creatures, and of course we know that they mutated and microevolved over time.

Your comparison between the age of the Bible and the Earth is based upon your particular assumptions about the age of the Earth. It will not surprise you to learn that I believe the Earth is approximately 6000 years old. Radiometric dating has been proven to fail in many cases and relies upon the uniformitarian approach to world history, which likely is not correct. (we have measured a reduction even in the speed of light in our time)

The writers of the Bible were uniquely inspired by God, so this was no ordinary literary project as you believe. "All scripture is given by inspiration of God" --- 2 Tim. 3:16 Many in ancient times suffered from their lack of knowledge regarding the arrangement of the cosmos, I don't see that as an indictment against the Bible, especially since it never explicitly deals with the matter in a literal sense.

Creationism was the dominant ideology until the 20th century and was adhered to by the major scientists of that time that we now admire. It does not conflict with any modern scientific observations when they are properly interpreted. Interpretation is the key. It is what divides our viewpoints as well. ;-)

There is a very real danger in doubting the literality of the divine account of Creation as set forward in Genesis. Read this article which touches on the infallibility of God's Word as related to Creation: http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-169a.htm God clearly indicates the literality of the Creation account and its associated timescale (the part most often doubted) with the emphasis on "evening...and morning...was the x day" and if you are unable to fully accept that He created every original creature in that 6 day period, you should question the reliability of the rest of the Bible. In fact, the whole basis for the Bible crumbles even if you reject the 6 day time period and substitute millions of years, as many have done. Suddenly, you have death before sin, and God pronouncing everything good, which would then include that death. So then, how does sin change anything? What is there to be saved from if death and the brutal struggle for existence exists even without sin?

I have purchased but not yet read the book "Refuting Compromise", which speaks directly to this issue. Check it out at www.answersingenesis.org. (They have a lot of other great stuff too, including a blurb about this sticker)

I know this has been a fairly theological post, but I feel it is very important. Creationism stands on much stronger footing that evolutionism, and anyone who doubts that should be a true objective scientist and read the materials at www.answersingenesis.org or www.ideacenter.org.

Keep asking those important questions. :-)

Institute for Creation Research, check it out.

I really do love people who assume there is science behind the creationist view point. Here is a good articlehttp://www.icr.org/pubs/btg-a/btg-191a.htm on the subject. So to answer your false view point, there is plenty of science behind creation if you don't take the word of your highschool biology teacher and do some actual research for yourself.

I do love this second paragraph of yours. Its full of even more falisies of argument than your first. First you take what I said and turn it around into exaclt what I was saying shouldn't happen. There are many good books that show the science behind creation(and yes I said science cause there is scientific support for it). Your "creation's explanation" shows a deeply flawed understanding and also shows that you have done very little to no research into the subject and have just blindly accepted what others have incorrectly told you. If you had done any research you would have seen that true creationist scientists have many good arguments for why creation happened and evolution could not have happened.

So yes, both are theories becaseu you can't go back and see exactly what happened and no one has come up with conclusive evidence to either side.

As for your comment about quantum mechanics? HUH? What does that have to do with anything at hand? Nice try at confusing the subject and insinuating that creationist science or Christianity has anything against quantum mechanics. I do love people who think that having religion precludes science. Exspecially Christianity. Christianity has helped science in so many ways be removing the pagan belief that "the gods" control everything and its there cause a god did it. No, many christian scientists study science because they want to learn more about God's creation. I have never heard a christian scientist say that it is just because God did it and we don't have to understand why. Most of them say God did it for a reason and I want to know why.

Go and read the linked article before you come back and try to say that creationism is not based on true science because it is. Just as much as evolution is a theory, same is creation and both require a certain amount of faith to believe because we have yet to prove either.

And as for state promoting religion, there are many creationists who are also agnostics and believe that there must be a god/gods that created this and they just don't know who that god is. You don't even have to say a god. An intelegent force ussually works. The fact is that niether evolution nor creation has been proven as fact and the students should be shown that and encouraged to do research on their own to find out what they believe to be the truth.

> The "biblical" flood is actually just a retelling of a story from the epic of Gilgamesh;

No. Its the other way around..

> as such, it likely refers to the flooding of the Persian gulf.

Both the book of Genesis in the Bible and the epic of Gilgamesh, as well as other cultures like these Indian ones and Native American -- all these claim a global flood for which there is evidence.

I guess the reason why some people are eager to pass off the Biblical account as a bad copy of the recently discovered Gilgamesh epic (despite clear evidence to the opposite) is the influence of Christianity in their own lives. People generally don't like being told uncomfortable things by the Bible.

See my posting history for posts with more evidence.

Good post, but I would just like to add two points - there are some 'educational institutions' that exist solely to spread some particular viewpoint (e.g. ICR).

The second point is on refinement by debate. I can't buy that - Aristotle believed men had more teeth than women, but that is not true...
You need to use logic combined with facts and experiments to resolve a matter. Arguing often leads nowhere.

Christian Science is different from Christianity. Plus, Christianity isn't anti-scientific.

Thought you might find this interesting. link

For starters, I would not call anyone a "so-called 'scientest'" just because I disagree with them. Some of the authors that I have read are not crack-pots. Read the resume of Russel Humphreys at this site: http://www.icr.org/creationscientists/humphreys.ht ml This is not a "so-called scientist" but a brilliant and well-respected nuculear weapons researcher.

As far as my use of the word "Christians," the Bible only uses the term for those who have trusted in the work of Christ for their redemption. Ephesians 2:8-9 teaches that salvation is a gift from God that man must accept and that man cannot work to earn. God will never weigh a person's works as a means to enter Heaven. Salvation is given through the name of Christ alone, not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to His mercy because all of our righteousness is as filthy rags in His sight.

If a person has met the qulaifications of salvation, then they are a Christian regardless of their interpretation of Genesis 1-11. BUT, I struggle to comprehend how a person who trusted in Christ for their salvation would be unwilling to trust Christ's interpretation of Genesis. I supose it could be so, but I admit that I do not understand that logic. So, no I cannot state dogmatically that a person must believe in 6-day creation to be a Christian.

I am as narrow as Scripture in my interpretation of "Christian." If you disaprove of my use of Christian, I respectfully ask that you demonstrate from the Bible how it is in error. I will always change my opinion if I err from Scripture. It is my goal to always have my thinking conformed to the teachings of my Savior.

That most of science does not agree with the church is entirely because the church's claims are supported by little to no evidence.

Groups working to fix this problem include Answers in Genesis, the Institute for Creation Research, and the Creation Research Society. AiG and CRS both publish peer-reviewed journals.

...the science of a guy who can't even get footy scores right? Tough call.

IPOF, creationists are quite happy to have dinosaurs exist, the YEC variety say roughly 6-10,000 years not 3,000 and it took six days. Go and read their own stuff if you don't believe me.

You'd look like a bit of an ignoramus coming at them with so many misquotes.

I still doubt that a person using the scientific method (which IS proven) could possibly come to the conclusion that the universe is 6000 years old.

Also, I'd appreciate a little less anonymity, if you could see your way clear to that?

I still doubt that a person using the scientific method (which IS proven) could possibly come to the conclusion that the universe is 6000 years old.

Also, I'd appreciate a little less anonymity, if you could see your way clear to that?

The argument is that since real structure cannot sensibly arise from randomness (e.g. beaches aren't turned into computers by the action of wind, waves, rain or lightning) and we think rationally (or at least we think we do... but down that recursive path lies madness) our presence here cannot be accidental.

He's not questioning the scientific method, he's questioning our ability to apply it, firstly at all in a random universe and secondly with overriding philosophical constraints. Creationists use the scientific method just like anyone else, the only difference being that they don't make an a priori assumption of materialism (the doctrine that there can be no supernatural effects). Some of them make an assumption of little-d deism but that's not actually necessary to avoid materialistic pitfalls.

Supernatural effects can be measured and and studied scientifically just like anything else. You can only assert otherwise based on just such an a priori assumption.

Materialistic assumptions have been shown to be capable of leading mainstream science badly astray. Note in particular the Baker quote from Ref 11.

Let me help. The Bible clearly states that the world was created is 6 days and it was good. It was not until man sinned that death entered the world. For evolution to work, death must have been at work before man's sin. Clearly a contradiction. If you are a Christian, then you must reject evolution. If you want more information, I would refer you to Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/), Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (http://www.discovery.org/csc), and Answers in Genesis' Creation Questions and Answers (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/qa.asp) . David