Slashdot Mirror

Natural selection is merely the process of a select genetic group of a population being more successful at passing on their genes due to an advantage provided by their genes within their given environment.

This is the biggest reason I don't believe in Evolution. In order for a human to have evolved from pond scum, an enormous amount of time will have to have passed. Given what astrophysisists claim to be the age of the Universe, this simply could not have happened. Statistically, Evolution is impossible (for one explanation of this, see http://www.icr.org/pubs/btg/btg-179.pdf), because it would have to allow that almost every mutation was dominant and that it was not fatal to the being it occured to. It also assumes that another member of the species found the mutated member "attractive" for mating (if indeed the species in question was at the point of development where two members were required to perpetuate the species).

If humans are controlling the breeding based upon what they think are "desirable" genetic traits, then humans have become an environmental factor. It's still natural selection.

Interesting thought, but I don't accept it. If a force outside of the natural environment affects the species (i.e. human intervention), then it is artificial in nature. If one were to accept your argument, then it would (by proxy) negate pretty-much everything folk like PETA and other environmental protectionists have been arguing for decades. Somehow, I don't think they would take to kindly to that...

The only reason our friend would have trouble addressing those arguments would be if he was undereducated in the sciences himself.

Where, unfortunately, "undereducated" means we think anything which breaches our a priori assumptions about the nature of the universe is dumb.

By that standard, most people, most scientists are "undereducated". For the longest time geology avoided anything that smelled of catastrophism, paleontology avoided anything that smelled of a flood, and astronomy avoided anything that smelled of structure.

For good scientific reasons? Not a bit of it. Because they were afraid of being labelled as one of the enemy, those insidious creationists, and ostracised like J Harlan Bretz was for 40 years.

A very highly qualified scientists have been brave enough to state outright that they are not impartial, like Richard Lewontin and his famous "cannot let a Divine Foot in the door" statement, but they are the exception.

The result in each of the above cases was that the science in question was held back by decades.

Meanwhile, one D Russell Humphreys had made some fairly specific predictions (in 1984) about the magnetic fields Voyager would find in the outer planets, which turned out to be both bang on the money and well wide of any other expectations when those fields were measured two years after publication. One of the more spectacular demonstrations that this "alien" and "impossible" perspective has predictive, scientific merit.

Anyone wondering why more such papers don't appear in the mainstream scientific press need only turn to the furor which exploded when the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a carefully peer-reviewed paper from well-known Intelligent Design advocate, Stephen C. Meyer. The then-editor, Dr. Richard M. v. Sternberg (a double PhD with many published articles himself), goes to great lengths on his website to explain that every positive scientific and journalistic step of the process was followed for the paper and had been independently verified and approved by highly qualified scientists before publication.

It is quite clear that the paper is being criticised on political/philosophical grounds, not because of any scientific merit or demerit.

The Origins show is based on philosophy, not on science. This is well and good except that it is presented as being purely based on science.

I need hardly point out that such misrepresentation is in itself unscientific, a meta-flaw under which to group all of the unscientific teleological statements about features "appearing" (ex nihilo, apparently) and organisms having "figured out" and "striving" to achieve "goals" without any guiding hand. Nevertheless, it will go ahead, and millions of viewers will be taught that random numbers have hidden intelligence and/or miracle-working ability which repeatedly transcends mere statistics, and introduced once more to a capricious goddess who goes by the name of Nature - all the while suffering the constantly asserted doublethink mantra that there is no supernature.

Meanwhile, back at Reasons , Hugh has had the more obvious inconsistencies and contradictions among his theories publicly pointed out to him

The only reason our friend would have trouble addressing those arguments would be if he was undereducated in the sciences himself.

Where, unfortunately, "undereducated" means we think anything which breaches our a priori assumptions about the nature of the universe is dumb.

By that standard, most people, most scientists are "undereducated". For the longest time geology avoided anything that smelled of catastrophism, paleontology avoided anything that smelled of a flood, and astronomy avoided anything that smelled of structure.

For good scientific reasons? Not a bit of it. Because they were afraid of being labelled as one of the enemy, those insidious creationists, and ostracised like J Harlan Bretz was for 40 years.

A very highly qualified scientists have been brave enough to state outright that they are not impartial, like Richard Lewontin and his famous "cannot let a Divine Foot in the door" statement, but they are the exception.

The result in each of the above cases was that the science in question was held back by decades.

Meanwhile, one D Russell Humphreys had made some fairly specific predictions (in 1984) about the magnetic fields Voyager would find in the outer planets, which turned out to be both bang on the money and well wide of any other expectations when those fields were measured two years after publication. One of the more spectacular demonstrations that this "alien" and "impossible" perspective has predictive, scientific merit.

Anyone wondering why more such papers don't appear in the mainstream scientific press need only turn to the furor which exploded when the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington published a carefully peer-reviewed paper from well-known Intelligent Design advocate, Stephen C. Meyer. The then-editor, Dr. Richard M. v. Sternberg (a double PhD with many published articles himself), goes to great lengths on his website to explain that every positive scientific and journalistic step of the process was followed for the paper and had been independently verified and approved by highly qualified scientists before publication.

It is quite clear that the paper is being criticised on political/philosophical grounds, not because of any scientific merit or demerit.

The Origins show is based on philosophy, not on science. This is well and good except that it is presented as being purely based on science.

I need hardly point out that such misrepresentation is in itself unscientific, a meta-flaw under which to group all of the unscientific teleological statements about features "appearing" (ex nihilo, apparently) and organisms having "figured out" and "striving" to achieve "goals" without any guiding hand. Nevertheless, it will go ahead, and millions of viewers will be taught that random numbers have hidden intelligence and/or miracle-working ability which repeatedly transcends mere statistics, and introduced once more to a capricious goddess who goes by the name of Nature - all the while suffering the constantly asserted doublethink mantra that there is no supernature.

Meanwhile, back at Reasons , Hugh has had the more obvious inconsistencies and contradictions among his theories publicly pointed out to him

A theory is a theory well accepted or otherwise. It has not been proven, and therefore remains subject to skepticism. Regardless of it's acceptance, it still remains to be proven. That applies for both arguments.

Creation may not be a scientific theory, true, but there is a theory that creationists have about the origins of life, based on a scientific model. In fact, you'll find that most Christians who have anything to do with science (see here and here) tend to believe in the big bang, and that the universe is in fact billions of years of old.

As for your argument about evolution not happening today, and considering the Christian doctrine, we could say they have a right to say it ended; after all according to Christianity creation happened over seven days (days not necessarily being a 24 hour period, but rather an undefined length of finite time), it would have stopped at that point on a grand scale (creating new species, but now mutation within the species). However, this may not be the case as you have pointed out that we have proof of evolution today.

I should apologize for using evolution generically, I should say that the argument should be Creation vs. non-creation theories. I applaud your argument; quite the rebuttal to anyone who attacks evolution.

There is no separation between philosophy and science. Notice how the Ph in Ph.D. stands for philosophy. This was discussed on Slashdot with regard to Isaac Newton, who interspersed "religious" ideas within his "scientific" writings. He wrote more about Biblical prophecy than anything else.

Today's science seeks to quarantine certain ideas and realms of thought from "pure science." Today's science starts from materialism and does absolutely demand specific beliefs. Dissenters are summarily scoffed at and dismissed. Creationists want to liberate the mind and the disciplines of exploration from this materialist/naturalist Iron Curtain.

Real science doesn't force its members to declare for any religious beliefs;

According to Dr. Michael Ruse, who, ironically, had denounced creationism because it was religious, has said that your "real science" does have "metaphysical assumptions.". Look also at what Lewontin says:

"We take the side of science

in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door." (emphasis in original) -- Professor/Geneticist Richard Lewontin

Read more scientists in their own words.

- Evolution as Religion -- Not Science
- Evolution As Religion

it merely asks that they engage in a search for truth as shown through the natural world.

It may ask that, but that's not what happens. Human nature takes over. Boyce Rensberger, an ardently anti-creationist science writer, writes in How the World Works:

"At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don't usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position."

If scientists were engaged "in a search for truth as shown through the natural world," they would admit that fossils have formed around man-made objects within a few decades; fossilization is a rapid process. They would admit that mutations do not produce new genetic material. They wouldn't try to invent a new stage of "hominids" based on a solitary jawbone that turned about to be from a known primate spe

We have easily produced amino acids in recreations of primordial Earth

If it were only that simple. First, no one can say for sure what the primordial earth was like. Second, these amino acids were created by an intelligent being (the scientists) in a strictly controlled environment (hmmm, intelligent being created... sounds kinda like Genesis 1), and third, these created amino acids lacked chirality.

Quite apart from details like the length of a day, order of creation, etc. the Bible also says that death entered the world through the Fall, and that specifically is what Jesus repaired when he allowed himself to be sacrificed. (Of course, there are many interpretations of the relevant parts of the Bible but to the best of my knowledge, that is the traditional Calvinist - i.e., Southern Baptist - approach.) Many creationists cite that as the main reason they reject the theory of evolution. If death is natural, and if we are basically apes, then there was no original sin, and therefore nothing for which Christ could atone. Our selfish and sexual instincts are normal and not, in fact, the result of the moral decay of the flesh. The ICR has a typical presentation of this viewpoint: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-209.htm

As a Christian and a Southern Baptist who accepts the scientifically determined age of the earth and (I'm presuming) some form of theistic evolution, how do you address that argument?

That IS an objective fact-based introduction to the article: That statement is complete and accurate regarding what the law was meant to do.

Now even if you can say this is biased, is it a left-wing bias or a right-wing bias? Today, both hardcore conservatives and liberals seem to agree that the preservation of the Bill of Rights is a Bad Idea, because the preservation of civil liberties allows the other side to interfere with their agenda. And the hardcore left and right, by definition, don't want a fair fight. This law was brought into being by a Democratic president and supported by both parties. Is it left-wing to want to protect children from pornographers, or is it right-wing? I'd say it's neither. It makes sense; most people don't want their kids easily able to download porn. It's just that COPA and laws like it is like going on a diet by cutting off your head to keep you from eating. Yeah, it'll keep you from eating, all right... Unless you're Mike the Headless Chicken (White House Bound in 2004).

Even if you could prove that the placement of this statement at the beginning of the article somehow implied a bias, and you could demonstrate the bias one way or the other, a single excerpt does not illustrate a trend. So far this slashdot thread is filled with people who seem to have bought their own "Jump to Conclusions Mat." One story does not equal bias. Outside of legitimate research, you're not going to be able to demonstrate bias.

I even saw a guy bragging that he dumped a friend simply because the friend watched Fox News. "Stop disagreeing with me, or I won't be your friend any more!" What kind of childish bullshit is that? If you only listen to people who agree with you, it's the intellectual equivalent of giving yourself a lobotomy. If you're afraid of any facts that might undermine your precious beliefs, you're as bad as those nut-cases at The Institute for Creation Research.

The immaturity evidenced by the highly-moderated posts on this thread is astonishing.

GAME OVER
PLAYER <1>

GAME OVER
PLAYER <1>

Wasn't the first Chinese emporer Emporer Shun who ruled from 2256 BC to 2205BC?

This is an interesting article on the various possiblities to explain star light within the 6 day creation model.

God exists outside of time - but that does not mean time is meaningless - for the earth & universe exist in time and thus time is relevant.

Sorry, that argument doesn't fly. There were just as many people then who were not creationists as now. One could hardly argue that everybody, at the time, was a creationist.

I find it extremely interesting that many refuse to look at the information presented. The number of scientists, present day and past, who reject evolution do so due to the fact that it is scientifically unprovable. These scientists still outnumber, by far, those who support evolution. This is driven home by the fact that many of these anti-evolution scientists are not even creationists.

Bit by bit he myth of our evolution from apes is being deconstructed.
Richard Leakey's Skull "Discovery"

Same thing goes for the "Big Bang" theory.

Ten Scientific Censored Papers overturning Big Bang cosmology

God bless you DunbarTheInept.

-=GuestFox=-

Someone stated that my claim of a young earth is unsupportable. To that I would refer you to the following link icr.org that combats modern dating methods. Read the article and think what you wish.

I'll drop the subject now.

if there were two of each animal...what did the carnivores eat?

Why did God create carnivorous animals if there was to be not death in the world as first created?

I haven't read the bible

Here are few articles from icr.org that may provide some insight:
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD
HOW COULD ALL THE ANIMALS GET ON BOARD NOAH'S ARK?

I haven't read the bible

Here are few articles from icr.org that may provide some insight:
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD
HOW COULD ALL THE ANIMALS GET ON BOARD NOAH'S ARK?

I haven't read the bible

Here are few articles from icr.org that may provide some insight:
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD
HOW COULD ALL THE ANIMALS GET ON BOARD NOAH'S ARK?

I haven't read the bible

Here are few articles from icr.org that may provide some insight:
Did Noah's Flood Cover the Himalayan Mountains?
COMPUTER MODELING OF THE LARGE-SCALE TECTONICS ASSOCIATED WITH THE GENESIS FLOOD
HOW COULD ALL THE ANIMALS GET ON BOARD NOAH'S ARK?

The Gilgamesh Epic and the Bible

The Flood of Noah and the Flood of Gilgamesh

The institute for creation research (icr) is a place that has nothing to do with science. They just try to claim they do.

The institute for creation research (icr) is a place that has nothing to do with science. They just try to claim they do.

Anyone that isn't a religious nut can come to the conclusion pretty easily that life in some form is out there in all probability.

Interesting choice of epithets, but I think the facts are the direct opposite of your claim. The probability of the evolution of a DNA chain is something like one in 10^600 (see here). If you're using *probability* to back up your belief in the evolution of life on our planet or other planets, you're apparently dedicated to evolution in a way that any "religious nut" could scarcely match.

Here's an article on Earth's magnetic field which appears to say different stuff to the link referenced above. "Dr. Humphreys is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquergue, New Mexico. The Laboratories have not supported this work."

Here's a (linked) article celebrating his straight-over-home-plate predictions about other planetary magnetic fields from when Voyager II validated his predictions. The Sandia footnote has this interesting appendix: "and they neither affirm nor deny its scientific validity.".

It's not linked above, but here's the CRSQ article which led to all of the fuss. The next Mercury flyby that measures magnetic fields should be interesting.

I'm fairly sure none of this includes direct mention of the Earth's core fields, so either the article I have in mind wasn't written by Humphries or I've missed it somewhere along the line.

Here's an article on Earth's magnetic field which appears to say different stuff to the link referenced above. "Dr. Humphreys is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquergue, New Mexico. The Laboratories have not supported this work."

Here's a (linked) article celebrating his straight-over-home-plate predictions about other planetary magnetic fields from when Voyager II validated his predictions. The Sandia footnote has this interesting appendix: "and they neither affirm nor deny its scientific validity.".

It's not linked above, but here's the CRSQ article which led to all of the fuss. The next Mercury flyby that measures magnetic fields should be interesting.

I'm fairly sure none of this includes direct mention of the Earth's core fields, so either the article I have in mind wasn't written by Humphries or I've missed it somewhere along the line.

Find out who this guy is and don't you ever let him see a doctor :-P Same applies to those who don't agree with the research. Save them in a database and if they ever need the results of the rechearch to survive... Tell them to pray :-P

Heh, here I am. Gee - a religion/atheism benefits race. Mine versus yours. Yay!

By your logic, you should not be at this site.
(Slashcode --> Perl --> Larry Wall)

Or hey, you should not benefits from the research that allows a chip-fab to be built in the first place
(Basic physics--> Issac Newton).

Seriously though, if I am dying, and a doctor says "gee, we've gonna have to use aborted baby parts for stem cells for a transfusion" I'd refuse because of the source of the body parts. And yes, I'd pray. :)

NOTE:

I don't think all stem cells research is evil (eg: baby cord blood stem cells are just great).

I think cloning is fine IF no human life or fetuses were harmed, and the clonee had no genetic problems due to the cloning.

It's just the killing of babies/fetueses that is evil.

Oh no, the invisible man in the sky said no. Listen, the portion of the population that isn't completely insane is trying to solve real problems that praying wont fix. So stop using superstition as a reason to halt progress.

Oh no, look: another scientist-type insufferably arrogant about atheism.

Grow up - the portion that prays also solves real problems and help real people. You know, people like Newton, Pasteur, Faraday, Boyle, Larry Wall...

You were arguing that any measurements on strata aged less than the minimum for K/Ar dating method were useless in falsifying it.

I answered that, explaining why it was precisely the method we must use to falsify K/Ar dating. Now you come up with a reference that says K/Ar is no longer used, rather than defending it. Regardless, the 1974 article that this talkorigins discussion references is not the one to which I am alluding. This much more recent research (1996) includes a discussion of the role of xenocrysts contaminating the sample, giving more 40Ar, along with other contaminations such as laboratory. It is explained in detail here.

Are you now claiming that K/Ar is inaccurate, or are you still defending it (in conjunction with other methods, I assume)? The talkorigins.org reference states:

Morris's complaints are dated in that, for the most part, geologists no longer use the Potassium-Argon (K/Ar) dating technique as was practiced in 1974. Instead, K/Ar dating has been largely replaced by the related Argon 40-Argon 39 (40Ar/39Ar) dating technique. This change also solved other problems that Morris (1974) complains about in his discussion of the K/Ar dating technique.

So I'm confused as to what you are saying. Can you please restate your position regarding the accuracy of K/Ar dating? If you have a response to the discussion of xenocrysts in Austin's research, I am also eager to hear (the article I linked to).

You may find the latest RATE groups discoveries interesting also.

And then understand that Laconian obviously knew that Creation Science has nothing to do with Science and that his post is both sarcastic and to the point.

FWIW, I had the chance to metamod the Troll moderation as Unfair.

My five-minute search produced several Web-published articles that I believe will meet your criteria. I have more in print form, packed away for now. Out of roughly 80 articles available to my by my quick search, I'll link to two, chosen more-or-less at random:

ICR: "The Relevance of Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd and Pb-Pb Isotope Systematics to Elucidation of the Genesis and History of Recent Andesite Flows at Mt Ngauruhoe, New Zealand, and the Implications for Radioisotopic Dating," by Andrew Snelling, Ph.D. (PDF format)

CRS Quarterly: "A Mechanism for Accelerated Radioactive Decay," by Eugene F. Chaffin, Ph.D.

the scientific method cannot be applied to all questions in the universe. do an experiment to see if god exists. what conclusion will you arrive at? what do you test? how do you use the scientific method to answer this question?

prove that god does not exist. physically prove it. you can't. you can't prove or disprove it.

how did the world get here? how were people created? how were all the different animals and plants created? how did all this come to be? answer those questions for me and give me scientific proof for each of your answers.

1. The Bible appears to claim independent creation of the Earth and all species a few thousand years ago, a "great flood", that the stars are just "lights" in the sky, that the Moon is a "light", and many other things.
2. These apparent claims are either provably false (the Moon is not "a light", stars are other suns, there are far too many species in the world for them all to have been saved from a world-wide flood on a single boat) or highly questionable (e.g for the Earth to appear billions of years old while only being thousands would require extensive "evidence tampering" on the part of God).
3. Therefore, either:
   1. The Bible is false,
   2. The Bible is true but is badly misinterpreted, or
   3. God faked it all; he and the Prince of Lies are the same.

No. NGC 4319 has been disrupted by gravitational forces from something massive, as evidenced by the wide flung arms and the dust lanes. These are roughly perpendicular to our line of sight, meaning the galaxy and the massive object are also in a plane perpendicular to our line of sight. Many members of your wacky little group thinks it's the Seyfert, Markarian 205, that is the disrupting massive object, because they think they see a bridge between the two. Any proof that the Seyfert is not in the plane is proof against this theory.

Another potential explanation for low near-UV, one pulled out of the ether as I type rather than dreamed up by a competent astrophysicist might be that quasars throw off UV in bands shaped roughly like Jupiter's clouds, and Markarian 205 happens to not have a band aimed at us.

Your ad hoc theory has no plausible mechanism, and it doesn't address the evidence. Markarian 205 is shining near-UV at us. If one were to measure the near-UV at equal distances from the center of Markarian 205, one would expect the same amount of near-UV from all points, as Markarian 205 is very spherically symmetrical. Instead, less near-UV is noted from the side closer to NGC 4319 than the side opposite.

Since you didn't actually supply links to the concentric galaxy shell theory, I will do so. Here's one from the Institute of Creation Research. Here's another from the highly respected Science Frontiers. One study was done only on galaxies in our local supercluster. Since these galaxies are gravitationally bound, it is not surprising that small packs of them might be traveling at the same speeds. Other studies were pencil-beam surveys. Since they did not cover the whole sky, or even a significant fraction of it, claiming that quantized redshifts from them are proof of shells of galaxies is bad science. A more realistic interpretation is that each pencil-beam saw the walls of bubbles, much like the wedge surveys show. Evidence of large-scale structure, yes. Proof of a geocentric universe, no.

The concentric shell theory relies on redshifts providing proper distances (quantized redshifts imply quantized distances). You provided links to pages that claim evidence that redshifts don't provide proper distances. To claim that you provided links to the concentric shell discussion is completely dishonest, as these groups are in opposing camps.

I just don't cosmic ray variation would account for more than half of the 20th century's climatic change. The variation just wouldn't be that great given the fact that the solar system simply hasn't moved very far in 100 years.

I'm just waiting for the antiscience republicans to jump on this. "See? Here's a study that says that cosmic rays cause climate change. Not greenhouse gases! See we were right to censor the EPA's report that global warming was primarly caused through human activity. Now let's continue with our report on how nicotine is not addictive, and creation science in our schools".

I challenge you to present any SCIENTIFIC evidence whatsoever that these facts are wrong, misguided, overstated, misrepresented, or otherwise incorrect. Really, I am waiting.

Bleh, I had hoped to avoid getting this far into this topic; I am NOT a scientist, nor did I intend to imply that I was (so at least I succeeded in that part). I merely wanted to raise the issue of unpopular ideas not being accepted, regardless of merit.

Really, I am waiting. I will personally counter any such evidence you can present.

If you're really interested, you could browse here and here; a good start might be this and this.

but if you donate the book to me, I will read it and personally tear it apart and hunt down the author to argue with him about it.

I don't have a copy of it, and I'm currently unemployed so trying to avoid spending money unnecessarily. I'll think about it though, if you're serious. By the way, the book is a compilation of essays by 50 different people; you'd have plenty of tracking down to do.

You make unscientific, unqualified, speculative statements about the time-scale of sediment formation.

Unfortunately while sources were given, I don't remember them, and don't have references - as I said, I'm not a scientist; I don't actually know what I'm talking about. Which doesn't necessarily make me wrong, but makes me a useless debater.

Leave the science to the scientists,

Doing that as much as I can. Take a look at the sites I linked to.

I challenge you to present any SCIENTIFIC evidence whatsoever that these facts are wrong, misguided, overstated, misrepresented, or otherwise incorrect. Really, I am waiting.

Bleh, I had hoped to avoid getting this far into this topic; I am NOT a scientist, nor did I intend to imply that I was (so at least I succeeded in that part). I merely wanted to raise the issue of unpopular ideas not being accepted, regardless of merit.

Really, I am waiting. I will personally counter any such evidence you can present.

If you're really interested, you could browse here and here; a good start might be this and this.

but if you donate the book to me, I will read it and personally tear it apart and hunt down the author to argue with him about it.

I don't have a copy of it, and I'm currently unemployed so trying to avoid spending money unnecessarily. I'll think about it though, if you're serious. By the way, the book is a compilation of essays by 50 different people; you'd have plenty of tracking down to do.

You make unscientific, unqualified, speculative statements about the time-scale of sediment formation.

Unfortunately while sources were given, I don't remember them, and don't have references - as I said, I'm not a scientist; I don't actually know what I'm talking about. Which doesn't necessarily make me wrong, but makes me a useless debater.

Leave the science to the scientists,

Doing that as much as I can. Take a look at the sites I linked to.

This is just more of the system protecting the sytem.

Excellent point. New scientific ideas cannot gain acceptance, because they conflict with established scientific beliefs. Do you really think if someone found solid scientific evidence that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, that it would be accepted in the scientific community? Hell no. Anything less than 4 billion and you're a lunatic. That's one reason why information about creation science is generally either a bit silly or unashamedly religious - the mainstream scientific community will never accept it anyway, so why bother presenting it in a way they could accept if they were willing? Bleh.

Interestingly though, the Berkley article states that "Howell added that these anatomically modern humans pre-date most neanderthals, and therefore could not have descended from them, as some scientists have proposed."

If the relative age difference could be relied upon (which is suspect considering the possibility of excess argon in the volcanic layers they dated), this could point to a possible "dark ages" of civilization after an initial period of greater civilization.

If you believe the general flow of history as documented by the Bible, this would be consistent with an intelligent race which falls into decline after a widespread flood followed by an ice age.

Just though I should fire up the old google and check it out for myself, here's what I found:

"While the largest Homo erectus brains were about 1250 ml (2 imperial pints) and modern brains average about 1200 - 1500 ml in volume, female Neanderthal brains were about 1300 ml and those of males about 1600 ml, extending to 1740 ml in the Amud man." --Stringer, Christopher & Gamble, Clive. In Search of the Neanderthals. New York: Thames & Hudson, 1993. link

"The Neanderthals were fully bipedal and had a slightly larger average brain capacity than that of a typical modern human (though the brain structure was organised somewhat differently)." --link

A good discussion and some comparisons here: link

Of course by the time I've read it all and wrote this, someone might have posted some relevant information already. Just though I'd share anyway.

There is no science in creationism; it is religious belief.

Actually, if you think of it from the viewpoint that our universe is finite (meaning constrained by time) and that it MUST have had a beginning because of this, then you begin to approach a point where you must admit that the universe was created (don't worry with "created by who", just think if it is possible for our universe to exist without some kind of creation event). Even Stephen Hawking admits this, with the ironic remark "this makes most of my colleagues very uncomfortable". It's been quite a while since I read that, but if I can turn it up, I'll send you the link.

With a degree in genetics I would have thought you'd have understood that evolution says nothing about the creation of the universe.

In point of fact, if you're not a rabid supporter of either viewpoint, then you can come to a different, non-conventional understanding. Kind of like Galileo and the solar system.

I think it's misleading of you to imply that creationism is simply a "non-conventional understanding" and then equate it with Galileo's heliocentric model. Creationism is a fundamentalist religious belief. The tenets of creationism are well defined. The second tenet is "the Bible is inerrant". Creationism isn't science; their own tenets prove this. By comparing it against Galileo's model you falsely imply a scientific basis for creationism.

However, there might just be a way to reconcile both of these viewpoints. If I can convince the evolutionist that there is at lest some amount of support for creationism, then they might be willing to admit the necessity for a creation event.

Evolution doesn't deal with creation of the universe nor with the creation of life. Evolution deals with a very specific problem: the origin of species. Where the "first species" came from is pure conjecture. Some people support abiogenesis which is unproven though still a science. Some people support creationism which is unprovable and therefore not a science. You are fooling yourself and misleading others by conflating the two.

This is version 0.6 of a troll HOWTO, sort of a companion piece to jsm's excellent troll FAQ. As a draft, comments and criticism are always welcome, if not appreciated :)

Section 1 - Trolling techniques

There are techniques used by successful trolls to elicit the maximum amount of responses from unthinking /.ers. This section is dedicated to explaining how to use these in the course of your trolls. Remember though, a great troll can break any or all of these and still be successful...

• Timing
  
  

  Because you're posting as an AC, your troll will generally be ignored in favour of posters using their accounts, and so getting in early is essential. A good guideline is to get into the first 20 posts, so that people reading the article will see the troll before it is swamped out. One way of increasing the speed with which you get your troll into play is to prepare them beforehand, and then quickly customise them for the current article. This is easier than it sounds since /. typically repeats stories with small variations and runs lots of similar stories.

  
  
  

  Note that this is why Jon Katz stories are pretty worthless as trolling material - by the time you've found the article and prepared a troll there's already 50+ posts on it, most of them flaming Jon Katz anyway :)

  
  
  
• Exposure
  
  

  Once you've got your troll in, you need people to actually read it. You also want replies - /.ers are more likely to read your troll if it starts a large thread. You also want to remember that some people have set their comment thresholds to values higher than 0 - to get the attention of these you either want to get your post moderated up (see Style, below) or get a reply which gets moderated up to 4 or 5, in which case your troll becomes visible to all.

  
  
  
• Accounts
  
  

  An alternative to the time-honoured tradition of AC trolling is that of creating a "troll" account. This gives you the advantage of posting at 1 rather than 0, and slashbots are more likely to take you seriously, especially if you at least sound reasonable. If you do this, try to avoid posting stuff where it is obvious you're a troll under the account - post it anoymously instead - some slightly more canny readers actually check your user info before they reply. Not many though :)

  
  
  

  The ultimate goal of the troll account is to secure the +1 bonus, which is currently received once you hit 26 points of Karma. To get there, employ the techniques of karma whoring that we see every day on /. and watch the karma roll in. And of course once you get the +1 bonus, the world is your oyster in terms of /. Posts made at a default of 2 hit even those people with the threshold of 2, are more likely to get moderated up even further if they are at all coherent, and people tend to lose their critical thinking abilities in the face of the +1 bonus. Milk it for all it's worth.

  
  
  
• Layout
  
  

  To get people reading it a troll needs to be easily readable. Make sure you break it down into easily digestible paragraphs, use HTML tags where appropriate (but always make sure you close them properly) and use whitespace appropriately.

  
  
  
• Size
  
  

  Generally a troll shouldn't be too short, otherwise it'll get lost in the crowd. A workable minimum is a couple of medium paragraphs. Conversely, it shouldn't be too long, or no-one will bother to read it. Keep it to a happy medium.

  
  
  
• Spelling
  
  

  Whilst spelling is important if you want the troll to be taken "seriously", key spelling mistakes can draw out the spelling zealots, especially if you mis-spell the name of a venerated /. hero, like Linus Torveldes or Richard Strawlman (thanks dmg). Related to this is the use of the wrong word, explaining an acronym as being something it isn't or making a word into an acronym even when it isn't.

  
  
  
• Subject
  
  

  The subject line needs to draw attention to your post without making it obvious that it is a troll. A simple statement of the main point of your argument can work here.

  
  
  
• Style
  
  

  Once you realise that most moderators don't bother to read past the first paragraph or two, you can use this fact to craft trolls that can be moderated up as "Insightful" (note that I mean this in the /. sense rather than the real-world sense). Start off fairly reasonable, making statements that are /. friendly and not being too controversial. As the troll goes on, make it more and more controversial, building it up for the coup de grace in the final paragraph.

  
  
  
• Linking
  
  

  As we all know, a post with links is considered "informative" by the /. crowd. Moderators love it, and they rarely check the links, so be sure to include as many as possible. And make them wrong - a link to the Perl website should instead point to the Python website instead, and vice versa. The other alternative to incorrect links is "useful" links to places like www.linux.org and www.microsoft.com i.e. places /.ers could never have found on their own :)

  
  
  
• Feeding
  
  

  The ideal troll requires no feeding - it runs on its own, generating flamewars between clueless /.ers for your amusement. But often a troll requires some help and so you should consider feeding it. Feeding is best reserved for people making either completely clueless responses, people making responses with holes in, or those wonderful people who write a 2000-word point-by-point rebuttal of your troll.

  
  
  
• Know your audience
  
  

  Always keep in mind the kind of things advocated on /. so that you can play on and against them. This is why anti-Linux, creationist, gun-loving, pro-corporation trolls work well - the vast majority of /.ers hold the opposite viewpoints. And if a few people agree with you, so much the better - it merely validates your viewpoint in the eyes of readers.

  
  
  
• Arrogance
  
  

  Be arrogant. You, as a troll, know that you're right. No other explanation could exist. The wronger the "fact", the more assertively you should state it. Make it clear that you are better than everyone else - you know the truth and they are just too stupid to realise it. Use plenty of sarcasm, and use "quotes" to show it to people too dumb to realise.

  
  
  
• Offensiveness
  
  

  Being offensive in your initial troll can be counter-productive - it causes moderators to mark you down as flamebait in general. But if you're feeding, then you can get away with calling /.ers all kinds of things. Make broad generalisations
  about /. readers - call them "long-haired Linux zealots", "socialist open-source bigots" or whatever. Stereotyping is encouraged - people always want to think that they're an individual, and will point this out to you given half a chance.

  
  
  
• Indifference
  
  

  Great for articles with a political or social bent, this kind of troll expresses complete indifference to the topic at hand, wondering who on Earth cares about it. An alternative method is to say that the topic only concerns a certain group of people - criminals, idiots, hackers (always use this instead of crackers) or whatever group you want to offend.

  
  
  
• Sympathy
  
  

  Appear to take the same stance as the people you're trying to troll - claim you're as much a fan of Linux as the next man, but... This way you can make all kinds of claims in the sure knowledge that you actually know what you're talking about. A great phrase to use here is "In my experience". Remember to act like all the things you're pointing out are unfortunate but true.

  
  
  
• The common touch
  
  

  Always accuse /.ers of being elitist. This is an easy thing to do seeing as a lot of them are. Claim that is their grandmother couldn't use it, then they are just into it to feel better than Joe Sixpack rather than "doing it for the average user". This is always great for working into anti-Linux trolls - attack command-line tools and poorly designed desktops.

  
  
  
• The 31337 touch
  
  

  The opposite of the above. Claim that technology or whatever is only for the elite of society and that any attempt to open it up for everyone is wrong, an attack on intellectualism and possibly even dangerous. If people were meant to
  understand these things then they would, and it's their fault if they're too stupid to learn.

  
  
  
• Contradiction
  
  

  Never be afraid to contradict yourself, even in the space of a single sentence. The phrases "I am a top programmer who codes in VB" or "I am a supporter of open source who uses NT at work and 95 at home" will be sure to get a response from some weenie smugly pointing out the contradiction. Confuse the issue more by engaging in contradiction when you are feeding - this will confuse /.ers who will then make even more stupid replies, leaving them even more wide open for response.

  
  
  

  Clues
  
  

  If you're feeling brave, give the reader clues that this is an obvious troll. The classic example here is dmg's stock phrase "I am often accused of trolling (whatever that is)", but also feel free to use phrases like "I have not read the article, and I don't know much about XYZ but I feel I must comment". If anyone responds to a troll with these kinds of clues in it, feel free to bask in the glow of knee-jerk /. responses.

  
  
  
• Denial
  
  

  If you're unlucky someone will accuse you of being a troll (surely not!) and try and ruin it for you. If you don't want it all to end there, then be sure to counter it by accusing them of being small-minded and petty, saying that it's easier for them to say it's a troll than to accept that people have different opinions. Be sure to say this in the subject line, especially if their subject was the infamous "YHBT. YHL. HAND."

  
  
  
• Claiming credit
  
  

  Given that /. has its community of regular trolls (hi guys!), it's only polite to publish your troll on one of the so-called "hidden" forums for all to see and admire. This way, you get to bask in the praise of other trolls, they get to contribute to your's if they want to, and you get an easy way to find the troll later on when you want to check on its progress :)

  
  
  

  As for when to post it, that's a matter of opinion really. You can either post it straight away or leave it will after people start biting. Remember that the troll forum is also frequented by non-trolls, and sometimes you may get a self-declared "troll-buster" try and expose you. But remember, /.ers always post before thinking, and often it doesn't matter at all.

  
  
  

  There is no real current forum at the moment thanks to various spammers hitting the sids, but try trolltalk, the original troll sid started by 80md and osm way back in the day. Generally all postings are done there as an AC, with your name at the end of the post. Include a link to the troll somewhere in the text, which ideally will be directly to the post and its replies - click on the #XX link in the thread to get there.

  
  
  
• Ending the troll
  
  

  Sometimes you just get bored with a troll, or people start posting genuinely thoughtful stuff in reply (it does happen). When this happens it might be time to own up to the troll with a helpful "YHBT. YHL. HAND." post. Sometimes people will carry on a discussion of the issue, and if you're really lucky (and it was a great troll) they will completely fail to believe you and carry on arguing. If that happens, pat yourself on the back for writing a great troll :)

  
  
  
• The cheap $3 crack
  
  

  Finally, when all else fails and your troll gets moderated down to (-1, Troll) within ten seconds of you posting it, the only honourable thing to do is to accuse the moderators of smoking the cheap $3 crack (again) and give up :(

  
  
  

Section 2 - Types of troll

1. The Maniac
   
   

   Probably the most popular kind of troll, the Maniac holds an opinion on something, and won't budge from that opinion no matter what evidence to the contrary is presented. If challenged, the Maniac will simply get more and more agitated and abusive, deriding his opponents as "idiots", "wrong-thinking", "dangerous" and "subversive". Generally the Maniac takes a position that opposes the prevalent /. beliefs, but a similar effect can be achieved by taking a typical /. viewpoint and pushing it to ridiculous
   extremes.

   
   
   

   Maniacs can be crafted for practically every article /. posts, although some are more obvious targets than others. Civil liberty articles, especially on things like censorship, DMCA, UCITA that really get /.ers riled up, are usually extremely fruitful grounds for a well-crafted maniac. The other obvious type of article is anything which could possibly involve religion, especially evolution :)

   
   
   

   Here are some fruitful avenues to explore:

   
   
   
   • The right-wing
     
     

     Always popular, the right-wing maniac (RWM) is a God-fearing, gun-toting, flag-waving American, and proud of it. They don't care about the rest of the world, unless it's to "prove" that America is better than everything else, and they cannot stand liberal whining over civil rights. They hate the moral decay of America and want it to revert into a nation of heterosexual, Christian whites like it was meant to be. Woe betide anyone that dares to suggest otherwise.

     
     
     
   • Religion
     
     

     There are two ways to approach this kind of maniac. The harder to pull off is the militant atheist, but this is quite common amongst /. posters and you would have to be very offensive to get this to work. Of course with religion trolls, the argument can go on for ever once it's started... The more common approach is the Christian fundamentalist. They are ignorant, intolerant and bigoted in the extreme. For them the Bible is the inerrant word of God revealed to man - it contains no flaws and no contradictions. Thus they are strict Creationists - mentions of evolution or cosmology will set them off on vitriolic rants. Flaming denunciations of anyone daring to contradict the "Word of God" are the way to go, and any kind of proof can always be ignored by appealing to "secular humanist brainwashing". And let's not forget, the USA is the greatest nation on Earth because it has the righteous power of Jesus Christ behind it.

     
     
     
   • Ideology
     
     

     Pick a philosophy, any philosophy. This troll is a troll with a cause - they have found some kind of ideological truth, and are out to expose every other philosophy as a sham. Whether it be libertarianism, objectivism, communism or capitalism, this troll will point out the obvious "flaws" in any other philosophies, whilst spouting dogma about their own. And the best thing is - you don't even need to know that much about what you're spouting - making doctrinaire mistakes will get both sides of the argument flaming you, adding to the fun.

     
     
     
   • Software
     
     

     This is an old favourite and crops up in many forms, covering the gamut from OS maniacs (Linux zealots, MS-apologists or embittered BSD fanatics), language maniacs (Pascal vs. C, C vs. C++, C++ vs. Java, Perl vs. Python, VB vs. everything),
     application maniacs(GIMP vs. Photoshop, Netscape vs. IE, vi vs. emacs) and also includes people who complain about how technology should only be for the 31337 hackers.

     
     
     
   • Guns
     
     

     Americans love their guns, and will always fight passionately for their Constitutionally guarenteed rights to bear arms and shoot people. Even the slightest hint of criticism of this will bring down the wrath of a thousand and one enraged gun-owners on you, so it's always a great point to work into a troll :)

     
     
     
   
   
   
2. The Expert
   
   

   The Expert is someone who is "savvy" in their particular field, and is perfectly willing to give their opinion on any topic even vauguely related to their field. The Expert is most likely to be from a field which /.ers as a rule despise - the classic example is dumb marketing guy, but try consultants, lawyers, politicians, lobbyists, executives, journalists (just think Jon Katz). With this kind of troll sweeping statements with little content are the norm, along wire dire portents of future catastrophe and dark hints of "insider knowledge".

   
   
   

   Some possible angles to exploit:

   
   
   
   • Industry knowledge
     
     

     The expert knows the computing industry from the inside - as a long-term pro, they can dispense knowledge knowing that they can "speak for the industry". Their smug self-satisfaction is bound to annoy, as is any suggestion that things aren't the way that /.ers would like it - saying "Linux requires the rock-solid guarantee of a trusted company like Microsoft" or "Apache cannot be trusted for mission-critical enterprise platforms" is guaranteed to get you denials explaining exactly why you're wrong, in excruciating detail.

     
     
     
   • Helpful hints
     
     

     With their tech-savvy (or law-savvy or whatever) experience, the expert is obviously the best person to point out what's wrong with things or to give out useful "factual" information. In fact this probably works best with lawyer trolls - for all that /.ers protest "IANAL", they certainly seem to think they could be, and any mistakes you make will send them rushing to prove themselves by correcting you.

     
     
     
   
   
   
3. Offtopic Trolls
   
   

   Not really a "troll" in the strict Jargon File sense of the word, but they certainly should be included here :) This category includes parodies, offtopic weirdness any all kinds of amusing stuff. Not really my area of expertise, this stuff is mainly done by gnarphlager and opensourceman. Thanks to gnarphlager for this section.

   
   
   

   Offtopic trolls, like any other, come in almost as many colours as an iMac, but generally not as cute. But then again, a good offtopic "troll" can affect more people than a repulsive little gumdrop on your desk, because you need to have someone SEE your desk before they can react. Simple? Moreso than even my overblown prose could indicate. Some basic examples:

   
   
   
   1. The serial troll
      
      

      Write a story. Keep expanding it. It doesn't matter what article you post it under, so long as it's high up. If you want people to recognize you, pick a couple themes or symbols, and carry them on throughout the story. Other alternatives include back linking or including the entire story, but adding more each time. Be funny if you want. Or if you don't feel like being funny, just be really weird. Someone will react.

      
      
      
   2. The random troll
      
      

      This has nothing to do with anything. Be it a stream of consciousness rant, or a description of the corner of your desk. Another favorite is a monologue, read as if spoken from any one given entity to another. The more outlandish, the better (a pair of socks talking to a mousepad, for example). If you really wanted to be artsy, work in an actual metaphor or legitimate meaning behind it, but it's not necessary.

      
      
      
   3. The vaguely related troll
      
      

      Start out with a comment about the article. Have a definite opinion of it. Then, after a little while, disintegrate into randomness. All roads eventually can eventually lead to cheese (yum), Natalie Portman, cannibalism, toasters, squirrels, futons, you name it. All it takes is a little bit of creativity. Oh, and feel free to use other trolls' motifs. Open source and all that ;-)

      
      
      
   
   
   

   General tips:

   
   
   
   • If it's funny for a fleeting moment, then it's worth posting.
     
     
   • Puns. Puns are only less vile than mimes, but it's hard to mime on /. So feel free/obligated to litter your offtopic and random bits with puns. Hurt the bastards. And if they're sick enough to laugh at them, then they'll eventually end up here ;-)
     
     
   • Obscure cultural references and injokes are always good. SOMEONE will get them eventually.
     
     
   • Several drafts of a serial or random post are common, but true elegance is being able to come up with something on the spot that still makes the top 40 posts (on a post-heavy article)
     
     
   
   
   

Section 3 - Useful trolling links

The following links contain background information useful for trolls needing quick quotes and "expert" opinions to include.

1. General purpose links
   
   
   • ddi.digital.net/~gandalf/trollfaq.html - How to deal with USENET trolls - learn your enemy :)
     
     
   • www.don-lindsay-archive.org/skeptic/arguments.html - A List Of Fallacious Arguments - Learn them and use them liberally
     
   • www.altairiv.demon.co.uk/troll/trollfaq.html - USENET troll HOWTO
     
   • www.baiting.org - Baiting.org
     
   • www.fieldingtravel.com/df/index.htm - Fielding's DangerFinder - A guide to what and where's dangerous
     
     
   
   
   
2. Religious links
   
   
   • www.godhatesamerica.com/ - God Hates America
     
   • www.chalcedon.edu/creed.html - The Creed of Christian Reconstruction
     
   • www.demonbuster.com - How to cast out your demons and do spiritual warfare
     
   • riceinfo.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/thi ngs.htm - Things Creationists hate
     
   • www.icr.org/ - Institute for Creation Research
     
     
   • www.xenu.net - Operation Clambake - The fight against Scientology on the net
     
   • www.hom.net/~angels/ - Citizens for the Ten Commandments
     
   • www.bju.edu/rcnbc.html - The difference between Catholics and Christians
     
   • www.geocities.com/prazske00/biblequotes.html - Bible quotes by category
     
     
   
   
   
3. Political/economy links
   
   
   • www.aynrand.org - The Ayn Rand Institute
     
   • www.reason.com - Libertarian site
     
   • www.freerepublic.com - Right-wing stuff
     
   • www.jbs.org - Excellent site for all kinds of right-wingery
     
   • www.dack.com/web/bullshit.html - Web economy bullshit generator
     
     
   
   
   
4. Crackpot science links
   
   
   • www.fixedearth.com - The Earth Is Not Moving
     
   • www.jir.com/index.htm - The Journal of Irreproducible Results
     
     
   
   
   

Here are links to a couple articles I found on google searching first for "scientific naturalism", then for "philosophical naturalism".

Scientific Naturalism
Philosophical Naturalism

Um, Henry Morris is widely regarded as a crackpot. I'd suggest finding someone else to use as an example. :)

Henry Morris is also a member of the ICR. The ICR is not a scientific organization. Read their Tenets. They assume the know what the truth is, then they go out and look for it; and they discard everything that doesn't agree with what they want to find. That's pretty much the opposite of how real science works.

Will you ignore the fact that radiometric dating frequently produces different answers for one set of samples, and that the "correct" date is then selected?

Experimental error happens. Indeed, creationists go to great lengths to find examples of such:

The data is taken from a creationist publication that mined the literature for examples of bad dates - yet they STILL average out to being correct!

Will you ignore the fact that the most widely accepted model of continental drift now in favor is one put forward by a creationist, as his computer model explains things that nothing else does?

What, this one?

You do realise that this model implies that the entire ocean floor was created in a year? Given that the oceanic crust is 6km thick and covers 53% of the planet, this implies that the entire ocean was boiled off. This model is not 'widely accepted', it is wrong.

You have, of course, still failed to answer with regard to the thermal gradients and cooling in the oceans, why all the different radiometric techniques give the same age, and why the ages agree with those given by continental drift extrapolation. Hell, I even have to post your arguments or you!

The question is not my open-mindedness - I'm fully prepared to take creationist arguments on their merits. You are the one dismissing science without even learning about it first. THAT is closed mindedness and you know it.

Not exactly. It was long ago determined that we cannot say for sure what caused the tracks. Basically, though, creationists have ceded the issue. Unfortunately, you will continue to see apologists who didn't "get the memo" or who refuse to believe it. Just point them to the link above and hope that that will suffice for a response.

To date, we can't say for sure that they are human tracks. See here.

The field of cosmology has advanced at an incredible pace in the past decade, with major discoveries within the past calendar year. Much of the recently published evidence (i.e., fact, not opinion) addresses many of the points raised in this chunk of plagarism (the original article was authored by Duane T. Gish in 1991).

Don't take my word for it; read up on the latest developments yourself. Even for someone that's not intimately familiar with the field, it's quite exciting.

I suggest starting here.

This is really off-topic, but...

Yes, you're correct about Piltdown Man; he was a fraud perpetrated by a rather small group of British researchers (including, of all people, Arthur Conan Doyle.) He is mentioned in many scientific and literary works of the early 20th Century, including the stories of H.P. Lovecraft. It was a wildly successful piece of scientific trickery and deceit, perhaps the most successful hoax in history.

But here's the thing: it wasn't anti-evolution activists or Baptist ministers who exposed Piltdown as the fraud it was. The truth came out of a process that started at an international congress of paleontologists in 1953. That's right; the same scientific establishment that you are accusing of widespread fraud and corruption is responsible for learning the truth about Piltdown Man. Your mission, should you choose to accept it, is to find a biology textbook written any time after 1958 that mentions Piltdown Man in any context other than that he was a fraud. Find me a modern biology textbook that references Piltdown Man as evidence for evolutionary common descent.

Good luck.

Compare and contrast this with the creation science community. Many (but not all) of these folks consistently refer to theories and pieces of physical evidence that have long been debunked or shown to be fraudulent. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is references to the Paluxy River tracks, which some claim show human tracks next to dinosaur tracks, suggesting that man and dinos were contemporaries. This "evidence" was debunked a long time ago, and even the Institute for Creation Research, an organization not known for its strong committment to the scientific method, has suggested that "honest creation scientists" not use the Paluxy River tracks as evidence for a young Earth.

That's just one example of creationists providing false and/or debunked evidence for their particular brand of creationism. The list goes on and on; we've got ridiculous claims that evolution violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics, we've got the false stories about moon dust and about how NASA was afraid that Apollo 11 would get mired in it, we've got the urban legend about NASA computers "finding" the missing day from Joshua's siege on Jericho, etc. etc.

The point is this: Before you accuse scientists en masse of widespread fraud, lies, and deception, you might want to consider getting your own house in order first. The Piltdown Man debacle demonstrates that scientists are ever skeptical and are willing to admit when they are wrong and have been misled. Are you and yours capable of the same honesty?

Google is your friend: here's one reference which indicates that this is a direct ripoff of an (ahem) "impact" by a "Duane T. Gish, Ph.D." copyright 1991 by the "Institute for Creation Research". And here I thought copyright violations were a sin...

No, actually you belittle God and make Christians look stupid when you say His Bible is a lie. Go back, read Genesis one, and tell me again how Christianity is compatible with a world view that says we evolved from monkeys. And if you feel that having scientists on your side is necessary, check out Institute for Creation Research. There are quite a few Phd's who disagree strongly with you, and there's a lot of evidence that they're right.

I've often wondered why so many evolutionists are reluctant to question their foundations. Thanks for clearing that up for me!

Maybe I can clear it up a little further.

"Questioning my foundations" is what led me to reject creationism, and favor evolution, in the first place.

It is the height of arrogance to assume that someone is closed minded just because they have reached a conclusion different from yours.

After all, if we hold a view, it's usually because we think it is correct. Each side would do well to remember that this is true of the other side as well. I can't count the number of times I've been guilty of this error myself.

Five-year-old Mary was obliged to undergo an operation, and lost so much blood that it was necessary to resort to blood transfusion. The blood of thirteen-year-old brother Jimmy was found by test to match exactly the little patient's. "Will you give your sister some of your blood, Jim?" asked the doctor. Jimmy set his teeth. "Yes, sir, if she needs it." He was prepared for the transfusion. In the midst of the drawing of the blood, the doctor observed Jimmy growing paler and paler. "Are you ill, Jim?" he asked. "No, sir, but I'm wondering just when I'll die." "Die?" gasped the doctor. "Do you think people give their lives when they give a little blood?" "Yes, sir," replied Jimmy. "And you are giving your life for Mary's?" "Yes, sir," replied Jimmy.

Now perhaps there is some truth behind it, even if the reasons why are different. Anyway, should serve as a reminder to EVERYONE that understanding of reality changes, and what is fact today may be discovered as myth tomorrow.

I have decided that for science to progress, it is absolutely essential that people be willing to accept that everything they believe may be wrong, so that they are open to new possibilities. On the other hand, they must not be quick to accept new theories, and examine it properly. There are too many people in all walks of life who become stubbornly attached to a belief because of one reason or another. This kind of attitude inhibits the progress of scientific discovery.

Talking about creation and evolution, almost everyone has religious reasons for wanting to believe either side. If there was debate on whether quarks were really the smallest component, almost nobody would care about the outcome for religious reasons. However, evolution gives people the power to defend atheism, and creation gives people the power to defend creation. Almost everyone has a religious/philosophical reason for wanting an answer to the question of origins.