Slashdot Mirror

The reasoning behind my speculation is as follows:

(1) According to an article in Science News and others referenced from Slashdot, the Moon appears to be from 2 moons, both from the mantle, no major asteroid content, thus no mars-sized asteroid.

(2) If that is the case, then the best explanation is de Meijer's critical georeactor theory: calcium bergs blew up in the mantle. But...

(3) the de Meijer theory falls down based on the fact that the uranium/calcium bergs would create enough vapor pressure in going critical, that they wouldn't go sufficiently supercritical to blow out a major fraction of the moon, unless a *small* asteroid knocked one of them into the center of a group, or if another blast created shockwaves that compressed a collection of U-Ca bergs together. So it *does* require a small asteroid.

(4) If that is so, then due to the neutron bombardment, the U-Th, U-Pb, Pb-Pb dating of rocks is going to be off, but there will be great scatter in the estimated ages, and the event will be more recent than the dating indicates (2.3- billion years). But

(5) we have earth rocks that date older than that, too. So we should have evidence of the locations. That is, the Earth's crust should show evidence of the blast.

(6) Such a blast would shatter the Earth's crust, leaving rings of Kimberlites around the blast zone, that dated younger (because the rings are structural failures, and less contaminated by neutrons), while the center would date older, being more contaminated.

(7) Two such locations exist: the 850 mi-radius ring of Kimberlites around the Hudson Bay (search Canada kimberlite, and Greenland kimberlite), and the ring of Kimberlites around Vredefort that stretches from Brazil, through Africa, through North India, and into Austrailia.

(8) According to plate tectonics, both rings align correctly at the Permian extinction. Both rings have central rocks dating to about the age of the moon,

(9) At the site of the Vredefort blast, you have an area called the African Karoo. The lava sills (light gray in this picture) are excluded from a region which is heavy in Kimberlites, and indeed includes the city of Kimberly. The shape, size, and location of the excluded zone, at 230 ma ago, exactly matches the shape size and location of the Scotia plate, which remains volcanic to this day.

What this makes me think happened, is that an asteroid hit at an oblique angle at the location of a collection of georeactors, near the South Sandwich islands. The blast went supercritical, and blew out a close to half of the moon. most of the blast going back through the asteroid scar, but a lot of it going straight out. Crustally speaking, the blast destroyed whatever continent existed to the west.

The blast also sent shock waves through the earth. 1/3 of the way around the globe, another collection of georeactors was forced supercritical, creating a symmetrically round blast (the Hudson and its k

This is not true, everyone knows that if you run a specific frequency of AC current through water, you get be more hydrogen out of the water than what you are putting in current wise.

“If ‘everybody knows’ such –and-such, then it ain’t so, by at least ten thousand to one.”

-- Robert A. Heinlein

In the meantime, while you're digesting Heinlein's wisdom, you might wish to review some basics.

That is indeed a neat experiment. (And thanks for actually providing something specific, even with a link, unlike a few others...) However, a guick googling for a respons, gave me this. I'll freely admit that I don't know that site much, but then, the results are quite new, so there hasn't been much time to analyse their findings properly.

The main arguments are that 1) the E.coli used can metabolize citrate under other conditions (so it's not completely new to them), 2) there was an abundance of citrate present compared to other "food". 3) the time it took (in generations) was way too long for even a minor change to explain anything on a larger scale.

This is a good question. There is quite a bit of real science to suggest that most of what passes for evolutionary doctrine and dogma is indeed false, or at the very least, extremely suspect. A great place to begin investigating this is the excellent scienceagainstevolution.org website, which was founded by a well-respected engineer, a Fellow at the US Naval Weapons lab responsible for much of the science and engineering behind US missile guidance systems.

Best starting URL: http://scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters.htm

I have yet to find any open-minded evolutionist that doesn't have significant doubts about the scientific validity of evolution after a deep reading of that site. The evidence is clear: science does NOT support evolution.

There is a mountain of evidence that deposes the blind faith that people like you have in evolution: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm If only your religious fervor would allow you to consider the possibility that the theory of evolution is just really, really irresponsible science.

I doubt that if Darwin had any inkling of the existence of things like DNA and the unfathomable complexity of the DNA in each of the 50 trillion+ cells in his body, would he so easily have dreamt up the garbage that he felt the need to put down on paper. To me, Darwin long ago stated that the world is flat and the leftist Inquisition can not seem to get over those of us who proudly say "No!".

Whatever you believe the origins of life to be, evolution is a broken idea.

"But try to discuss how science affects religion to a group of religious people, and suddenly you 'have no faith' in anything."

From my experience, the only scientific topic that usually degrades into mudsliging and name calling is when it concerns a theory of the origin of the universe. When is the last time you've seen a Christian and an atheist arguing about our understanding of molecular biology or whether the lift created by the wing of a plane is caused by faith and not air pressure?

It's a misnomer to claim that you can not rationally discuss science with religious people simply because people of faith have a hard time accepting the claims of Evolution as it concerns the origin of the universe. Evolutionary *theory* does not speak for the entire body of scientific information and experience.

If you are interested as to how people of faith think in scientific ways, you might enjoy reading some of the essays published here: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm

...and you can scientifically investigate 'actual design'?

Intelligent Design, regardless of its appearance to stay above the fray, is not interested in the supposed designer being a Hindu god or goddess, or aliens, or robots. It is interested in an appearance of science as a second attempt to put a wedge in education to open the doors to Christianity in school.

Dembski can't help but have an agenda:

"The job of apologetics is to clear the ground, to clear obstacles that prevent people from coming to the knowledge of Christ," Dembski said. "And if there's anything that I think has blocked the growth of Christ [and] the free reign of the Spirit and people accepting the Scripture and Jesus Christ, it is the Darwinian naturalistic view.... It's important that we understand the world. God has created it; Jesus is incarnate in the world."

After having followed the activities of the creationist movement, and this is creationism rebadged, the key strategies are that the end justifies the means, everything must agree with Genesis, repeated misquoting of evolutionary proponents, deliberate misuses of terms and deliberate confusion of separate subjects and terms.

"Just a theory" mischaracterizes scientific theories; irreducible complexities, when disproven (like the Krebs cycle) just drive them to pull the next one out of their hat, and, in this particular case, they confuse natural selection and evolutionary theory with abiogenesis, the search for a non-biological origin of life.

Every piece of life on the face of this planet excluding viruses has DNA and ribosomes. These are complex in and of themselves, so they are extremely poor candidates for a non-miraculous origin of life. That, and the similarities and differences in ribosomal DNA (like reconstructing the original program in a fractured open source project gone wild) indicate a shared ancestor before that point.

Precursors lie in the area of conjecture. We cannot directly observe such precursors; DNA has been so incredibly successful that everything else has become food. Hence projects like this.

Criminy. ScienceAgainstEvolution has all the hallmarks of intellectual dishonesty that has become the creationist hallmark, with heaps of question-begging and snide, often mischaracterizing, rhetorical questions. Everything in bold in their Two Silver Anniversaries page typifies the approach.

To get back to the ID movement, we have a right to question the motives underneath, not simply address the surface questions that are designed to 'sound reasonable'. To do otherwise would be to like inviting Scientology's Narconon into schools because 'drugs are bad'. Or a good-looking control freak into bed :)

Teaching ID in public schools isn't going to cut down on the number of good scientists.

No, in fact, it will create them. Outside the media drumbeaters, even the leading evolutionist experts agree that life has the appearance of design. The issue is whether it is merely an appearance or the result of actual design. From a scientific investigatory stance, we have to consider both options.

Anyone who can't see through the ID crap fails that test by definition.

Nice of you to pre-judge that! In reality, even evolutionists recognize that ID arguments are substantial and must be addressed in any credible cohesive argument for evolutionary origins. That's why their million-dollar prize for a credible evolutionary model requires addressing ID's claims, which are substantial and credible objections to evolution on a scientific basis - that's why ID has to be tarred as anti-scientific - because in reality it is entirely scientific, so undermining credibility is the only option, since the real objections to ID can't be answered by evolutionary science. (http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm)

If you really think it's so easy to disprove ID and prove evolution scientifically, let's see you submit a credible and scientifically reasonable explanation of naturalistic origins of life. There'a a cool million dollars waiting for you if you do, not to mention the undying fawning attention of the mainstream media for decades to come. I'd like to see you win it. Really.

(A good writeup on how this million dollar challenge requires refuting several significant ID assertions can be found in this month's ScienceAgainstEvolution newsletter.)

Teaching ID in public schools isn't going to cut down on the number of good scientists.

No, in fact, it will create them. Outside the media drumbeaters, even the leading evolutionist experts agree that life has the appearance of design. The issue is whether it is merely an appearance or the result of actual design. From a scientific investigatory stance, we have to consider both options.

Anyone who can't see through the ID crap fails that test by definition.

Nice of you to pre-judge that! In reality, even evolutionists recognize that ID arguments are substantial and must be addressed in any credible cohesive argument for evolutionary origins. That's why their million-dollar prize for a credible evolutionary model requires addressing ID's claims, which are substantial and credible objections to evolution on a scientific basis - that's why ID has to be tarred as anti-scientific - because in reality it is entirely scientific, so undermining credibility is the only option, since the real objections to ID can't be answered by evolutionary science. (http://scienceagainstevolution.org/v9i11f.htm)

If you really think it's so easy to disprove ID and prove evolution scientifically, let's see you submit a credible and scientifically reasonable explanation of naturalistic origins of life. There'a a cool million dollars waiting for you if you do, not to mention the undying fawning attention of the mainstream media for decades to come. I'd like to see you win it. Really.

(A good writeup on how this million dollar challenge requires refuting several significant ID assertions can be found in this month's ScienceAgainstEvolution newsletter.)

But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.

Thanks for mentioning this. Christians are being demonized here, but the truth is there are loonies on both sides.

That said, Christians need never be afraid of the Truth, since it is quite literally our God. That means there is absolutely nothing that real and valid science can prove that can possibly disprove His existence. In fact, it is well-accepted amongst philosophers that objective truth and God are inseparable, and that if God does not exist, then neither can objective truth. Those philosophers who are reject God but are intellectually honest take this to it's logical conclusion of existentialism and the utter meaninglessness of life. Logically, God exists and life has meaning, or He doesn't and it does not. There is no in-between for a binary condition.

That the universe around us (and particularly living things) exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design is inescapable, even to evolutionary scientists looking for proof of their theory. But the real point of this debate should be that there are very good scientific reasons to doubt evolution. Evolution is the church of the anti-God, and abandoned any real pretense of science years ago. When "scientists" assemble a "human ancestor" skeleton made up of badly damaged fragments of bones found over many miles and numerous geological layers, why shouldn't we all question the validity of that "science"? (See Parent of the Apes, Part 1, Parent of the Apes, Part 2, and Let's talk about Lucy.)

That's *exactly* the sort of thing we should be teaching our students to watch for - people on any side of an issue who are willing to cheat to make their point. The purpose of real science is to expose TRUTH - nothing more, nothing less. Evolutionary science (and to be fair, almost all of of "creation science", too) are not interested in truth-seeking, but grandstanding. Any real scientists are only interested in finding what is objectively true and real, and since real belief in objective truth requires the existence of God (whether or not one chooses to live in accordance with His wishes), then atheism and science are incompatible. This was well understood several hundred years ago at the height of scientific progress when theology was known as "Queen of the Sciences". Theology was not paced above all other sciences because of church domination, but because it is a logical necessity, and people then were smart enough to realize it and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.

But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.

Thanks for mentioning this. Christians are being demonized here, but the truth is there are loonies on both sides.

That said, Christians need never be afraid of the Truth, since it is quite literally our God. That means there is absolutely nothing that real and valid science can prove that can possibly disprove His existence. In fact, it is well-accepted amongst philosophers that objective truth and God are inseparable, and that if God does not exist, then neither can objective truth. Those philosophers who are reject God but are intellectually honest take this to it's logical conclusion of existentialism and the utter meaninglessness of life. Logically, God exists and life has meaning, or He doesn't and it does not. There is no in-between for a binary condition.

That the universe around us (and particularly living things) exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design is inescapable, even to evolutionary scientists looking for proof of their theory. But the real point of this debate should be that there are very good scientific reasons to doubt evolution. Evolution is the church of the anti-God, and abandoned any real pretense of science years ago. When "scientists" assemble a "human ancestor" skeleton made up of badly damaged fragments of bones found over many miles and numerous geological layers, why shouldn't we all question the validity of that "science"? (See Parent of the Apes, Part 1, Parent of the Apes, Part 2, and Let's talk about Lucy.)

That's *exactly* the sort of thing we should be teaching our students to watch for - people on any side of an issue who are willing to cheat to make their point. The purpose of real science is to expose TRUTH - nothing more, nothing less. Evolutionary science (and to be fair, almost all of of "creation science", too) are not interested in truth-seeking, but grandstanding. Any real scientists are only interested in finding what is objectively true and real, and since real belief in objective truth requires the existence of God (whether or not one chooses to live in accordance with His wishes), then atheism and science are incompatible. This was well understood several hundred years ago at the height of scientific progress when theology was known as "Queen of the Sciences". Theology was not paced above all other sciences because of church domination, but because it is a logical necessity, and people then were smart enough to realize it and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.

But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.

Thanks for mentioning this. Christians are being demonized here, but the truth is there are loonies on both sides.

That said, Christians need never be afraid of the Truth, since it is quite literally our God. That means there is absolutely nothing that real and valid science can prove that can possibly disprove His existence. In fact, it is well-accepted amongst philosophers that objective truth and God are inseparable, and that if God does not exist, then neither can objective truth. Those philosophers who are reject God but are intellectually honest take this to it's logical conclusion of existentialism and the utter meaninglessness of life. Logically, God exists and life has meaning, or He doesn't and it does not. There is no in-between for a binary condition.

That the universe around us (and particularly living things) exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design is inescapable, even to evolutionary scientists looking for proof of their theory. But the real point of this debate should be that there are very good scientific reasons to doubt evolution. Evolution is the church of the anti-God, and abandoned any real pretense of science years ago. When "scientists" assemble a "human ancestor" skeleton made up of badly damaged fragments of bones found over many miles and numerous geological layers, why shouldn't we all question the validity of that "science"? (See Parent of the Apes, Part 1, Parent of the Apes, Part 2, and Let's talk about Lucy.)

That's *exactly* the sort of thing we should be teaching our students to watch for - people on any side of an issue who are willing to cheat to make their point. The purpose of real science is to expose TRUTH - nothing more, nothing less. Evolutionary science (and to be fair, almost all of of "creation science", too) are not interested in truth-seeking, but grandstanding. Any real scientists are only interested in finding what is objectively true and real, and since real belief in objective truth requires the existence of God (whether or not one chooses to live in accordance with His wishes), then atheism and science are incompatible. This was well understood several hundred years ago at the height of scientific progress when theology was known as "Queen of the Sciences". Theology was not paced above all other sciences because of church domination, but because it is a logical necessity, and people then were smart enough to realize it and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.

But the fact that numberous people here are saying Christianity has declined science is fallacious and does not have enough evidence to prove itself.

Thanks for mentioning this. Christians are being demonized here, but the truth is there are loonies on both sides.

That said, Christians need never be afraid of the Truth, since it is quite literally our God. That means there is absolutely nothing that real and valid science can prove that can possibly disprove His existence. In fact, it is well-accepted amongst philosophers that objective truth and God are inseparable, and that if God does not exist, then neither can objective truth. Those philosophers who are reject God but are intellectually honest take this to it's logical conclusion of existentialism and the utter meaninglessness of life. Logically, God exists and life has meaning, or He doesn't and it does not. There is no in-between for a binary condition.

That the universe around us (and particularly living things) exhibit the hallmarks of intelligent design is inescapable, even to evolutionary scientists looking for proof of their theory. But the real point of this debate should be that there are very good scientific reasons to doubt evolution. Evolution is the church of the anti-God, and abandoned any real pretense of science years ago. When "scientists" assemble a "human ancestor" skeleton made up of badly damaged fragments of bones found over many miles and numerous geological layers, why shouldn't we all question the validity of that "science"? (See Parent of the Apes, Part 1, Parent of the Apes, Part 2, and Let's talk about Lucy.)

That's *exactly* the sort of thing we should be teaching our students to watch for - people on any side of an issue who are willing to cheat to make their point. The purpose of real science is to expose TRUTH - nothing more, nothing less. Evolutionary science (and to be fair, almost all of of "creation science", too) are not interested in truth-seeking, but grandstanding. Any real scientists are only interested in finding what is objectively true and real, and since real belief in objective truth requires the existence of God (whether or not one chooses to live in accordance with His wishes), then atheism and science are incompatible. This was well understood several hundred years ago at the height of scientific progress when theology was known as "Queen of the Sciences". Theology was not paced above all other sciences because of church domination, but because it is a logical necessity, and people then were smart enough to realize it and intellectually honest enough to acknowledge it.

the dissenting viewpoints aren't based in science. In fact, they're based on the very opposite of science - assuming something to be true first and then making the information fit.

Actually, this description is at least as applicable to the evolutionists as it is the ID folks. A good article in this month's Science Against Evolution (which is an unbiased, science-only look at why evolution is not scientifically credible) makes the point: recent discoveries of non-decayed, non-fossilized organic tissue, including blood and blood vessels from T-Rex bones found in Montana, show the lengths scientists must go to to avoid the reasonable and logical question of the fossil's age, given the extreme unliklihood of blood surviving for 65 million years. The best and most reasonable explanation is that they're not that old, but that that's heresy to the church of evolutionary "science", and cannot not be tolerated, because that truth would threaten not science, but dogma.

The pursuit of the truth must be made even-handedly and without bias. The simple fact is that neither Creation nor Evolution can be scientifically proven. Both theories seem to have a great deal of trouble with certain parts of the evidence, and reactionaries on both sides are way too quick to toss evidence that doesn't support thier view. In the end, though, the real evidence (not necessarily the prevailing interpretation of that evidence) is what reflects truth and reality, not wishful thinking.

http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/Science Against Evolution

How about using current scientific publications against evolution?
http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/

Could you provide same results from a plausible source - creationists and their well-known lies don't come even close to being anything more than a good laugh.

Actually, if you'd bother to read the links and their footnotes, you'd see the original sources are published science and comments of scientists. The site itself is run by uber-programmer David Pogge, a.k.a "Do-While Jones", who has achieved the high honor of being named a fellow at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center as one of the world's leading experts on the hardware and software design of guided missile systems.

Most of the quotes in the article are from the likes of Science and Nature, sources not noted for their "creationist" sympathies. There is no credibility gap here, unless its yours. They said what they said, in print, and what they said clearly does not support evolution.

In any case, Pogge's site, Science Against Evolution is not at all creationist, but simply points out that science actually does anything but support the theory of evolution. In this case, it is the scientist's own words and backtracking from their unjustifiable assertion about this "Mars rock" that make the links so interesting.

> It never ceases to amaze me that in the world of "science" that theory is most always talked of as proven fact. If the probability that object x doesn't exist is 80%, that object is talked about as if it doesn't exist conclusively, even though the possiblity that it exists is in the other 20%t. The age of the universe is a good example. Scientist y estimates to to being x Billion years old, and every textbook, news article, journal, documentary, etc states that the universe is x billion years old as if proven fact. The truth is that no-one currently knows exactly whether it's one billion or a billion billion years old.

That's why scientists prefer convergent evidence over one individual's opinion.

BTW, AFAICT astronomers are now nearly unanimous on an age of 13.7 billion years. This is a fairly recent result.

Your "convergent evidence", though, is not really any such thing, but just a general agreement on what is politically acceptable, not scientifically justified.

It's vitally important to understand that these dates are in reality based solely on conjecture, since every radioactive dating method rests on unfounded assumptions - assumptions that produce results that are known to be grossly and wildly inconsistent in the few cases we have where the ages of rocks *are* known precisely. The assumptions are "tweaked" to produce the desired age, not the other way around...

From the article: The team that found it was led by experienced meteorite hunters Carine Bidaut and Bruno Fectay, who have now found six rocks from Mars - a record.

Interesting that they seem to know *just* where to find Martian rocks.

It's also really interesting that the last big hoo-rah about finding "a rock from Mars" here on Earth coincided with Bush Sr's proposal for a mission to Mars. What's really amazing is that these discoveries are so strongly correlated to Congressional consideration of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for Mars research! (Perhaps we should fund a $40 million NASA/CBO research study to determine if this correlation can be linked to any sort of causality? Hmmm?)

There is absolutely no real evidence that these rocks are from Mars, and in fact, NASA very quickly backed away from defending the Mars origin theory when pressed to provide scientific backup. There is absolutely no substantial reason to believe that ALH84001 came from Mars, other than that it sure seems to help get funding.

Of course, if we go to Mars, it should be without NASA - how we could think that a government agency with a worse operational safety and efficiency record than the Post Office should run a Mars mission is beyond me. I've worked at NASA, and belive me, the only real soultion is to bulldoze the entire organization and start over - even thenm you'd need to wait ten years before starting over to avoid the revolving door effect...

From the article: The team that found it was led by experienced meteorite hunters Carine Bidaut and Bruno Fectay, who have now found six rocks from Mars - a record.

Interesting that they seem to know *just* where to find Martian rocks.

It's also really interesting that the last big hoo-rah about finding "a rock from Mars" here on Earth coincided with Bush Sr's proposal for a mission to Mars. What's really amazing is that these discoveries are so strongly correlated to Congressional consideration of tens or hundreds of billions of dollars for Mars research! (Perhaps we should fund a $40 million NASA/CBO research study to determine if this correlation can be linked to any sort of causality? Hmmm?)

There is absolutely no real evidence that these rocks are from Mars, and in fact, NASA very quickly backed away from defending the Mars origin theory when pressed to provide scientific backup. There is absolutely no substantial reason to believe that ALH84001 came from Mars, other than that it sure seems to help get funding.

Of course, if we go to Mars, it should be without NASA - how we could think that a government agency with a worse operational safety and efficiency record than the Post Office should run a Mars mission is beyond me. I've worked at NASA, and belive me, the only real soultion is to bulldoze the entire organization and start over - even thenm you'd need to wait ten years before starting over to avoid the revolving door effect...

It's worth noting that substituting "evolution" for environmental results in a set of statements that is just as true. Like environmentalism, it is also a religion in its own right, and absolutely intolerant of anything that might question its own primacy.

This month's Disclosure puts this in great perspective...

The objects reside in a ring-shaped region called the Kuiper Belt, which houses a swarm of icy rocks that are leftover building blocks, or "planetesimals," from the solar system's creation.

This is nothing but pseudo-scientific drivel. These objects *may* be "leftover building blocks" from the formation of the Solar system, or they may not.

The fact is that we have no way of knowing. It's sloppy, unsubstantiated claims like this that (justifiably) undermine the credibility of those making such claims. Such bogus science consequently leads many of us to question the validity of the church of evolution on purely scientific grounds, if nothing else...

It's not too suprising that scientists are no match for millions of years of evolution.

Of course, there are lots of us that have valid scientific reasons for doubting evolution. I'll probably get modded into the gutter, but there are a number of very serious scientific problems with evolution, and most people don't even consider them, since that is heresy to the modern church of Evolution, and the indoctrination that passes for science education today.

Those that have more open minds, and are willing to explore *why* science actually militates against evolution are invited to read the articles at Do-While Jones' excellent Science Against Evolution site.

I particularly recommend the following as a getting started place:

Let's talk about Lucy - Things you never knew about the famous invented ape

Radioactive Dating explained, Part 1 - A real eye-opener

Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

The Species problem - how DNA studies do NOT support evolutionary theory

There are many dozens more insightful articles in the Articles link above - even evolution supporters should read them if they want a balanced scientific view of the issue. The author of this site is not a dolt, but uber-programmer David Pogge (under the nom-de-plume Do-While Jones). Pogge is one of the few Fellows at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center, and is responsible for significant chunks of the US' dominance in missile guidance technology.

So, evolution is not an answer for everything, even the production of spider silk, and may not be an answer for anything, especially if one is interested in looking at the flimsiness of the "science" behind evolution.

It's not too suprising that scientists are no match for millions of years of evolution.

Of course, there are lots of us that have valid scientific reasons for doubting evolution. I'll probably get modded into the gutter, but there are a number of very serious scientific problems with evolution, and most people don't even consider them, since that is heresy to the modern church of Evolution, and the indoctrination that passes for science education today.

Those that have more open minds, and are willing to explore *why* science actually militates against evolution are invited to read the articles at Do-While Jones' excellent Science Against Evolution site.

I particularly recommend the following as a getting started place:

Let's talk about Lucy - Things you never knew about the famous invented ape

Radioactive Dating explained, Part 1 - A real eye-opener

Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

The Species problem - how DNA studies do NOT support evolutionary theory

There are many dozens more insightful articles in the Articles link above - even evolution supporters should read them if they want a balanced scientific view of the issue. The author of this site is not a dolt, but uber-programmer David Pogge (under the nom-de-plume Do-While Jones). Pogge is one of the few Fellows at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center, and is responsible for significant chunks of the US' dominance in missile guidance technology.

So, evolution is not an answer for everything, even the production of spider silk, and may not be an answer for anything, especially if one is interested in looking at the flimsiness of the "science" behind evolution.

It's not too suprising that scientists are no match for millions of years of evolution.

Of course, there are lots of us that have valid scientific reasons for doubting evolution. I'll probably get modded into the gutter, but there are a number of very serious scientific problems with evolution, and most people don't even consider them, since that is heresy to the modern church of Evolution, and the indoctrination that passes for science education today.

Those that have more open minds, and are willing to explore *why* science actually militates against evolution are invited to read the articles at Do-While Jones' excellent Science Against Evolution site.

I particularly recommend the following as a getting started place:

Let's talk about Lucy - Things you never knew about the famous invented ape

Radioactive Dating explained, Part 1 - A real eye-opener

Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

The Species problem - how DNA studies do NOT support evolutionary theory

There are many dozens more insightful articles in the Articles link above - even evolution supporters should read them if they want a balanced scientific view of the issue. The author of this site is not a dolt, but uber-programmer David Pogge (under the nom-de-plume Do-While Jones). Pogge is one of the few Fellows at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center, and is responsible for significant chunks of the US' dominance in missile guidance technology.

So, evolution is not an answer for everything, even the production of spider silk, and may not be an answer for anything, especially if one is interested in looking at the flimsiness of the "science" behind evolution.

It's not too suprising that scientists are no match for millions of years of evolution.

Of course, there are lots of us that have valid scientific reasons for doubting evolution. I'll probably get modded into the gutter, but there are a number of very serious scientific problems with evolution, and most people don't even consider them, since that is heresy to the modern church of Evolution, and the indoctrination that passes for science education today.

Those that have more open minds, and are willing to explore *why* science actually militates against evolution are invited to read the articles at Do-While Jones' excellent Science Against Evolution site.

I particularly recommend the following as a getting started place:

Let's talk about Lucy - Things you never knew about the famous invented ape

Radioactive Dating explained, Part 1 - A real eye-opener

Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

The Species problem - how DNA studies do NOT support evolutionary theory

There are many dozens more insightful articles in the Articles link above - even evolution supporters should read them if they want a balanced scientific view of the issue. The author of this site is not a dolt, but uber-programmer David Pogge (under the nom-de-plume Do-While Jones). Pogge is one of the few Fellows at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center, and is responsible for significant chunks of the US' dominance in missile guidance technology.

So, evolution is not an answer for everything, even the production of spider silk, and may not be an answer for anything, especially if one is interested in looking at the flimsiness of the "science" behind evolution.

It's not too suprising that scientists are no match for millions of years of evolution.

Of course, there are lots of us that have valid scientific reasons for doubting evolution. I'll probably get modded into the gutter, but there are a number of very serious scientific problems with evolution, and most people don't even consider them, since that is heresy to the modern church of Evolution, and the indoctrination that passes for science education today.

Those that have more open minds, and are willing to explore *why* science actually militates against evolution are invited to read the articles at Do-While Jones' excellent Science Against Evolution site.

I particularly recommend the following as a getting started place:

Let's talk about Lucy - Things you never knew about the famous invented ape

Radioactive Dating explained, Part 1 - A real eye-opener

Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

The Species problem - how DNA studies do NOT support evolutionary theory

There are many dozens more insightful articles in the Articles link above - even evolution supporters should read them if they want a balanced scientific view of the issue. The author of this site is not a dolt, but uber-programmer David Pogge (under the nom-de-plume Do-While Jones). Pogge is one of the few Fellows at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center, and is responsible for significant chunks of the US' dominance in missile guidance technology.

So, evolution is not an answer for everything, even the production of spider silk, and may not be an answer for anything, especially if one is interested in looking at the flimsiness of the "science" behind evolution.

It's not too suprising that scientists are no match for millions of years of evolution.

Of course, there are lots of us that have valid scientific reasons for doubting evolution. I'll probably get modded into the gutter, but there are a number of very serious scientific problems with evolution, and most people don't even consider them, since that is heresy to the modern church of Evolution, and the indoctrination that passes for science education today.

Those that have more open minds, and are willing to explore *why* science actually militates against evolution are invited to read the articles at Do-While Jones' excellent Science Against Evolution site.

I particularly recommend the following as a getting started place:

Let's talk about Lucy - Things you never knew about the famous invented ape

Radioactive Dating explained, Part 1 - A real eye-opener

Radioactive Dating Explained - Part 2

The Species problem - how DNA studies do NOT support evolutionary theory

There are many dozens more insightful articles in the Articles link above - even evolution supporters should read them if they want a balanced scientific view of the issue. The author of this site is not a dolt, but uber-programmer David Pogge (under the nom-de-plume Do-While Jones). Pogge is one of the few Fellows at the US Navy's China Lake Weapons Center, and is responsible for significant chunks of the US' dominance in missile guidance technology.

So, evolution is not an answer for everything, even the production of spider silk, and may not be an answer for anything, especially if one is interested in looking at the flimsiness of the "science" behind evolution.

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.

there are random mutations every time a cell divides, it's called evolution.

Hmm, although no doubt politically correct in your domain of study, that's not an assertion that's borne out by real-life DNA studies. In fact, the wole thing appears to be quite an ugly mess, causing the creation of ever-more-unlikely orthodoxy in order to maintain the ridiculous claims of evolution...

there are random mutations every time a cell divides, it's called evolution.

Hmm, although no doubt politically correct in your domain of study, that's not an assertion that's borne out by real-life DNA studies. In fact, the wole thing appears to be quite an ugly mess, causing the creation of ever-more-unlikely orthodoxy in order to maintain the ridiculous claims of evolution...

7 August 1998 (Science page 774) "New Views of the Origins of Mammals--Paleontologists and molecular biologists take different approaches to questions of evolution and often come to different conclusions"

27 November 1998 (Science page 1653) "The Abominable Mystery". The caption under two alleged evolutionary trees says, "In this analysis, Gnetales are more closely related to other gymnosperms than to the angiosperms."

5 December 1998 (Science News page 358) "Turtle Genes Upset Reptilian Family Tree". The caption under the photo of a turtle says, "Turtles: An evolutionary enigma".

6 February 1999 (Science News page 88) "DNA's Evolutionary Dilemma--Genetic studies collide with the mystery of human evolution".

26 February 1999 (Science page 1310) "Evolutionary and Preservational Constraints on Origins of Biologic Groups: Divergence Times of Eutherian Mammals--Some molecular clock estimates of divergence times of taxonomic groups undergoing evolutionary radiation are much older than the groups' first observed fossil record".

5 March 1999 (Science page 1435) "Can Mitochondrial Clocks Keep Time?".

6 March 1999 (Science News page 159) "Turtles and Crocs: Strange Relations".

21 May 1999 (Science page 1305) "Is It Time to Uproot the Tree of Life?--More genomes have only further blurred the branching pattern of life. Some blame shanghaied genes; others say the tree is wrong".

I agree, read that article, and then read this rebuttal in two parts: SciAm rebuttal Part I, and SciAm rebuttal, Part II.

Then perhaps you'll be prepared to make a judgement about the validity of both positions. FWIW, I think the SciAm article in question did as much damage to the evolutionist position (through wrecking even the pretense of objectivity of the evolutionist community) as some of the loonier creationist writings have done to undermine that position.

I agree, read that article, and then read this rebuttal in two parts: SciAm rebuttal Part I, and SciAm rebuttal, Part II.

Then perhaps you'll be prepared to make a judgement about the validity of both positions. FWIW, I think the SciAm article in question did as much damage to the evolutionist position (through wrecking even the pretense of objectivity of the evolutionist community) as some of the loonier creationist writings have done to undermine that position.

Before you bet too solidly on evolution, you might want to check out the facts. There are a good number of valid scientific reasons for questioning evolutionary theory.

I recommend reading a few of these articles for at least an overview of why science itself argues against evolution in many cases: http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/newsletters .htm

Any thoughtful view of the evidence will, I think, bring one to the realization that this is a complex subject for which no simple answer is possible, as the evidence "contradicts" the common arguments of both sides in various ways.

There are no Creative Mutations

[Sciam says:]
---
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. [Footnote deleted. See Part 2 link above for original source.]
---

Not the bacteria nonsense, again! We've already dealt with that in our October, 2001, essay on The PBS Evolution Series. [See http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i1t.htm#t b .]

--- SciAm quotes this reference:
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. [Footnote deleted. See Part 2 link above for original source.]
---

The genetic mistake did not produce a new complex structure. It just made an existing complex structure appear in a place where it would not work. We want to see a Hox gene make functional legs or wings appear on a worm. Is that a "frustrating request" or "an unreasonable burden"? What makes it unreasonable? It is unreasonable because everybody knows it can't possibly happen. But, for the theory of evolution to be true, it has to happen often. Reptiles had to grow breasts to become mammals, didn't they? Every internal organ of every living creature is a complex structure that had to be produced by a genetic mistake, if the theory of evolution is true.

There are no Creative Mutations

[Sciam says:]
---
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. [Footnote deleted. See Part 2 link above for original source.]
---

Not the bacteria nonsense, again! We've already dealt with that in our October, 2001, essay on The PBS Evolution Series. [See http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i1t.htm#t b .]

--- SciAm quotes this reference:
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. [Footnote deleted. See Part 2 link above for original source.]
---

The genetic mistake did not produce a new complex structure. It just made an existing complex structure appear in a place where it would not work. We want to see a Hox gene make functional legs or wings appear on a worm. Is that a "frustrating request" or "an unreasonable burden"? What makes it unreasonable? It is unreasonable because everybody knows it can't possibly happen. But, for the theory of evolution to be true, it has to happen often. Reptiles had to grow breasts to become mammals, didn't they? Every internal organ of every living creature is a complex structure that had to be produced by a genetic mistake, if the theory of evolution is true.

There are no Creative Mutations

[Sciam says:]
---
10. Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism's DNA)--bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example. [Footnote deleted. See Part 2 link above for original source.]
---

Not the bacteria nonsense, again! We've already dealt with that in our October, 2001, essay on The PBS Evolution Series. [See http://www.scienceagainstevolution.org/v6i1t.htm#t b .]

--- SciAm quotes this reference:
Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses. [Footnote deleted. See Part 2 link above for original source.]
---

The genetic mistake did not produce a new complex structure. It just made an existing complex structure appear in a place where it would not work. We want to see a Hox gene make functional legs or wings appear on a worm. Is that a "frustrating request" or "an unreasonable burden"? What makes it unreasonable? It is unreasonable because everybody knows it can't possibly happen. But, for the theory of evolution to be true, it has to happen often. Reptiles had to grow breasts to become mammals, didn't they? Every internal organ of every living creature is a complex structure that had to be produced by a genetic mistake, if the theory of evolution is true.

The Behe argument is really nothing more than a complaint that knowledge of biochemical evolution is not well understood so far. A typical "Gaps equal God" argument.

He suggests that because nobody knows what the intermediate (simpler) versions of complex biochemical processes are, that intermediate versions likely are impossible, and thus they must have appeared as-is in their full, complex forms.

This is not at all true, and pretty much proves you've not read what he's written. Behe's entire point is that there *is* such a thing as irreducible complexity, meaning that there cannot be any "intermediate versions" to find, for the simple reason that they cannot exist, since any partial or intermediate state would result in a non-functioning organism that could not survive. Some things simply had to be created all at once, whether you like the worldview implications of that or not...

If we did not have the Flying Squirrel as a living example, the evolution of bat flight might be harder to imagine, for example.

And if this doesn't illustrate the shallowness of evolutionist argument, I don't know what does. I'm pretty darn sure that no evolutionary scientist is willing to stand up and say that bats evolved from flying squirrels. Perhaps they evolved from flying snakes instead? :-)

(Valid question: if evolution is as strong as it must be to support your argument, why would you argue against bats evolving from snakes? The reason is that even evolutionists recognize that the transition from reptile to mammal is effectively impossible, so they take pains to paint it as happening only once. See Stoneage Mutant Mammal Turtles for more on this topic...)

The Earth-moon system problem has not been conclusively solved, despite what some people claim.

A good, basic introduction to the problem can be found here, and an equations page showing the math behind the argument here.

For more science-based reasons why believing in Evolution is not valid, check out Science Against Evolution.

The Earth-moon system problem has not been conclusively solved, despite what some people claim.

A good, basic introduction to the problem can be found here, and an equations page showing the math behind the argument here.

For more science-based reasons why believing in Evolution is not valid, check out Science Against Evolution.

The Earth-moon system problem has not been conclusively solved, despite what some people claim.

A good, basic introduction to the problem can be found here, and an equations page showing the math behind the argument here.

For more science-based reasons why believing in Evolution is not valid, check out Science Against Evolution.

Worldview *must* affect everything else. Otherwise it's not a worldview at all. (See Francis Schaeffer if you want to know more.)

I'd like to point out that there are very valid scientific reasons to oppose the "Theory of Evolution" as propounded by Gould, Dawkins, et al.

If you're open-minded enough, you might want to spend a few hours reading about why completely reasonable and rational minds can and do oppose Evolution on purely scientific grounds, without even ever raising religion as an argument. (Which is not to imply that it's not a vaild one...)

The best site I've found on this topic is Science Against Evolution. They approach this strictly from the scientific perspective, pointing out important things like how we cannot know how to conduct radiometric dating without making assumptions that we cannot prove to be either true or reasonable. Utimately, such assumptions are made on the basis of worldview. (The dating issue can be found here in two parts: Part I and Part II . Another excellent article is the one about the insurmountable difficulties of reptilian-to-mammal evolution . If you believe that one happened, I've got a bridge to sell you...)

The index of topics is here, and I would advise reading through this material before you act quite so certain that Evolution must be true.

The Science Against Evolution site is written and managed by "Do-while Jones" a nom de plume for David Pogge, who in 1990 was given the considerable honor of being made a Fellow at the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. He is one of the world's most accomplished programmers and is responsible for numerous innovations in missile guidance and control algorithms, so he's certainly no intellectual lightweight. His arguments are well worth reading.

(FWIW, The preponderance of evidence convinces me personally that Creation and a young Earth fit the available facts far better than any Evolutionary alternative, but I encourage you to draw your own conclusion after looking at the facts and the science with an open mind.)

Worldview *must* affect everything else. Otherwise it's not a worldview at all. (See Francis Schaeffer if you want to know more.)

I'd like to point out that there are very valid scientific reasons to oppose the "Theory of Evolution" as propounded by Gould, Dawkins, et al.

If you're open-minded enough, you might want to spend a few hours reading about why completely reasonable and rational minds can and do oppose Evolution on purely scientific grounds, without even ever raising religion as an argument. (Which is not to imply that it's not a vaild one...)

The best site I've found on this topic is Science Against Evolution. They approach this strictly from the scientific perspective, pointing out important things like how we cannot know how to conduct radiometric dating without making assumptions that we cannot prove to be either true or reasonable. Utimately, such assumptions are made on the basis of worldview. (The dating issue can be found here in two parts: Part I and Part II . Another excellent article is the one about the insurmountable difficulties of reptilian-to-mammal evolution . If you believe that one happened, I've got a bridge to sell you...)

The index of topics is here, and I would advise reading through this material before you act quite so certain that Evolution must be true.

The Science Against Evolution site is written and managed by "Do-while Jones" a nom de plume for David Pogge, who in 1990 was given the considerable honor of being made a Fellow at the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. He is one of the world's most accomplished programmers and is responsible for numerous innovations in missile guidance and control algorithms, so he's certainly no intellectual lightweight. His arguments are well worth reading.

(FWIW, The preponderance of evidence convinces me personally that Creation and a young Earth fit the available facts far better than any Evolutionary alternative, but I encourage you to draw your own conclusion after looking at the facts and the science with an open mind.)

Worldview *must* affect everything else. Otherwise it's not a worldview at all. (See Francis Schaeffer if you want to know more.)

I'd like to point out that there are very valid scientific reasons to oppose the "Theory of Evolution" as propounded by Gould, Dawkins, et al.

If you're open-minded enough, you might want to spend a few hours reading about why completely reasonable and rational minds can and do oppose Evolution on purely scientific grounds, without even ever raising religion as an argument. (Which is not to imply that it's not a vaild one...)

The best site I've found on this topic is Science Against Evolution. They approach this strictly from the scientific perspective, pointing out important things like how we cannot know how to conduct radiometric dating without making assumptions that we cannot prove to be either true or reasonable. Utimately, such assumptions are made on the basis of worldview. (The dating issue can be found here in two parts: Part I and Part II . Another excellent article is the one about the insurmountable difficulties of reptilian-to-mammal evolution . If you believe that one happened, I've got a bridge to sell you...)

The index of topics is here, and I would advise reading through this material before you act quite so certain that Evolution must be true.

The Science Against Evolution site is written and managed by "Do-while Jones" a nom de plume for David Pogge, who in 1990 was given the considerable honor of being made a Fellow at the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. He is one of the world's most accomplished programmers and is responsible for numerous innovations in missile guidance and control algorithms, so he's certainly no intellectual lightweight. His arguments are well worth reading.

(FWIW, The preponderance of evidence convinces me personally that Creation and a young Earth fit the available facts far better than any Evolutionary alternative, but I encourage you to draw your own conclusion after looking at the facts and the science with an open mind.)

Worldview *must* affect everything else. Otherwise it's not a worldview at all. (See Francis Schaeffer if you want to know more.)

I'd like to point out that there are very valid scientific reasons to oppose the "Theory of Evolution" as propounded by Gould, Dawkins, et al.

If you're open-minded enough, you might want to spend a few hours reading about why completely reasonable and rational minds can and do oppose Evolution on purely scientific grounds, without even ever raising religion as an argument. (Which is not to imply that it's not a vaild one...)

The best site I've found on this topic is Science Against Evolution. They approach this strictly from the scientific perspective, pointing out important things like how we cannot know how to conduct radiometric dating without making assumptions that we cannot prove to be either true or reasonable. Utimately, such assumptions are made on the basis of worldview. (The dating issue can be found here in two parts: Part I and Part II . Another excellent article is the one about the insurmountable difficulties of reptilian-to-mammal evolution . If you believe that one happened, I've got a bridge to sell you...)

The index of topics is here, and I would advise reading through this material before you act quite so certain that Evolution must be true.

The Science Against Evolution site is written and managed by "Do-while Jones" a nom de plume for David Pogge, who in 1990 was given the considerable honor of being made a Fellow at the US Naval Weapons Center at China Lake. He is one of the world's most accomplished programmers and is responsible for numerous innovations in missile guidance and control algorithms, so he's certainly no intellectual lightweight. His arguments are well worth reading.

(FWIW, The preponderance of evidence convinces me personally that Creation and a young Earth fit the available facts far better than any Evolutionary alternative, but I encourage you to draw your own conclusion after looking at the facts and the science with an open mind.)

No flames, please. The simple fact is that science cannot tell us conclusively about the origin of the universe or humanity.

There are some good scientific reasons to doubt current big-bang/evolutionary theory: check out the Science Against Evolution site, by noted Naval Weapons Center hacker "Do-While" Jones, for a good look at some of them. Pay particular attention to the articles on radioactive dating, and how it requires both unwarranted assumptions and the tossing out of data to fit the "expected" age of the object being tested.

That aside, there is no proof that the speed of light is constant, and fitting a curve to measurements over the past several centuries shows a small but marked downward trend, so it could well be that something that we don't understand is at work here. I'm open-minded enough to admit that.

I will be brief, because I really don't have the time to fully address the truckload of logical fallacies in your post:

There are scientists who are creationists,but this is not reasonable basis for assuming that Creationism is valid.

Of *course* Creationism is a valid theory, both as science and human thought about the realities of the universe. But Creation cannot be circumscribed by science, for the Creator encompasses science, not the other way around. Creation even fits all the available evidence far better than evolution. (It is despised by many, though, because it implies that naturalism is not the measure of all things.) Niether theory can be proved or disproved by scientific means - there are some things that science can not tell us. Sorry to break that harsh reality to you, but "Evolutionism" is a religious worldview with a far higher percentage of "unreasonable fundamentalists" than any religion that believes in a Creator...

Next Mistake:Straw Man ... In other words, that in the distant past, there once existed an original life form and that this life form gave rise to all subsequent life forms

This is a convenient, but wholly unacceptable dodge used over and over by evolutionists. This is NOT a straw man - it strikes at the very heart of the debate: Since Evolutionists flatly reject the notion that life was "created", the only alternative then left to them is that life somehow spontaneously generated on its own. Evolutionists (such as yourself) now routinely try to limit the scope of evolution to what happened on Earth *after* life somehow magically appeared, ignoring the inconvenient fact that this logic requires it to have, in fact, originated somehow, somewhere, at some point in the past. The reason this is happening is that even evolutionary scientists recognize the folly of claiming life came from non-life, especially in a universe that's not nearly old enough, even using the most generous estimates. This is why many evolutionists now claim life on Earth had to come from elsewhere (the ridiculous panspermia argument) - the Earth simply isn't nearly old enough (niether is anywhere else, but that's beside the point...) This is a cowardly and disingenuous dodge, because it still doesn't address that crucial development of the first living thing, it simply attempts to shift it offstage under the cover of smoke and mirrors, declaring any discussion about the real origin of life "off-limits".

That's funny.I guess they never heard about these. [gate.net]In fact, they must not be very aware of modern medical and bilogical sciences in general.

Not at all true. Spend a little time doing reading up even on your own evolutionary sources, and you'll find there are a number of very substantial and very fundamental problems with this idea. Most particularly, there is the fundamental problem that mutations result in a *decrease* in the amount of information present, not the creation of new information, which is what evolutionary theory requires. The site you reference in essence gapes in awe at the changes that can be wrought in morphology by twiddling the genetic knobs, while leaving entirely unanswered the foundational question of the mechanism that could have created the knobs in order for them to be available to twiddle. Another aspect that evolutionists conveniently gloss over is that DNA/genome mapping produces relationships between organisms that *simply cannot be* if the fossil record is granted any validity at all. A great many scientists would throw up an incredible ruckus if DNA were used as an ironclad determiner of evolutionary relationships...

A great example of this can indeed be found at Do-While Jones Science Against Evolution web site: I could recommend several, but one article that gives a good high-level overview and hits to the point here is "Stoneage Mutant Mammal Turtles", discussing some of the difficulties that evolution would have to overcome in order for reptiles to grow breasts and make the transition to mammals. The number of significant, non-trivial morphological and *functional* changes that have to be made *simultaneously* in order to even pretend this could happen should be enough to convince even the most closed-minded evolutionist that perhaps he should entertain the possibility that perhaps evolution cannot produce what we see around us.

Next Mistake:A revisiting of the first fallacious statement by citing John Ashton's book, In Six Days.

Your argument seems to be that faith and origins cannot be related, except by the truly ridiculous leap of faith necessary to belive life spontaneously derived from dead stuff. This is ridiculous. The fact that some of the 50 scientists whose essays are in "In Six Days" find their evolutionary views in line with their views of faith should not be surprising, except to those that summarily dismiss both anything outside the natural world and the existence of any spiritual dimension to man. The quote you slam is dead-on: Some people choose to extend a little faith in the unseen as an alternative to the inevitable alternative that life is indeed meaningless. If you believe (or even want to believe) in the very concept of "good", then you are ultimately forced to recognize God. The 20th century was filled with dreary philosophers that all started with the premise that God could not exist and then (correctly) reached the only logical conclusion they could from that starting point: the same one Dostoevsky stated as, "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

Next Mistake:Behe of all people?Is this a reference or a joke?

Not at all. Evolutionists don't *like* Behe, but that doesn't affect the fact that his observations are correct, and supported by the data. Irreducible complexity is a serious problem for evolutionists, one they try to ignore or ridicule, rather than address. The chances against any single aspect of an irreducibly complex system arising is astronomical, the chances against them all arising at the same time, in the same place, in the only possible correct arrangement for function, advantage, and the sustenance of life, (not to mention adaptive advantage) is well and truly ZERO.

Odd that Behe has never published a single technical paper for peer review....

I was not aware that was a requirement for truth... Seriously, this is an ad hominem attack on Behe and his credibility. His academic credentials are not in question, he is quite well-qualified to do all the things he has done. The simple fact that he is a Fellow at the prestigious Discovery Institute should carry some weight relative to his academic standing. Behe could well have chosen to publish his findings in places where they would have been peer-reviewed. He chose not to because he's smart enough to know that no challenge to evolutionary dogma is permitted by the Church of Evolution. (I think it's telling that in your link to a review of his book, the author of the review lets his bias show so freely by dismissing Behe simply because his book was published by the same house that published "The Bell Curve". That book was universally hated by PC academia, but the science on which it is based holds up well under any objective evaluation, and the authors' motives are clearly (if one bothers to read the book) anti-racist. This is the whole problem with today's emasculated Politically Correct academia: NO deviation from the official party line is EVER tolerated. The only absolute allowed is that there is no absolute but that one. Funny how "tolerance" works in academia today...)

and as far as his book goes, well, Behe offers no general laws, models, or explanations for how design happens, no testable predictions, and no possible way to falsify his hybrid evolution/ID hypothesis. He is simply claiming that design is a fact that is easily detectable in biochemical systems.

You don't seem to get it, do you? There is a fundamental difference in *worldview* at issue here. Yours states that *all things* must be explainable by science. Behe's (and mine) is that there is ample evidence for intelligent design in the Creation we see all around us. The irreducible complexity of biochemical interactions is just one example of many millions. (The clear implication (to those of us that refuse to wear blinders) is that there *is* something beyond what science can tell us, and that the evidence points to the existence of a Creator. A bit more thoughtful reflection on that point will convince one that this must be an omnipotent and omniscient Creator ("Immortal, Invisible, God Only Wise", to quote the hymnist...)

As THE ONLY POSSIBLE objective standard of Truth, God cannot be modeled, falsified, or explained by laws other than His own. But not all will open their eyes: Pilate asked his famous question, "What is Truth?" with Truth standing right in front of him...

All in all, this post did not address the original question,which was (to paraphrase) Why is it that,when discussing anything even vaguely related to evolution,Creationists feel the need to spout their psuedo-science?

First of all, it's not pseudo-science. There is some very bad "Creationist" science. There is some equally bad "Evolutionist" scince, much of which is sadly now taken as dogma rather than open to question. Niether kind is defensible. There is a vast array of fast-growing sceince that support the Creationist perspective. Open your mind.

Real science argues for Creation far more forcefully than it argues for evolution. In the not too distant future, evolution will be relgated to the dustbin of history and laughed at as the prime example of how science can go so far astray from anything even remotely supported by the evidence.

Evolution is a self-admittedly anti-supernatural worldview, rather than a valid theory of origins.

Science is one way of getting at truth, but it is the height of hubris to think that all truth is circumscribed by science.

for me as an european what is remarkable here is how many people feel the need to come up with creationism in this forum. what kind of religious fundamentalism is this?

I'm not sure what being a European might have to do with it - there are lots of Creationists there, too, but they seem less willing to speak freely, possibly for fear of reprisals.

There happen to be quite a lot of us that are trained as scientists and/or engineers, have looked at the data, and come to the conclusion that Creation 1) requires orders of magnitude less faith in the unseen than does evolution, and 2) fits the available data considerably better, too.

I don't want or intend to turn this into a flame fest, but if you're at all interested in why, I'd suggest looking in one of several places:

Uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent site on why science is against evolution. Be sure not to miss the archives of the newsletter, Disclosure - reading through these will keep you up nights if evolution is important to your world view... (Check out the article on "Lucy" for an enlightening look at the art of passing off a total pipe dream as "science".)

There's a pretty good book out called "In Six Days" containing essays from 50 respected PhDs who explain why they find it considerably easier and more scientifically consistent to belive in Creation than evolution.

Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box. This outlines the irreducible complexity argument for Creation that is far better butressed by actual science than is evolution.

or is it just another incarnation of the kind of thought that makes people believe in UFOs or witchcraft?

Creationists aren't stupid, or ignorant. There are a few that are knee-jerk fundamentalists, but I find many more are thoughtful scholars. I find that many Creationists are better versed on the science and the data relating to origins than most all evolutionists. In short, the only thing science can say with certainty about origins is that we do not know. Do not be so quick to dismiss alternatives that may well be completely legitimate, even if their implications may be quite uncomfortable for you... Please read up as suggested above before flaming.

for me as an european what is remarkable here is how many people feel the need to come up with creationism in this forum. what kind of religious fundamentalism is this?

I'm not sure what being a European might have to do with it - there are lots of Creationists there, too, but they seem less willing to speak freely, possibly for fear of reprisals.

There happen to be quite a lot of us that are trained as scientists and/or engineers, have looked at the data, and come to the conclusion that Creation 1) requires orders of magnitude less faith in the unseen than does evolution, and 2) fits the available data considerably better, too.

I don't want or intend to turn this into a flame fest, but if you're at all interested in why, I'd suggest looking in one of several places:

Uber-hacker Do-While Jones' excellent site on why science is against evolution. Be sure not to miss the archives of the newsletter, Disclosure - reading through these will keep you up nights if evolution is important to your world view... (Check out the article on "Lucy" for an enlightening look at the art of passing off a total pipe dream as "science".)

There's a pretty good book out called "In Six Days" containing essays from 50 respected PhDs who explain why they find it considerably easier and more scientifically consistent to belive in Creation than evolution.

Michael Behe's excellent book, Darwin's Black Box. This outlines the irreducible complexity argument for Creation that is far better butressed by actual science than is evolution.

or is it just another incarnation of the kind of thought that makes people believe in UFOs or witchcraft?

Creationists aren't stupid, or ignorant. There are a few that are knee-jerk fundamentalists, but I find many more are thoughtful scholars. I find that many Creationists are better versed on the science and the data relating to origins than most all evolutionists. In short, the only thing science can say with certainty about origins is that we do not know. Do not be so quick to dismiss alternatives that may well be completely legitimate, even if their implications may be quite uncomfortable for you... Please read up as suggested above before flaming.