Slashdot Mirror

Your 10 second universe thing is still a natural cause in the sense that it is materialistic.

It's only a non sequitor if there are more possible options than the two we're talking about.

OK, your paragraph about "odds" makes some sense. No, we can't prove a theory, but we can look at multiple theories and say which one fits observational evidence better. Good. *My* point is that there is a heap of observational evidence in support of evolution, which is why it is the widely agreed upon explanation for how life changes over time. There also happens to be 0 (zero) observational evidence in support of ID. None. If you found some ancient, buried alien spacecraft with an advanced biology lab, then you would have a starting point.

So do you put your faith in countless violations of the 2nd law of thermodynamics at odds so low we can't begin to comprehend them?

I think I'm moving away from the critical point here, though. The point is, if we're talking about science, you can't call something a theory unless it has some evidence and makes some testable predictions. ID has no evidence. ID makes no predictions that can be tested in order to falsify it (name one test I could do that could produce a result that refuted ID). ID is *not* a scientific theory. It's a conjecture that is certainly *possible*, but we're not in a position to ever confirm or deny that conjecture. You can believe in it if you want, but you can't call it a scientific theory without redefining what science is (a la Kansas, the laughingstock of the educated world). The reason why science as we know it is more useful than science as defined by Kansas is left as an exercise for the reader. ;)

Speciation, or evolution of one species into another, is not observable and has never been found in the fossil record.

Wrong.

Quote #79 of the Quote Mine project.

Why are so many creationists such shameless liars?

There are no 'two aspects' of evolution. The evolutionary processes that act on microbes over short period of times are the exact same ones that act on larger organisms over long or short periods of time. There is plenty of evidence for evolution over long time periods: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
and plenty of examples of radiation experiments that simulate the long-term action of evolutionary processes on complex organisms (ie. not just bacteria or single-celled organisms):
The work of Herman Muller who was a pioneer in radation bombardment experiments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html [talkorigins.org]
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=History,Ha ll_of_Fame,Hermann_Joseph_Muller [aboutnuclear.org]
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1946/ [nobelprize.org] (he received the Nobel prize for inducing mutations through radiation bombardment)
Another example of mutation inducing experiments:
http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.p df [ansinet.org] (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:762TTjEpLBAJ: www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.pdf+mull er+%2B+flies+%2B+radiation&hl=en [72.14.203.104])

There has been a lot of debate in the scientific community about exact mechanisms and processes by which evolution happens, and their 'speed'. However its a bit much to think that creationists are right about evolution over long periods, especially since the whole micro vs macro evolution thing that they have invented is a false dichotomy.

There are no 'two aspects' of evolution. The evolutionary processes that act on microbes over short period of times are the exact same ones that act on larger organisms over long or short periods of time. There is plenty of evidence for evolution over long time periods: (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
and plenty of examples of radiation experiments that simulate the long-term action of evolutionary processes on complex organisms (ie. not just bacteria or single-celled organisms):
The work of Herman Muller who was a pioneer in radation bombardment experiments:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/muller.html [talkorigins.org]
http://www.aboutnuclear.org/view.cgi?fC=History,Ha ll_of_Fame,Hermann_Joseph_Muller [aboutnuclear.org]
http://nobelprize.org/medicine/laureates/1946/ [nobelprize.org] (he received the Nobel prize for inducing mutations through radiation bombardment)
Another example of mutation inducing experiments:
http://www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.p df [ansinet.org] (http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:762TTjEpLBAJ: www.ansinet.org/fulltext/jbs/jbs14269-271.pdf+mull er+%2B+flies+%2B+radiation&hl=en [72.14.203.104])

There has been a lot of debate in the scientific community about exact mechanisms and processes by which evolution happens, and their 'speed'. However its a bit much to think that creationists are right about evolution over long periods, especially since the whole micro vs macro evolution thing that they have invented is a false dichotomy.

• Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

  Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

• "The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution." For more on this, see CD103, The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution
  • "The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.
  • The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

If you want to see more references to dating, check out the geology section of the common questions. For example, "Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known..." from CD002, which then links to a full essay on isochron dating. It has references, including to a text that is "An excellent semi-technical introduction to isotope dating methods... It is accessible to those who haven't studied the field, and has even received reasonably positive review in creationist literature..." which might be exactly what you're looking for to catch up in this area.

• Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

  Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

• "The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution." For more on this, see CD103, The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution
  • "The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.
  • The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

If you want to see more references to dating, check out the geology section of the common questions. For example, "Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known..." from CD002, which then links to a full essay on isochron dating. It has references, including to a text that is "An excellent semi-technical introduction to isotope dating methods... It is accessible to those who haven't studied the field, and has even received reasonably positive review in creationist literature..." which might be exactly what you're looking for to catch up in this area.

• Many strata are not dated from fossils. Relative dates of strata (whether layers are older or younger than others) are determined mainly by which strata are above others. Some strata are dated absolutely via radiometric dating. These methods are sufficient to determine a great deal of stratigraphy.

  Some fossils are seen to occur only in certain strata. Such fossils can be used as index fossils. When these fossils exist, they can be used to determine the age of the strata, because the fossils show that the strata correspond to strata that have already been dated by other means.

• "The geological column, including the relative ages of the strata and dominant fossils within various strata, was determined before the theory of evolution." For more on this, see CD103, The entire geologic column is based on the assumption of evolution
  • "The geologic column was outlined by creationist geologists. For example, Adam Sedgwick, who described and named the Cambrian era, referred to the theory of evolution as "no better than a phrensied dream" (Ritland 1982). The geologic column is based on the observation of faunal succession, the fact that organisms vary across strata, and that they do so in a consistent order from place to place. William "Strata" Smith (1769-1839) recognized faunal succession years before Darwin published his ideas on biological evolution.
  • The geologic column is validated in great detail by radiometric dating, which is based on principles of physics, not evolution. Furthermore, different dating techniques are consistent, and they are consistent with the order established by the early pioneers of stratigraphy.

If you want to see more references to dating, check out the geology section of the common questions. For example, "Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known..." from CD002, which then links to a full essay on isochron dating. It has references, including to a text that is "An excellent semi-technical introduction to isotope dating methods... It is accessible to those who haven't studied the field, and has even received reasonably positive review in creationist literature..." which might be exactly what you're looking for to catch up in this area.

Interesting, but the species are still mosquitos, they didn't become frogs or blu-jays, or grow gills or learn to spin webs, or change phylum. In the end, they're still mosquitos.

Major change takes time. Speciation, as noted with the mosquitoes, is the only significant step you need - once the population are isolated and can't interbreed they can develop in radically different directions. If you want some demonstrations of signficant change in form feel free to consult the fossil record. I've gone through this once before, but lets' do it again:

Are there any intermediate forms in the fossil record? Yes. Let's take the development from reptiles to birds. Archaeopteryx is a commonly cited example (distinctly birdlike), but we can go a lot further than that in terms of intermediate forms. In practice Archeopteryx is between lizards and birds. Between reptiles and Archeopteryx are therapod dinosaurs. Between early reptile like therapods and Archeopteryx are late more bird-like dromaeosaurids and between early dromaeosaurids like Troodons and Archeopteryx are various feathered dinosaurs, which includes fossils that simply had feathers, apparently for warmth, through to later fossils that actually had clearly flight adapted feathers.

Want to try something different? How about whale evolution? We can start with a land dwelling mammal that looked fairly dog like but had certain ear structures not found in other mammals that are more suitable for hearing underwater. Then there's ambulocetus which was similar, but in practice was rather akin to a mammalian crocodile, with back legs obviously adpated for swimming, the same ear structures as our first creature, and a nose structure, similar to a crocodile, that was ideal for breathing while immersed in shallow water. Next there are things like rodhocetus which is remarkably whale like, yet still posses back legs, and still has a nasal structure placng the nostrils toward the tip as in ambulocetus. There's aetiocetus which shows the transition from snout tip nostrils toward nostils at the top of the skulls as in modern whales. Then there's basilosaurus which is decidedly whale like, but lacking in a few modern whale features, and retaining distinct, but quite useless, hind limbs similar to those of rodhocetus.

You can find similar sets of forms for the development of horses, the development of snakes from lizards, and even for the ape to man path, among many others.

Oh, I'm sure you can parse those and say "but what's between that?", but I think for most people who are not being mindlessly dogmatic that represents fairly reasonable evidence of transitions from lizards to birds, or from land dwelling mammals to whales, and, if they bothered to do the extra research and reading, the development of horses, snakes and man.

there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor.

You are gravely mistaken. The evidence for common ancestry is staggering.

1) The hierarchical taxonomy of all life, which applies well specifically to primates.

2) Comparitive anatomy -- if various organisms branched off from a common ancestor, we should expect homologous structures, and internal similarities which, outside the context of Darwinian evolution, make no sense. To take an especially noteworthy example, there is the panda's thumb, which is really just a sixth "digit" formed from one of the wrist bones. If this thumb had been intelligently placed there, we would have no reason to expect it to be formed from a wrist bone. We could expect to see all the wrist bones in place, and then a new bone added specifically for this purpose. Or we could expect to see a fundamentally different layout of the bones altogether, specifically tailored to suit the panda's niche. If Darwinian evolution is true, however, these types of structures make perfect sense. Organisms are always taking advantage of lucky "hacks" to their existing structure. Darwinian evolution is not always pretty, because it has no intelligence or foresight.

3) Comparative embryology -- despite an eventual development plan that leads various life forms to look radically dissimilar, initial fetal development between various organisms is remarkably similar. Many legless species like snakes and cetaceans, initially form leg buds in the embryological development, which are later reabsorbed before birth. These exist because of common ancestry. There is simply no other explanation for them.

4) Comparative biochemistry -- by looking at the number of synonymous differences in gene sequences between various organisms, such as the chimp and human, we can gain a reasonably good idea of when the two species diverged. It just so happens that this kind of analysis between humans and chimps yields a result consistent with the age of divergence as evinced by the fossil record. Strange coincidence! A specifically pertinent example would be the broken ascorbic acid gene in humans and chimps. It's the reason we get scurvy without a source of vitamin C. Humans and chimps both have this gene, which is non-functional, but happens to function well in other organisms. Ours is just defective. If you look at the genes of chimps and humans, there is a certain amount of mutational difference between our vitamin C genes. The fossil record shows that the orangutan is a more distance cousin of humans and chimps. Not surprisingly, there are even more variations between the organgutan's vitamin C gene, and those of the human and chimp. This all fits perfectly with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and has no other explanation.

5) Vestigial organs -- one of the most striking effects of Darwinian evolution is that of genetic remnants from ancestral organisms. Baleen whales in fetal development have teeth for a time, which are later reabsorbed before birth (the baleen is not teeth). This makes sense of course, because cetaceans evolved from wolf-like animals through a remarkably well documented series of intermediates. There are also blind cave fish and salamanders which still have non-functional eye remnants. In humans, we have wisdom teeth, which are usually problematic (they were for me!) and no longer fit in our jaws because of our decreased jaw size. Some people are born without them altogether, and do fine, if not better. We also get goose bumps, which serve no purpose to insulate us, since our hair is no longer thick as it once was. We get them often when we are cold, even though they do virtually nothing to benefit us. It should be noted that humans and chimps have about the same number of hairs, but ours just aren't as thick.

6) Biogeogra

there is zero evidence to show that the same process yielded a human and a chimp from some common ancestor.

You are gravely mistaken. The evidence for common ancestry is staggering.

1) The hierarchical taxonomy of all life, which applies well specifically to primates.

2) Comparitive anatomy -- if various organisms branched off from a common ancestor, we should expect homologous structures, and internal similarities which, outside the context of Darwinian evolution, make no sense. To take an especially noteworthy example, there is the panda's thumb, which is really just a sixth "digit" formed from one of the wrist bones. If this thumb had been intelligently placed there, we would have no reason to expect it to be formed from a wrist bone. We could expect to see all the wrist bones in place, and then a new bone added specifically for this purpose. Or we could expect to see a fundamentally different layout of the bones altogether, specifically tailored to suit the panda's niche. If Darwinian evolution is true, however, these types of structures make perfect sense. Organisms are always taking advantage of lucky "hacks" to their existing structure. Darwinian evolution is not always pretty, because it has no intelligence or foresight.

3) Comparative embryology -- despite an eventual development plan that leads various life forms to look radically dissimilar, initial fetal development between various organisms is remarkably similar. Many legless species like snakes and cetaceans, initially form leg buds in the embryological development, which are later reabsorbed before birth. These exist because of common ancestry. There is simply no other explanation for them.

4) Comparative biochemistry -- by looking at the number of synonymous differences in gene sequences between various organisms, such as the chimp and human, we can gain a reasonably good idea of when the two species diverged. It just so happens that this kind of analysis between humans and chimps yields a result consistent with the age of divergence as evinced by the fossil record. Strange coincidence! A specifically pertinent example would be the broken ascorbic acid gene in humans and chimps. It's the reason we get scurvy without a source of vitamin C. Humans and chimps both have this gene, which is non-functional, but happens to function well in other organisms. Ours is just defective. If you look at the genes of chimps and humans, there is a certain amount of mutational difference between our vitamin C genes. The fossil record shows that the orangutan is a more distance cousin of humans and chimps. Not surprisingly, there are even more variations between the organgutan's vitamin C gene, and those of the human and chimp. This all fits perfectly with Darwinian evolutionary theory, and has no other explanation.

5) Vestigial organs -- one of the most striking effects of Darwinian evolution is that of genetic remnants from ancestral organisms. Baleen whales in fetal development have teeth for a time, which are later reabsorbed before birth (the baleen is not teeth). This makes sense of course, because cetaceans evolved from wolf-like animals through a remarkably well documented series of intermediates. There are also blind cave fish and salamanders which still have non-functional eye remnants. In humans, we have wisdom teeth, which are usually problematic (they were for me!) and no longer fit in our jaws because of our decreased jaw size. Some people are born without them altogether, and do fine, if not better. We also get goose bumps, which serve no purpose to insulate us, since our hair is no longer thick as it once was. We get them often when we are cold, even though they do virtually nothing to benefit us. It should be noted that humans and chimps have about the same number of hairs, but ours just aren't as thick.

6) Biogeogra

The evolution of the nylon-dissolving enzyme nylonase (And therefore, the ability to survive on a material that *didn't exist* until very recently) seems to qualify. The results have been repeated in the laboratory, the process is completely understood. See: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/apr04 .html

It's simply amazing how many of the people who refuse to believe that the Theory of Evolution has just as much peer-reviewed evidence and study behind it as the Theory of Gravity or Electromagnetic Theory, don't actually know much about Evolution at all.

Every time they come up with a 'It's not a fact because X!', within 10 minutes, someone can point them to the study that shows -exactly- what they say doesn't exist.

Perhaps the folks on Slashdot who try so hard to show that Evolution is a fact are simply smarter or better informed than you are. Perhaps if you actually *studied* some of the references they provide, you'd become as knowledgable and sure as they are.

I realize that blind faith is a lot easier than study and actual critical thought, but to anyone who CAN think critically, it's really, REALLY obvious that the evolution-deniers are willfully ignorant.

Why should we have any respect for someone who's being *intentionally* stupid?

The constant that I can think is the speed of light. Apparently, c has decreased over the last 100 years, as measured in the various experiments that have been performed. I haven't heard about it in a while, so it might have been disproven.

If you look at the whole picture, evolution is unprovable and ID is unprovable, which means that to whichever wing you choose, you choose so on a BELIEF. ID vs Evolution is not about proving the origin of man anyway, its about TRYING to prove that there is or is not a God.

You urge us to go to the website of Kent Hovind, a tax evading Young Earth Creationist who's favorite arguments are so weak that even other creationists say he makes "mistakes in facts and logic which do the creationist cause no good". Hovind is a professional debater who depends primarily on one tactic; he throws out questions (most of which are irrelevant) so quickly that his opponents cannot answer all of the within the alloted time. He This tactic would fail in a written debate where the opposition had time to answer all his questions. That's probably why hovind dislikes standard debate formats and refuses to participate in online debates.

• Hovind's fake challenge
• Tax evasion and fake PhD's
• Hovind debates at UTK

If I'm not mistaken, the example of the moths in England has since been proven to be false, in that it didn't actually happen and that bad scientific method was involved in collecting data. I cannot currently offer citations for this, but I can offer a suggestion that your (one) example of observable Survival Of The Fittest may need to be further investigated before being used in debates such as this.

Actually, you've been hoodwinked by yet another creationist lie, see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/wells/iconob.html# moths

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Also, you know that evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so at no point, with either modern scientists or Darwin himself, was anyone ever expecting to see a transitional form that wasn't itself a functioning, living species? Its not like the transitionals are going to be half-melted blobs melting from human into porcupines, like some frozen outtake from Species the movie.

That said, How about the transition from Ape to Modern Humans? Transitional enough for you? Each one of the 20 main hominids is slightly different from its neighbor, but very different from a few neighbors down. No, the earliest ones could not be confused for modern humans, no matter how much you shaved and suited them up. (And for kicks, you still have some morphological leftover traits-- take a look at your teeth, and notice the giant roots for your tiny little canines. Note how earlier humans used to have much larger canines.)

Other transitions include dinosaurs to birds, or reptiles to mammals, or land mammal to whale. Or if you're talking about genetic missing links, that's really, really easy to find. For example, chimps and humans don't have the same number of chromosomes- we have one less- but funny how human chromosome 2 is almost identical to chimp chromosomes 2p and 2q. We even have broken bits of telemorase right in the middle of 2, exactly what you'd expect if 2p and 2q had fused together. All primates have to eat vitamin C, we can't produce it ourselves, unlike all other mammals except guinea pigs. One prediction scientists made (see '29 evidences' below) was that we'd eventually find that primates have a broken vitamin C gene. Funny how they recently found that exact gene, the identical broken bit shared by all primates (The gene also has further 'chips and scratches,' where the additional broken bits correlate highly with the type of primate. Guinea pigs also have a broken gene, but in a completely different place. The designer sure spent a lot of time on making broken genes correlate with morphological similarities. You'd think the designer could be a lot more creative in being a plagarist, no?)

Also, scientific theories are never "confirmed," just corroborated. In the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ you can find well-referenced (peer reviewed research) evidences, each with predictions and falsifiability criteria. We're still waiting for the '1 evidence for ID' that includes the same predictions and falsifiability.

Oh, and that "microevolution is distinct from macroevolution" idea? That's a fairly common creationist claim. One of a very long list of common creationist claims. Answers to claim CB902 are here. (For kicks, you can also check out the claims that even creationists say to stop using, and see how many of those get mentioned in this thread.)

Please. There are tons of observed instances of speciation, listed here. Experiments involving fly populations, bacteria, antigen development, etc etc have all been used as experimental proof of various mechanisims of evolution (mutation, genetic drift, etc). To say that evolution is guessory because we can't see the past is like saying we couldn't know how a civil war cannonball would have flown because sure, all this physics seems to predict the future, but why assume it has anything to do with the past?

Stephen J. Gould isn't a real scientist? Reference

A simple google search for "evidence evolution" yields numerous pages. From the very first one (I'm feeling lucky!)

Link 1: Observed Evidence of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l has eight fruity fly speciation events. Most interesting to me is the Apple Maggot fly, which originally fed on hawthorn trees, but is speciating at this very moment; there are now two different races of the fly, one of which feeds on apples and other rosacea and one on thornapples. They mature at different rates and due to this do not interbreed even though they are still able to hybridize.

Link 2: 29 evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ This is the one I was looking for. If you read and understand this and fail to accept that evolution is occuring and can account for the diversity of species on earth then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Acy

A simple google search for "evidence evolution" yields numerous pages. From the very first one (I'm feeling lucky!)

Link 1: Observed Evidence of Speciation http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l has eight fruity fly speciation events. Most interesting to me is the Apple Maggot fly, which originally fed on hawthorn trees, but is speciating at this very moment; there are now two different races of the fly, one of which feeds on apples and other rosacea and one on thornapples. They mature at different rates and due to this do not interbreed even though they are still able to hybridize.

Link 2: 29 evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ This is the one I was looking for. If you read and understand this and fail to accept that evolution is occuring and can account for the diversity of species on earth then I've got a bridge to sell you.

Acy

More concisely and with less cheesy apologetics here.

Evolution is NOT a theory about how life started!

Apparently they didn't teach you anything.

TalkOrigins

What it does not account for is macro-evolution, that is, the changing of one species into another at the chromosomal level by purely natural selection.

Having not followed this very closely in the last 10 or so years, I may be out of date, but this is the missing link that would confirm all of the Origin of Species theory, and to my knowledge this link has never been found.

The theory of common descent is an example of a belief system that is taken with zero proof.

Apart from the entire fossil record, independantly verified by genetic evidence. You forgot that vast mountain of evidence, but there again creationists do seem to have very poor memories about such things. Almost like thet want to declate it out of existance.

The Cambrian Explosion is a proverbial fly in that ointment BTW.

Yes, it's amazing how difficult it is to come up with new body plans in only 10 million generations or so.. or perhaps not.

There is yet no empirical proof that one species, ONE SPECIES, has evolved into another species.

Apart from these, of course.

Much of the Evolution fairy tale must be believed by faith.

Much of Physics fairy tale must be believed by faith. How many quarks have you seen today?

Scientists BELIEVE that the earth is so many billion years old.

This is true. There is a huge amount of evidence to back it up as well.

When, where, why, and how did life come from non-living matter?

Between 4.4 and 3.8 billion years ago, around an oceanic hot vent, as an inevitable result of the laws of chemistry, and very likely due to the complex interaction of Fe/S structrures with already existing nucleotides and ammino acids.

When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?

Reproduction is one of the fundamental properties of life.

With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?

I'd advise you to look up bacterial sex and DNA sharing. A cell that can reproduce either sexually or asexually has no problems here.

Answers? You don't know.

No, YOU don't know because you are an arrogant, lazy idiot who won't get of their backside and actually learn stuff. Science is hard. Ignorance is easy.

If you don't know, then whatever theory you guys have must be accepted by faith/belief in the absence of facts and evidence.

This is just wishful thinking on your part. You want scientists to ba as lazy as you. Bad news: they are not.

I do appreciate your sarcasm. It made me laugh.

are you out of your tree? of course there is debate and it is massive has been going on since the Scopes trials and before that.

I imagine that the scientific journals of which you speak as being "reputable" are only the ones that have been supporting an evolutionary view. There are many journals and scientists that are purposely not published in those journals because of there "reprehensible" belief in special creation.

If you really feel you've got it all together, then you may want to check out some of the opposing sites like http://www.icr.org/ or http://www.answersingenesis.org/ amongst many. You have been led to believe and lied to blatantly in some cases where evidence has already proven so called evidence wrong.

Yet the school textbooks and Discovery channels still proclaim as absolute fact. If you can take a step back and just analyze what you hear and see being taught and broadcast everyday from a perspective that is open to all options, you will begin to get a sick feeling in your stomach that you have been misled.

Fortunately it appears as though KU will probably wait until the furor over Mirecki dies down and find somebody else to teach the class.

It looks as though a KU anthropology professor is planning a similar course, titled Archaeological Myths and Realities, which will discuss ID, crop circles, ESP, and how to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. And I've read that other universities around Kansas are teaching ID as religious studies or philosophy.

One of Mirecki's conservative critics also has a habit of saying inflammatory things, not that it makes what Mirecki said anymore right.

It's too bad that now fundamentalists are going to have this news story as a weapon against proponents of science. This is despite this person apparently having nothing to do with science. We need better representatives, like the following:

Skeptical Inquirer: The Magazine for Science and Reason
http://www.csicop.org/si/

Discussion and debate of biological and physical origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/

Understanding Evolution
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

But if by "in common" you mean that pigs or rats are unexpectedly close to us in some genetic traits: no. Nope. Not at all. They are useful in the lab because of physiological traits not held in common. For example, humans live decades long and only have one, rarely two offspring per pregnancy, with years between pregnancies. Ditto the other great apes which share the high-90's percent of our DNA, (including sharing the same broken gene for making vitamin C. Rats- all other non-primate mammals- can make C (except guinea pigs, but their C gene is broken in an entirely different place)). Ditto much the same for monkeys, and even ditto the bats (the closest non-primate mammal group). Rats only share 90% of our DNA, but they reproduce early and often. The only reason we've got rats with the same diseases as human diseases is that we've made them that way.

Check out the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution, especially the nested hierarchy section. If there were traits that rats and humans shared more closely than chimps and humans (like the false chickens and humans, or bananas and humans claims that creationist keep on using), then that would falsify evolution. Hasn't happened yet.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info .html shows why Archaeopteryx isn't a modern bird, yet shares many common features.

... Generally speaking, using the term "evolutionist" is another useful way to out yourself as a creationist and/or ID type. Frankly, belonging to either of those camps necessitates having an understanding only of a dumbed-down, strawman version of what evolution entails, or at least a "no mere fact can convince me" shield of deliberate misunderstanding.

I'm going out on a limb and assuming you fall into one of those camps based on your replies elsewhere in this thread, but I feel like some futility this lovely afternoon. If you want some additional reading material, here's a more-or-less comprehensive refutation of all creationist arguments.

("Propaganda," by the way? To what end? Can't have propaganda without a Nefarious Goal, remember!)

is to present some theory that requires a PhD in biology to understand

And yet, strangely enough, I had a decent grasp of it well before earning my undergraduate degree in history. The whole "reading" thing is highly underrated.

The core theory of evolution is very simple: Humans mutated from apes, which mutated from whatever, etc... etc... etc..., which mutated from a single-celled organism that formed because some chemicals found their way together.

A few problems here.

First, evolutionary science does not address biogenesis at all, any more than computer science or architecture or basket weaving or calligraphy do. The reason for this is simple: it is not and never was intended to explore that question. There's whole other areas which study biogenesis seperately - which they should, because it's a far more theoretical topic. Anybody who says that evolution somehow explains biogenesis, or is "flawed" because it doesn't explain biogenesis, has demonstrably failed to understand evolution.

Second, you're claiming that evolution's progressive, that it's defined in terms of the blob becoming the fish crawling out of the sea to become (etc etc etc) which becomes a shrew which becomes an ape which becomes a human, as though the whole thing was meant to arrive at that point. That idea's "true" enough in intelligent design, and was at some past point standard among "evolutionists" as you call them, but folks know better. Evolution is a reactive process; it responds to pressure from the environment (different climates, new predators on the block, etc) and is not some internally-driven debugging program coaxing life towards a specific point. If you cleaned off the Earth and tried things again, the broad strokes would be the same (Australia once had an ecosystem of creatures about as varied as any in Afroeurasia or the Americas, with marsupials filling almost every niche!), but the end points would probably be considerably different.

Third, evolutionary theory is not as concerned with whether this happened - that is absolute fact, verifiable in myriads of different ways - as it is with how it happened. Mutation and speciation rates, effects of various pressures, tendencies towards certain changes (eyes evolved independently dozens of times, for instance, and true flight at least four), etc. The system has been directly observed working by now; the interesting (and useful) part is determining what makes it tick.

-PS

The basic point is that you're arguing against a position that no biologist holds. No biologist thinks that a modern E. coli appeared one day out of a mix of chemicals. What you're arguing is that simple chemicals gave rise directly to a complex bacterium. From talkorigins.org (referenced earlier in another reply), simple chemicals would lead to polymers, polymers would eventually give rise to replicating polymers, replicating polymers give rise to a hypercyle, which gives rise to a protobiont, etc. Such a protobiont would require polymers only 30-40 monomers in length! Furthermore, the RNA world hypothesis (which is also referenced in the TO article linked) hypothesizes that the self-replicating RNA was surrounded in a lipid layer, protecting it from harmful oxidation.

In a more general sense, this speaks to a problem widespread in ID, namely, if you're trying to disprove something, and you disprove the wrong thing, you haven't disproven anything. ID is a belief system based entirely on tearing down evolutionary theory, with no real positive evidence of a designer whatsoever. Every ID explanation ever proffered begins and ends with the assertion that evolutionary theory is insufficient to explain observations. In order to show that evolutionary theory is insufficient, they often resort to an oversimplified and usually wrong version of evolutionary theory. Disproving this strawman often provokes agreements from the crowds less educated on evolution, but provokes well-deserved scorn and ridicule from those who actually know what they're talking about.

I invite you to read this explanation of probability in abiogenetic theory. It pops every one of your bubbles.

I refer you to this primer on how the probability for spontaneous generation of of life only appears to be so high as to be impossible, and why the "airplane parts in a hurricans" analogy is just plain ridiculous.

...we have lots of obvious design flaws. The useless appendix, birth canals that struggle to accomodate our ridiculously oversized crania, eyes that can only see three colors with no ultraviolet or infrared or ability to detect polarization of light like some other creatures, we're crappy runners and swimmers. We'd be great walkers, except that we have oddly angled knees that makes them destined to deteriorate. Despite all these obstacles to other means of travel, we get no flight. Perhaps most importantly, no friggin' laser beams.

What's the probability of a perfect God making such a ungainly creature in his image? Absolutely zero, Pangloss.

Maybe it's time we founded the Unintelligent Design movement.

Once again, the Index to Creationist Claims is the greatest resource on the internet for this discussion.

ID proponents don't have a theory. They don't even have a hypothesis. They barely qualify as having a conjecture. As someone who's spent some time reading ID literature, I can definitively state that their arguments consist entirely of the idea that somewhere, somehow, there's a biological feature that evolution can't explain. Sadly their mathematical arguments have been debunked by proper mathematicians and, every time they suggest a feature that "must" have been intelligently designed, someone points out either how it could have evolved or how its design isn't particularly intelligent. Sometimes both.

ID proponents don't have a theory. They don't even have a hypothesis. They barely qualify as having a conjecture. As someone who's spent some time reading ID literature, I can definitively state that their arguments consist entirely of the idea that somewhere, somehow, there's a biological feature that evolution can't explain. Sadly their mathematical arguments have been debunked by proper mathematicians and, every time they suggest a feature that "must" have been intelligently designed, someone points out either how it could have evolved or how its design isn't particularly intelligent. Sometimes both.

Hi there,
It's really nice to see that you appear to be very willing to question your views - always a healthy thing.
Regarding the age of the earth, you can find a good explanation of why it is known to be considerably older than 6000 years at the Talk Origins Age Of The Earth FAQ and a collection of more in depth FAQs on relevant subjects here. Of particular interest should be the Solar FAQ which will address your concerns about the age/lifespan of our sun, and this article on 'How the Sun Shines'.

These are by no means exhaustive, or even highly detailed articles on the subjects - indeed, they touch barely the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence avaliable for the age of our planet, but it should certainly give you a good introduction to the material.

Furthermore, I also have to take you up on your claim that "in anything provable, the bible has so far been correct". For starters, there's a fairly extensive list of conflicts between the bible and known science and history here - and while some of them may seem pedantic, of concern only to the ultra-literalist, there are plenty of others which are problematic at any level of interpretation. Also, there's a rather long list of promises and prophecies which have failed here, and some 360-odd instances of the bible contradicting itself here - and just to assure you no foul play is afoot, while those lists are on the Skeptics Annotated Bible website, that site is merely a standard King James Version with additional sidenotes - by all means, use your own copy of the KJV if you don't trust it.

Anyways, I may not agree with your views or opinions, but I must say I have the highest respect for the fact that you are willing to question them. All too often I see people with religious believes cover their ears and start going "lalalala! I can't hear you!" when their beliefs are challenged, so kudos for actually inviting a challenge :)

Hi there,
It's really nice to see that you appear to be very willing to question your views - always a healthy thing.
Regarding the age of the earth, you can find a good explanation of why it is known to be considerably older than 6000 years at the Talk Origins Age Of The Earth FAQ and a collection of more in depth FAQs on relevant subjects here. Of particular interest should be the Solar FAQ which will address your concerns about the age/lifespan of our sun, and this article on 'How the Sun Shines'.

These are by no means exhaustive, or even highly detailed articles on the subjects - indeed, they touch barely the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence avaliable for the age of our planet, but it should certainly give you a good introduction to the material.

Furthermore, I also have to take you up on your claim that "in anything provable, the bible has so far been correct". For starters, there's a fairly extensive list of conflicts between the bible and known science and history here - and while some of them may seem pedantic, of concern only to the ultra-literalist, there are plenty of others which are problematic at any level of interpretation. Also, there's a rather long list of promises and prophecies which have failed here, and some 360-odd instances of the bible contradicting itself here - and just to assure you no foul play is afoot, while those lists are on the Skeptics Annotated Bible website, that site is merely a standard King James Version with additional sidenotes - by all means, use your own copy of the KJV if you don't trust it.

Anyways, I may not agree with your views or opinions, but I must say I have the highest respect for the fact that you are willing to question them. All too often I see people with religious believes cover their ears and start going "lalalala! I can't hear you!" when their beliefs are challenged, so kudos for actually inviting a challenge :)

Hi there,
It's really nice to see that you appear to be very willing to question your views - always a healthy thing.
Regarding the age of the earth, you can find a good explanation of why it is known to be considerably older than 6000 years at the Talk Origins Age Of The Earth FAQ and a collection of more in depth FAQs on relevant subjects here. Of particular interest should be the Solar FAQ which will address your concerns about the age/lifespan of our sun, and this article on 'How the Sun Shines'.

These are by no means exhaustive, or even highly detailed articles on the subjects - indeed, they touch barely the tip of the iceberg in terms of evidence avaliable for the age of our planet, but it should certainly give you a good introduction to the material.

Furthermore, I also have to take you up on your claim that "in anything provable, the bible has so far been correct". For starters, there's a fairly extensive list of conflicts between the bible and known science and history here - and while some of them may seem pedantic, of concern only to the ultra-literalist, there are plenty of others which are problematic at any level of interpretation. Also, there's a rather long list of promises and prophecies which have failed here, and some 360-odd instances of the bible contradicting itself here - and just to assure you no foul play is afoot, while those lists are on the Skeptics Annotated Bible website, that site is merely a standard King James Version with additional sidenotes - by all means, use your own copy of the KJV if you don't trust it.

Anyways, I may not agree with your views or opinions, but I must say I have the highest respect for the fact that you are willing to question them. All too often I see people with religious believes cover their ears and start going "lalalala! I can't hear you!" when their beliefs are challenged, so kudos for actually inviting a challenge :)

So, CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere were actually higher 650,000 years ago?

Dang, I never knew Java Man drove around in SUVs.

OP said: Which BTW. The creation of the Earth has squat to do with Evolution.

To which you said: Evolution as a process, no. I believe in evolution as a process. The theory of evolution as an explanation of how the universe began has everything to do with the creation of the Earth.

And I continue...

The theory as you put it (why the emphasis, don't believe in science?) of evolution has nothing to do with how the universe began and further has absolutely nothing to do with the creation of the Earth. Evolution deals in biology. The creation of the universe (and subsequently the Earth) is studied by mostly cosmologists -- by looking very, very far through telescopes. If you accept the speed of light is constant through space, then you would accept that any observable radiation from 1 light-year away is transmitting information about one year prior. 100 Light years away, 100 years ago. 1 million light-years away, 1 million years ago. When we observe light today that has traveled 1 billion light-years we are observing the universe as it was 1 billion years ago. I think what you are disputing/confusing is more like the three different and unrelated theories of one: evolution (to explain the observable fact that animals change over time), two: the big-bang (the theory that all mass-energy, space and thus time come from the same source), and three: the formation of the solar system (the model describing how the accretion disc from our young sun coalesced using well known properties of gravity and elemental materials to create planets).

Regarding the big-bang, whether God did it, or 'hot-lumps' did it, we can observe that it happened (give or take) fourteen and a half billion years ago. The Earth was formed about 10 billion years later. If you are not a Biblical literalist you should have no problem squaring this away with Genesis (again assuming you accept such well measured properties such as the speed of light and the rate of radioactive decay; not a stretch if you accept plate tectonics).

For further reading (if you want) about the age of our planet: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h tml

So, nothing personal, just trying to clear up some terminology for your future debates. Evolution (the theories of natural selection and such) only deal with biology, not with the "creation" of Earth or universe. I can see how it would get confused in a 'creationist-evolutionist' debate, but to be clear, evolution doesn't address creation in any way (again, those are things like cosmology (universe), abiogenesis (life), and others (sentience for example)).

If I drop a pen off of my desk and observe that it falls to the ground, does that prove the theory of universal gravitation? No, it just gives me some (very inaccurate) evidence of it. Science isn't out to prove anything, it's out to find the best explanations that we can. In the case of some theories, like Quantum Mechanics or Evolution, the evidence is so good that we have a lot of confidence in the explanations. Even in those cases, though, we also know that there's room for a lot of refinement.

As for the theory of evolution itself, if you're looking for evidence then here is a good place to start.