Slashdot Mirror

saying that it's a fact that the mutations are random is basically the same as saying that science has disproved God.

It is a fact that most of the mutations are dead ends and weeded out by natural selection, but that's not quite the same thing.

> How about the simple fact that the theory of evolution is taught as fact in many

evolution is a fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.htm l

a scientific theory is an explanatory model to account for some law or observation. it isn't the same as "theory" in every day speech, like "a hunch". furthermore, a fact is not "mathematical proof", otherwise we couldn't say that it's a fact that adolf hitler lived. it is confirmed to such a degree of certainty that there is not a reasonable doubt about it.

the general idea that all life on earth arose through a progression of self-replicating chemical systems due to the preservation of random mutations over billions of years, is most certainly a fact.

explain why it is that when someone just mentions "intelligent design", they are immediately labeled as a radical, or anti-science, or with some other derogatory label.

"intelligent design" advocates are labeled as utter lunatics, because they don't have any support for their beliefs. they might as well be teaching kids about santa claus and leprechauns. the only intelligent designers we know of are humans, and i think we can all agree that humans didn't make ourselves and all other life on the planet. until creationists ("intelligent design" people included) can demonstrate the existence of some intelligence that is consistent with the creation of life as we know it, there is no argument to be made for intelligent design.

natural selection is one part of evolution. evolution is "a change in the frequency of alleles within a population". it is comprised both of mutation and natural selection. so it's not really incorrect to say that natural selection is evolution. it's an enormous part of it.

I wouldn't be so annoyed with the intelligent design croud if they didn't take advantage of the advances made by the very theories they declare to be invalid. So if all the fundamentalists want to show that they really believe in what they say they do, then they should give up vaccinations because modern virology is rooted in evolutionary biology. I don't expect that to happen because that would require a faith that I frankly don't think most of them are actually capable of.

For another view this is a good read: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biolo gy.html/

And this is the point that many creationists don't get or don't like: science starts with the latest research and works backwards. No book or article gets to be the authoritative foundation of a field for all times, even if that book started a science or an article's researcher got the Nobel prize.

A well-corroborated world can be a bothersome world- as you say, it doesn't let you just believe what feels good. In the corroborated world you have to give kids the scientific method, you can't just give them a list of facts to memorize. Theories can be falisified: while scientists can be annoyed if their particular theory is bettered, the fact that they can themselves do better on someone else's theory makes it worthwhile (aka if they couldn't discover new things they wouldn't have jobs, would they.)

Intelligent design? As far as I know, nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe. The man is not an idiot, he knows his molecular biology, and he raises some valid points. Screaming, "He's just a creationist!" doesn't make the points go away.

Behe has been debunked so often that he should start his own "My Store Is Full Of Debunks, All Debunks Must Go, 75% Off All Debunks This Saturday Only" sale. He consistently uses an example of 40 proteins for flagellum and then claims that the flagellum is irreducibly complex. He ignores simpler flagellums with fewer proteins. He also ignores scientists who have demonstrated simpler variants of the flagellum that Behe claims are irreducibly complex and the evolutionary pathways that they travelled! The fact that Behe still uses arguments that have been debunked should be a gigantic clue that he's a con-artist.

But don't take my word for it. There are books and websites devoted to debunking Behe. Anybody who still thinks he has a valid point is ignoring the facts.

The biggest problem with Behe is that his argument is essentially a God Of The Gaps argument. He says "we don't know how it happened therefore God did it". Basically it's an appeal to ignorance.

Evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so its not like modern scientists or Darwin were 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.

Oh, and How many missing links do you want? How many more well-referenced testable and falsifiable evidences for macroevolution can scientists put together while we all wait for IDers to put together one? How many times will creationists in this Slashdot thread say that scientist are ignoring a creationist claim when in fact its been answered so many times they made a FAQ (or sometimes Slashdotters'll use something from the list of claims that a major creationist group asks people to stop using)? It'll be interesting to watch this thread and see the last question being answered.

Evolution is nothing but changes in allele frequency in a population over time, so its not like modern scientists or Darwin were 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.

Oh, and How many missing links do you want? How many more well-referenced testable and falsifiable evidences for macroevolution can scientists put together while we all wait for IDers to put together one? How many times will creationists in this Slashdot thread say that scientist are ignoring a creationist claim when in fact its been answered so many times they made a FAQ (or sometimes Slashdotters'll use something from the list of claims that a major creationist group asks people to stop using)? It'll be interesting to watch this thread and see the last question being answered.

You are wrong.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.h tml

So, you say that the FSM "spoof" is flawed because they make reference to a specific creator? It's a more direct parody of religion itself rather than of the "Intelligent Design" shroud that creationists have created, but that's because ID is so thin that upon any brief inspection you discover that it is creationism in disguise. Anyway, the important thing about FSM is spurring discussion, like we have done here for instance. As long as we're talking about ID, do you recognize the fact that ID is not science? Have you ever heard an ID argument that wasn't merely an attack on the the theory of evolution? The reason people "keep talking about" FSM is because creationists are trying to force their supernatural beliefs into public science education! Do you realize how pissed off people are about that? We're talking about an attempt to undermine the very foundation of our society -- rational thought and logical argument!

Religious types try to blow off FSM because it cuts so close to the bone. It's a ridiculous explanation for the way the world works, and it's just as definsible as any other religion on the planet. In other words, not very.

Sorry if I sound accusatory, but I'm pretty riled up over the state of education in our country. I don't know what your position is on this whole debate, other than your opinion that the FSM parody misses the point. If you don't know much about the scientific theory of evolution, or if you end up in an argument with someone who doesn't understand it, you might find this FAQ to be very useful.

Here's to open mindedness and rational argument! May the best supported ideas win!

So, you say that the FSM "spoof" is flawed because they make reference to a specific creator? It's a more direct parody of religion itself rather than of the "Intelligent Design" shroud that creationists have created, but that's because ID is so thin that upon any brief inspection you discover that it is creationism in disguise. Anyway, the important thing about FSM is spurring discussion, like we have done here for instance. As long as we're talking about ID, do you recognize the fact that ID is not science? Have you ever heard an ID argument that wasn't merely an attack on the the theory of evolution? The reason people "keep talking about" FSM is because creationists are trying to force their supernatural beliefs into public science education! Do you realize how pissed off people are about that? We're talking about an attempt to undermine the very foundation of our society -- rational thought and logical argument!

Religious types try to blow off FSM because it cuts so close to the bone. It's a ridiculous explanation for the way the world works, and it's just as definsible as any other religion on the planet. In other words, not very.

Sorry if I sound accusatory, but I'm pretty riled up over the state of education in our country. I don't know what your position is on this whole debate, other than your opinion that the FSM parody misses the point. If you don't know much about the scientific theory of evolution, or if you end up in an argument with someone who doesn't understand it, you might find this FAQ to be very useful.

Here's to open mindedness and rational argument! May the best supported ideas win!

Seems like someone needs to read http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html.

You'll be glad to know that people haven't answered Behe by saying, 'believe what we tell you to!'. Instead, people have answered Behe by saying, 'Not so, here's why!'

I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70547&cid=6407 629

I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good information in it. I've seen this in every creationism/evolution debate I've read here. But we've got evidence and reason on our side, while all they have is: "I can't figure out/imagine how this happened, so god did it." That really is the sum total of what they want us to teach as science. They add a lot of verbiage to make it sound like more, but they always come down to:

1. Honest mistakes
2. Lies
3. More lies (I want to believe these guys are sincere, but there are so many wrong statements from creationists that have been clearly shown wrong, yet they keep repeating them.)
4. Nonsense - often a subset of 1. (e.g. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" That question is such a tangled morass of wrongness, I don't know where to begin.)

It does get discouraging at times, which is why I get cranky about this.

YIAAST.

I read the parent three times and I can't fathom why it was mod'ed as "Troll". I found it to be quite informative and helpful for me when I have to deal with the ID folks.

There are creationists here who I think go looking for articles that criticize creationism/ID and rate them Troll. A while back, I wrote a testy but not uninformative article that got the same treatment:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=70547&cid=6407 629

I admit I was kind of pissy when I wrote it, but it wasn't a troll. It had good information in it. I've seen this in every creationism/evolution debate I've read here. But we've got evidence and reason on our side, while all they have is: "I can't figure out/imagine how this happened, so god did it." That really is the sum total of what they want us to teach as science. They add a lot of verbiage to make it sound like more, but they always come down to:

1. Honest mistakes
2. Lies
3. More lies (I want to believe these guys are sincere, but there are so many wrong statements from creationists that have been clearly shown wrong, yet they keep repeating them.)
4. Nonsense - often a subset of 1. (e.g. "If we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys?" That question is such a tangled morass of wrongness, I don't know where to begin.)

It does get discouraging at times, which is why I get cranky about this.

YIAAST.

Except no. There's tons of evidence for natural selection. Natural selection does not need to explain absolutely everything any more than gravity does, that's not how science works. However, the theory of natural selection has made various claims which have followed testability. (I'm lazy, so I'll just point at Talk Origins.) That's how science works. Furthermore, the theory of natural selection does not say that intelligent design could not have played a role in the origin of species. The theory merely states that the forces of natural selection have played a role on the evolution of life on earth.

The problem with intelligent design is not that it is implausible, but that it is completely untestable. An intelligent entity could have done anything it wanted to, so you can't apply tests to the theory. As a result, intelligent design becomes a "theory of the gaps," such that wherever we find something unexplainable you can say, "Well, maybe an intelligent being created it."

Another thing about irreducable complexity is that it's rather hard to actually prove something is irreducably complex. Darwin himself had trouble thinking of how the eye could have originated, but now I believe scientists have discovered a pretty good understanding of what sort of pathways it might take to get to the eye. Similarly, just checking Wikipedia shows that the evolution of the flagella is a well studied concept. (Huge page of cites was moved onto the talk page.)

It doesn't matter if the dogma is religious dogma or scientific dogma. If you can't question it and get reasonable answers back, it's just dogma. And, unfortunately, too much of science is that way.

Science is the exact antithesis of what you've described. Science welcomes questions. (Well, except for stupid ones.) What you can't do is make wild claims without significant evidence or some other support for your ideas. Evolution has that support. ID doesn't. If ID can make scientific arguments and predictions and test for its claims, then it can get published in scientific journals. But it can't, so it resorts to publishing books and videos and marketing to the scientifically-ignorant public.

nobody has actually refuted "Darwin's Black Box" by Michael Behe

There are numerous refutations of Behe out there. Behe's argument basically boils down to, "It looks really complicated. It must be magic!" See, for example: http://talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html. Here's a good refutation of Behe's recent testimony in the Dover trial.

ID makes no predictions, observations, or has any supporting evidence. Just vague claims of "it's complex" or "it looks designed". The only reason it's getting the attention that it is getting is because it dovetails nicely into fundamentalist Christian theology. And don't doubt that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is anything other that Christian creationism in fancy clothing.

Behe said "the designer is God" and that "I concluded that based on theological, philosophical and historical facts." [Note: none of these things are science.] So he has admitted that his conclusions are not scientific, and therefore do not belong in the classroom.

Yes, you are. Every time you spout stupidity like this:

I am saying that the to belive one you have to make the same leaps that other requires. I don't see any difference in saying this is true and this is not because although we havn't witnessed evolution jumping species, we "belive" it is possible and likley to happen.

You are basing your argument that evolution and creationism are equally likely based on the false dichotomy between "microevolution" and "macroevolution" ?

Wow. Just....wow.

Creation is the exact same thing.

No, it is not. Creationism holds that speciation *cannot* occur - thus that every species currently known has always existed - and as such is directly opposed to evolution.

Granted evolution or inteligent design thru evolution presents a more sound argument but neither evolution or creationism _has_been_proved_.

Nor will evolution ever be. Such is the nature of science.

Again, i'm not saying creation is a science rather then you need to employ the same faiths to belive in somethign not proven and to belive that what is being presented is the true meaning of the statment.

But you do. To believe in creationism, you must accept the basic assumption that, from nothingness, sprang an entity capable of "creating" everything that currently exists on Earth. To "believe" in evolution, you simply need to observe the evidence supporting it.

Evolution has not been witness or observered outside differenet breeds withing the same species.

[...]

I challenge you to show me any research were Macro evolution has been proven to produce another species that can continue reproduction.

There are a few here. Or a simple Google search will show you more.

You keep mentioning science as it is the reason the thoery of evolution is fact, In science, a theory is never considered fact or infallible, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified to fit the additional data.

Ironic that you say this when I'm the one who has been using the word "Theory" correctly, rather than the pejorative manner you have.

In conclusion, i am not saying creation is equaly sound as evolution. I am saying that you need to make the same jump of faith (look it up) to belive aithor one is acurate.

Yes, you are - and you are wrong.

The reason the evolution theory is never accepted by the creationists is because of the sheer impossibility. The best explanation of the sheer chance involved I ever saw was by Michael Cremo. Check the link here http://www.mcremo.com/writing.html. Personally, I am convinced.

The "impossibility" and "sheer chance" thing flogged by creationist is based on a drastic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory; the version of evolutionary theory such statistical arguments are invariably based on is one which no one in the scientific community has ever advocated. In other words, it is a straw man. The link you offer, based on ancient and extremely deceptive analyses by Fred Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, is no exception.

If you wish to sling links, here is a simple attempt to explain the problem with the "chance" argument, here is a more in-depth one which addresses Mr. Hoyle specifically. The short version is, the thing which Hoyle and Wickramasinghe debunk is not evolution. The thing which all those silly improbable-looking numbers in Mr. Cremo's link are derived from is not actual evolutionary theory. It's just a straw man.

Perhaps you should make an effort to actually understand these things yourself instead of blindly accepting the authority of creationists.

The reason the evolution theory is never accepted by the creationists is because of the sheer impossibility. The best explanation of the sheer chance involved I ever saw was by Michael Cremo. Check the link here http://www.mcremo.com/writing.html. Personally, I am convinced.

The "impossibility" and "sheer chance" thing flogged by creationist is based on a drastic misunderstanding of evolutionary theory; the version of evolutionary theory such statistical arguments are invariably based on is one which no one in the scientific community has ever advocated. In other words, it is a straw man. The link you offer, based on ancient and extremely deceptive analyses by Fred Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, is no exception.

If you wish to sling links, here is a simple attempt to explain the problem with the "chance" argument, here is a more in-depth one which addresses Mr. Hoyle specifically. The short version is, the thing which Hoyle and Wickramasinghe debunk is not evolution. The thing which all those silly improbable-looking numbers in Mr. Cremo's link are derived from is not actual evolutionary theory. It's just a straw man.

Perhaps you should make an effort to actually understand these things yourself instead of blindly accepting the authority of creationists.

This is a creationist troll, and the story in question is long discredited. Someone want to point this out as mod abuse?

  Anyway, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.htm l

This is a creationist troll, and the story in question is long discredited. Someone want to point this out as mod abuse?

  Anyway, read this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.htm l
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/flesh.htm l

You joke, but gravity is just a theory.

You are using the wrong definition of theory. Nothing is ever "just" a theory; a theory is the very pinnacle of truth, explaining numerous facts, data, and observations.

I was reading your site and thinking to myself, "Okay, so this is different than the usual take on the universe from creationists..."

And then I hit on the following line, and I realized you're taken in with the frauds just like the rest of your ilk.

The answer is as clear here as it is in dealing with the irreducible complexity and specified complexity that shatter the flawed theory of evolution.

Why irreducible complexity is wrong
Why specified complexity is wrong

It is clear that this inaccurate and defective theory is being pushed by secular scientists seeking to further their anti-religious agenda.

Nice whine. "Ohhh no! The scientists are persecuting us Christians!" Look at what is ACTUALLY happening in government and you'll see that the real truth is that the religious people in power are using the government to further their anti-science agenda. They've attacked science education, environmental preservation, global warming, stem-cell research, and sex education, amongst many others.

You joke, but gravity is just a theory.

You are using the wrong definition of theory. Nothing is ever "just" a theory; a theory is the very pinnacle of truth, explaining numerous facts, data, and observations.

I was reading your site and thinking to myself, "Okay, so this is different than the usual take on the universe from creationists..."

And then I hit on the following line, and I realized you're taken in with the frauds just like the rest of your ilk.

The answer is as clear here as it is in dealing with the irreducible complexity and specified complexity that shatter the flawed theory of evolution.

Why irreducible complexity is wrong
Why specified complexity is wrong

It is clear that this inaccurate and defective theory is being pushed by secular scientists seeking to further their anti-religious agenda.

Nice whine. "Ohhh no! The scientists are persecuting us Christians!" Look at what is ACTUALLY happening in government and you'll see that the real truth is that the religious people in power are using the government to further their anti-science agenda. They've attacked science education, environmental preservation, global warming, stem-cell research, and sex education, amongst many others.

However, scientists do not have all the answers yet. A widely debated example is how the eyeball evolved.

For example, you'd expect to see animals with 1 arm, 2 arms, 3 arms, 10 arms, no arms, half an arm, round arms, and so on for every part of the body while evolution is fine tuning this stuff.

One thing I can say with certainty is to keep an open mind. Evolutionary fanatics clinging to this one theory need to realize how history repeats itself. Our beliefs can and have been turned on their head surprisingly in the past. The world is round.

However, scientists do not have all the answers yet. A widely debated example is how the eyeball evolved.

For example, you'd expect to see animals with 1 arm, 2 arms, 3 arms, 10 arms, no arms, half an arm, round arms, and so on for every part of the body while evolution is fine tuning this stuff.

One thing I can say with certainty is to keep an open mind. Evolutionary fanatics clinging to this one theory need to realize how history repeats itself. Our beliefs can and have been turned on their head surprisingly in the past. The world is round.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l

Ahem.

Of course, now that you've been presented with evidence that speciation has occurred, are you going to change your mind? I doubt it.

Ed Babinski wrote a good article on some of the problems presented with life on other worlds (start at "All kidding aside").

The presence of even lifeless planets beyond earth was deeply troubling for early theologans, and the concept was widely denied for theological reasons. "Great lights" that light noone's sky. Tracts of land far greater than those on Earth, doing nothing, for noone - I.e., God creating in vain. If they did have life, they couldn't trace it back to adam, et al. Such a huge act of creation, and God didn't see if fit to put a word of it in the bible? There were all sorts of major problems, and it took a long time to get it accepted.

Besides being great reading, it's appropriate here because of an important point made in the article: there are very few scientific reports about speciation events, and they are not well organized, and it ISN'T because they don't exist; it's because "it appears that the biological community considers this a settled question." The majority of scientists don't bother reporting these things, because they don't see the need -- even though it's precisely this kind of evidence that a thinking fundamentalist needs to make any headway in seeing some degree of truth in evolutionist thinking. So there is a gaping divide between the two camps, and as usual in American society these days, neither side really wants to reach any kind of compromise or detente; they both want to obliterate their opponent.

I think the reason that Americans get hung up on "macroevolution" is this: although any thinking person can understand the observable processes of variation and selective pressure, it does require a logical leap to claim that those processes are sufficient to explain ALL of what we now see, and a separate leap to conclude that it did in fact occur that way. Most people whose ideas about human origins come from an evolutionary standpoint in school (say, the majority of Europeans) don't even see that any leap is needed. However, in America the religious fundamentalists are many and vocal, and their children are educated to see a dichotomy between the origin story presented at school and the one presented at church.

king-manic, it's interesting that you keep on bringing up the idea of aliens delivering human DNA to the planet from outside. As an intellectual concept, it seems almost equivalent to the idea of a God shaping humans out of dirt. It doesn't say anything more than the God theory about where the contents of the meteorite (or whatever) might have come from, it just posits that "one day, it wasn't here, the next day, it was." To the degree that evolution is compatible with alien delivery of DNA, it (a) is similarly compatible with Intelligent Design and Creation by Divine Fiat, and (b) isn't really proving anything about what actually did happen.

Willingness is not the problem. Disproving evolution would make you famous and rich. The problem is the enormous amount evidence against you:

http://talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-mustread.html

Evolution is nothing but a theory.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

Religious apologetics without a shred of science, or even information theory (Dembski does not publish papers on information theory, or any research at all for that matter).

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

1. The recession of remote galaxies (the Hubble constant);
2. The existence of the Cosmic Background Radiation;
3. The fluctuations in the CBR (specifically, this is explained by a refinement of the Big Bang theory known as "inflation");
4. The rather sharply-defined age limit of the oldest stars; and
5. The elemental composition of the interstellar medium.

Know what's funny? You aren't even smart enough to distinguish between high-energy physics (the field of science which studies phenomena of the character of the Big Bang) and evolution (which required the Big Bang, a couple rounds of stellar formation and supernovae to make heavy elements, then formation of the Earth, and then biogenesis before there was anything which could start to evolve). The whole thing is one undistinguished mish-mash in your mind, and you've been brainwashed into shoving it into a bin marked "WRONG". People like you crack me up.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

God made life. It is called a soul.

Looks like you've been systematically disinformed and propagandized. If you want to do something about it, you could do much worse than to go here and start reading. You'll find every one of your talking points listed here, and refuted.

Evolution is nothing but a theory.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

Religious apologetics without a shred of science, or even information theory (Dembski does not publish papers on information theory, or any research at all for that matter).

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

1. The recession of remote galaxies (the Hubble constant);
2. The existence of the Cosmic Background Radiation;
3. The fluctuations in the CBR (specifically, this is explained by a refinement of the Big Bang theory known as "inflation");
4. The rather sharply-defined age limit of the oldest stars; and
5. The elemental composition of the interstellar medium.

Know what's funny? You aren't even smart enough to distinguish between high-energy physics (the field of science which studies phenomena of the character of the Big Bang) and evolution (which required the Big Bang, a couple rounds of stellar formation and supernovae to make heavy elements, then formation of the Earth, and then biogenesis before there was anything which could start to evolve). The whole thing is one undistinguished mish-mash in your mind, and you've been brainwashed into shoving it into a bin marked "WRONG". People like you crack me up.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

God made life. It is called a soul.

Looks like you've been systematically disinformed and propagandized. If you want to do something about it, you could do much worse than to go here and start reading. You'll find every one of your talking points listed here, and refuted.

Evolution is nothing but a theory.

The cool thing Intelligent Design is we know God made us.

Religious apologetics without a shred of science, or even information theory (Dembski does not publish papers on information theory, or any research at all for that matter).

Think about how the world was made. Science has a theory called "Big Bang". It is a theory which states that in the start the mass was so dense, it exploded and everything flew away randomly, making stars and planets, and life.

1. The recession of remote galaxies (the Hubble constant);
2. The existence of the Cosmic Background Radiation;
3. The fluctuations in the CBR (specifically, this is explained by a refinement of the Big Bang theory known as "inflation");
4. The rather sharply-defined age limit of the oldest stars; and
5. The elemental composition of the interstellar medium.

Know what's funny? You aren't even smart enough to distinguish between high-energy physics (the field of science which studies phenomena of the character of the Big Bang) and evolution (which required the Big Bang, a couple rounds of stellar formation and supernovae to make heavy elements, then formation of the Earth, and then biogenesis before there was anything which could start to evolve). The whole thing is one undistinguished mish-mash in your mind, and you've been brainwashed into shoving it into a bin marked "WRONG". People like you crack me up.

For any people who know statistics, what is the probability of that happening?

You would have a better chance at taking a watch, hitting it with a hammer until it was broken into 1000 peices, and then putting it in a bag, shaking the bag, and having the watch come back together out of the random movements.

God made life. It is called a soul.

Looks like you've been systematically disinformed and propagandized. If you want to do something about it, you could do much worse than to go here and start reading. You'll find every one of your talking points listed here, and refuted.

So i googled for "geological timeline", and found: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/geo_timeline.ht ml. I studied geology, so, in case you dont believe the page, i can say to you: the stuff there is correct.

So, allmost _all_ dinosaurs *died* (except turtles and alligators and a few others), at the K-T (Cretaceous - Tertiary) Boundary. This boundary is also know for its very big meteorite. The boundary is dated at 65 Million years ago, and the same page dates Lucy at 3.5 Million years ago, and the first Homo Erectus at 1.6 Million.

So, claiming youve seen dino and human footsteps in the same layer of rock is very, very silly.

First off, Behe is a Christian:

"Scott refers to me as an intelligent design "creationist," even though I clearly write in my book Darwin's Black Box (which Scott cites) that I am not a creationist and have no reason to doubt common descent. In fact, my own views fit quite comfortably with the 40% of scientists that Scott acknowledges think "evolution occurred, but was guided by God." Where I and others run afoul of Scott and the National Center for Science Education (NCSE) is simply in arguing that intelligent design in biology is not invisible, it is empirically detectable."

Secondly, if you apply Behe's arguments to Rainbow Bridge, it'd declare that it never could have formed naturally. It did. It also would declare that bubbles are impossible in nature (remove any part of the bubble, it pops), fire can't be started naturally (remove any of the ingredients, and it goes out), ice dams can't form (remove any part of the ice dam, and the water rushes out behind it destroying the dam), and geysers aren't natural (alter any part of the geyser's path, and it stops erupting).

"Irreducible complexity" is a one-way process. Structures come into being for reasons other than their initial functionality (and for the above cases that I mentioned, for no reason at all related to the end aesthetics or functionality).

For example, a commonly cited case is the bombardier beetle. They produce hydroquinones and H2O2 which collect in a resevoir. The resevoir opens into a tough, thick-walled reaction chamber that produces catalyases and peroxidases; this breaks down the H2O2 and produces heat and helps break down the hydroquinone to p-quinones. A fifth of the mixture is vaporized, and propels the burning mixture through a series of valves and nozzles that spray it onto the target.

Irreducibly complex to say the least, right? Gish sure thought so. Yet, the intermediary stages already exist for most stages, and the others are obvious progressions. From here:

1. Quinones are produced by epidermal cells for tanning the cuticle. This exists commonly in arthropods. [Dettner, 1987]

2. Some of the quinones don't get used up, but sit on the epidermis, making the arthropod distasteful. (Quinones are used as defensive secretions in a variety of modern arthropods, from beetles to millipedes. [Eisner, 1970])

3. Small invaginations develop in the epidermis between sclerites (plates of cuticle). By wiggling, the insect can squeeze more quinones onto its surface when they're needed.

4. The invaginations deepen. Muscles are moved around slightly, allowing them to help expel the quinones from some of them. (Many ants have glands similar to this near the end of their abdomen. [Holldobler & Wilson, 1990, pp. 233-237])

5. A couple invaginations (now reservoirs) become so deep that the others are inconsequential by comparison. Those gradually revert to the original epidermis.

6. In various insects, different defensive chemicals besides quinones appear. (See Eisner, 1970, for a review.) This helps those insects defend against predators which have evolved resistance to quinones. One of the new defensive chemicals is hydroquinone.

7. Cells that secrete the hydroquinones develop in multiple layers over part of the reservoir, allowing more hydroquinones to be produced. Channels between cells allow hydroquinones from all layers to reach the reservior.

8. The channels become a duct, specialized for transporting the chemicals. The secretory cells withdraw from the reservoir surface, ultimately becoming a separate organ.

This stage -- secretory glands connected by ducts to reservoirs -- exists in many beetles. The particular configuration of glands and reservoirs that bombardier beetles have is common to the other beetles in t

Summary: Science is not a simple process of falsification of hypotheses. The philosophy of science is not just the views of Popper, which have some real problems. Evolution can be falsified in the usual meaning in scientific practice.
From (and elaborated on): http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/falsify.h tml

You might find this reading on that book extremely interesting:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html

The beliefs I hold as a Christian aren't always the popular ones, but they're certainly valid arguments for anyone who cares to ask about them (not that that has happened).

Yes, but as anybody with a clue would point out, a perfectly valid argument can still be completely wrong. The problem scientific-types have with Christianity isn't that it's not a valid argument - it's that the axioms are wrong.

Point out a scientist who claims that, assuming the Bible is the incorruptible word of God, Christianity is not a valid argument. I don't think that's a common attitude. What I do think is a common attitude is disagreeing that we should use that as an axiom in the first place.

When you read about someone's beliefs, you have the option to engage in discussion, or to filter his or her beliefs through your own belief system. The former option involves cognitive thought, however the latter is how most people today respond to anything that even smells religious. And I say this coming from the position of someone who hasn't tried to shove my beliefs down anyone's throat - I merely documented them on my personal website. That tells me that some people don't believe I have the right to my own beliefs - how asinine is that?

That's completely asinine. It's also a straw man argument. So people filter what you say through their own beliefs system before responding - how does that in any way whatsoever tell you that they don't think you have a right to your own beliefs?

the Bible encourages sound thinking

Correct me if I'm wrong (really). The Bible claims that it is the incorruptible word of God, and that you should believe this because the Bible says so. The Bible also says that if you don't believe, you go to hell.

I consider these two things to be antithetical to sound thinking. If, however, I am wrong, and the Bible doesn't claim these things, then you have to explain how vast numbers of Christians say that it does. The only explanation I can see is that they have misinterpreted it. In which case, you are left with the unenviable position of claiming that you are interpreting it right and they aren't - so much for the incorruptible word of God.

The problem, though, is that no matter how credible or not a particular area of science is, much of what is out there is taught based on authority.

Everything that is taught is done so based on authority. But the practice of science is based upon the rejection of authority. You can't practice science if you blindly accept things as the truth. That's not how science works.

It's recently become a "religious act" to question science in any capacity

Bullshit. Scientists question science all the time. That's their job. You can't do science without it.

Just because microevolution is feasable, that doesn't mean I'm going to sweep macroevolution under the rug and not test it - the two are actually worlds apart, just cleverly bundled.

Speciation has been observed a number of times. If you aren't referring to speciation, then I suggest you use proper terminology instead of the terms cooked up by creationists.

No matter what side of the camp you are on, your beliefs require a certain amount of faith

I agree. I have faith in the relative fidelity of my memory. I have faith that my senses are not being tampered with. I have faith that the laws of nature don't change behind my back every few minutes. I have faith that the rest of human society isn't engaged in a giant conspiracy to deceive me. I consider that to be the minimum you must have faith in to make any sense of the world. If I suspect that any particular piece of science is wrong, those faiths above are all I need to check one way or the other.

You, on the other hand, have faith that a magical

Well, it's certainly true that Bush recently promoted teaching of ID, and shortly thereafter, so did another key member of his administration, Senate majority leader Bill First.

I agree that blaming a past decline on one of these recent actions is not valid. However, there is reason for concern when proposals like the above are being put forward.

Christianity, has in fact, been quite hostile to science when science conflicts with established dogma, Galileo being the prime example, and Darwin the most recent. In fact, as recently as 1968, it was illegal to teach evolution in some states. Those laws were declared unconstituional by the Supreme Court, but the fundamentalist right is attempting to roll back the clock, and have had recent sucess in Kansas.

I did read some of it. I then did a quick search and found:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/nri.html

Which rather completely debunks the entire model. Just because you really, really want to believe the wacko doesn't make him less of a wacko.

Oh, I don't necessarily think you are a moron or a fool. You may just be ignorant. Fortunately, the latter condition is treatable.

Here is a page with thorough refutations: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

  This attack from Gentry is amusing in its unconscious self-reference: "What is most revealing about Wise's attempts to cast doubt on the primordial nature of these halos is that he repeatedly ignores the published scientific evidence which contradicts what he is attempting to establish."

Te simple fact is, Gentry starts with what he "knows" must be true and bends all facts to support his cranky thesis. If you read his explanation of the cosmic microwave backround as being due to a supposed shell of hot Hydrogen over 3 billion light-years away with the Earth at the precise center, his discredibility should be obvious.

Polonium Halo FAQs: "Professional geologist Tom Bailleul takes a second look at Gentry's claimed polonium haloes, arguing that there is no good evidence they are the result of polonium decay as opposed to any other radioactive isotope, or even that they are caused by radioactivity at all. Gentry is taken to task for selective use of evidence, faulty experiment design, mistakes in geology and physics, and unscientific principles of investigation and argument style."

You should watch his videos,

As a rule of thumb, any "scientist" who presents his theories on videos is almost certainly full of shit.

There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Solely following the laws of nature, both abiogenesis and Creationism doesn't work.

The spontaneous generation that Pasteur and others disproved was the idea that life forms such as mice, maggots, and bacteria can appear fully formed. They disproved a form of creationism. There is no law of biogenesis saying that very primitive life cannot form from increasingly complex molecules.

Wrong.

Macroevolution is a term used by evolutionists to describe changes in a level at or above species.

Microevolution is essentially, Darwinism.

It is important to draw the distinction, not for the sake of evolution proponents, but evolution opponents. The reason being, few, if any opponents disagree with the darwinism natural selection origins of micro-evolution, but many disagree with macro-evolution.

If changes can occur within a species does not mean that species themselves change. The longer beaked flamingo might live longer, but they remain a flamingo. But it doesn't really matter because the flamingo evolved from a grebe.

With regards to that last link: WHAT THE FSCK ARE EVOLUTIONISTS THINKING? They are totally letting on that genetics is counter to the tenants of our evolution religion.

That is bad math. A better explanation of the probabilities can be found at talk.origins.org in a great article entitled "Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations".

You might consider anything from the universe as a whole, to a small pond of water to be "isolated". Whether or not the universe of the small pond of water was disturbed by an outside force is pure speculation.

Nonsense. It's very easy to show that small ponds are affected by outside forces. As for the universe, the entire universe is believed to be a closed system and it will therefore, according to the second law of thermodynamics (which is of course a theory not an actual law) eventually rundown. This is called the Heat Death of the Universe. It has nothing to do with the fact that the Earth gets energy from the sun and that decreased entropy on earth is (over)matched by increasing entropy in the sun. Entropy increases in the overall system (the universe) but parts of it can show a decrease. Nothing at all would work if this was not true.

Oh, even one contradicted law should disproove a fact, even if the earth is NOT a closed system, what about the other laws? If I'm an alleged gangster with 4 alibi, and you disproove one, cant I get off on the other 3? Is a fact, a fact if it is contradicted by another?

You mean your claims about the so-called law of biogenesis and the so-called law of kinds? Creationist drivel is not an argument against science.

Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.

Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.

When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.

People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.

It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.

New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.

Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.

Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.

When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.

People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.

It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.

New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.

Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.

Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.

When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.

People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.

It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.

New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.

Dictionary.com (Faith n.) " Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust."

Untrue. Whether its sponanious evolution, the big bang, or evolution over billions of years, the belief that non-living matter can defy mathimatical probability, and do what cannot be done in a laboritory it does indeed require faith.

Evolution is backed by quite a bit of material evidence. To claim that it isn't is dishonest. I also notice that you mention mathematical probability. I bet you're one of those people who thinks that everything involved in the process is random and I'll bet you have some giant made-up number that you think describes the likelihood of evolution occuring. You probably think that events that have a low probability never happen when it's trivial to show that they do.

When new facts are discovered, knocking the foundations from under evolution, the theory simply... evolves.

People like you really don't understand science at all, do you? In any scientific endeavor, when new facts are discovered that affect parts of a theory the theory is adapted to take those facts into account. That's the whole point! Look at Newtonian physics! Newton's observations were considered so fundamental and proven that earlier scientists called them "laws". Then we got better measuring tools and discovered that they don't fit the observed behavior of subatomic particles or objects travelling at a significant percentage of the speed of light. So the theory had to be changed. Now scientists don't really use the term "law" to describe new discoveries. It's all theory. Increasingly accurate theory but theory nonetheless. That creationists consider this a failing is proof of their ignorance of science.

It's the willingness, even eagerness, to not ignore reality that separates science from religion.

New evidence is discovered all the time, none of which knocks "the foundations from under evolution". The evidence for evolution is a lot stronger than the complete lack of evidence for christian creation.