Slashdot Mirror

A good theory is a theory that is falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is so vague that there is no way to falsify it.

It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong. One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia.

Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.

Moreover, it is not reproducible.

Note that astrophysics is not "reproducible" in the second sense, yet I don't see you attacking it as non-science!

There have been no experiments (yet) that were able to reproduce evolution even in its simplest forms.

Especially considering the lack of intermediary forms, an "evolutionist" might argue that chagnes became very sudden. As a matter of fact, so sudden that it appears that almost some "force" caused the change to happen so suddenly that no intermediary forms have been captures by the fossil record.

How is this any different from the belief in "God" who is responsible for making changes... ?

A good theory is a theory that is falsifiable. Evolutionary theory is so vague that there is no way to falsify it.

It would be trivial to falsify evolution, if it was wrong. One rabbit fossil in the same strata as dinosaurs would do it. One bird with the ammonites. One bony fish with wiwaxia.

Scientists are confident in evolution because nothing even remotely like this has ever been found.

Moreover, it is not reproducible.

Note that astrophysics is not "reproducible" in the second sense, yet I don't see you attacking it as non-science!

There have been no experiments (yet) that were able to reproduce evolution even in its simplest forms.

Especially considering the lack of intermediary forms, an "evolutionist" might argue that chagnes became very sudden. As a matter of fact, so sudden that it appears that almost some "force" caused the change to happen so suddenly that no intermediary forms have been captures by the fossil record.

How is this any different from the belief in "God" who is responsible for making changes... ?

We don't really know whether the universe had a beginning as such; see here. Even in models in which the universe does have a beginning, it's not like there aren't physical laws responsible for universe creation. Regarding fine-tuning, see here.

Personally, I don't find that introducing some supernatural being makes anything easier to believe. It's easier to explain the existence of a universe than the existence of a universe plus an incomprehensibly omnipotent and omniscient being.

Fine-tuning is evidence FOR naturalism, not against it. See here, summarized here. On fine-tuning in general, see also here.

Your first link is absurd; there are virtually no reliable predictions yet about how life appeared on early Earth via naturalistic means, so there really isn't anything to "refute". If you want to talk about what happened to life once it was here, there's plenty of that, and it presents no problems for naturalism.

See above regarding your second link.

I always laugh whenever theists tell me that naturalism requires greater "faith" than religion. Sorry, but even if the naturalistic genesis of life was incredibly improbable (and there is no reason to believe it is), the existence of an eternal, omnipotent, omniscience, sentient being is even more ridiculously improbable than that, as far as I'm concerned. If somebody wants to change my mind, they should provide evidence that this being actually exists, not lame "God of the Gaps" arguments based on attacking claimed holes in naturalism.

This has already been answered.

Evolution is about as "pseudo-science" as The Theory of Relativity and the Theory of Gravity.

Perhaps you should look up what a "theory" means in the scientific realm. Evolution has an ever growing body of evidence supporting it. Creationism or "Intelligent Design" as they like to call it, has no evidence supporting.

Care to actually learn more?

Talk Origins
Panda's Thumb

Or how about a highschool biology text. Or do you live in Kansas?

Thank you for this quote--it succinctly expresses something I've been trying to formulate clearly for some time.

Searching for the origins of this quote, I came upon an interesting page (Evolution Facts) on talkorigins.org. From the site, " the Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays most of which have appeared in talk.origins [usenet newsgroup] at one time or another.

I have a tendency to keep clear of discussing religious issues, in order to avoid becoming a unwitting vector for religious memes (I think the gods will disappear when we finally stop carrying them around in our collective brains), but enough is enough.

If this keeps up for too long, I'd expect a mass exodus of grey matter from the US--scientists and rational people will go looking for actual freedom of thought and expression elsewhere, and the states' position as one of the scientific and technological leaders will wither away. Though perhaps, in the big picture, that would be a good thing...

Thank you for this quote--it succinctly expresses something I've been trying to formulate clearly for some time.

Searching for the origins of this quote, I came upon an interesting page (Evolution Facts) on talkorigins.org. From the site, " the Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays most of which have appeared in talk.origins [usenet newsgroup] at one time or another.

I have a tendency to keep clear of discussing religious issues, in order to avoid becoming a unwitting vector for religious memes (I think the gods will disappear when we finally stop carrying them around in our collective brains), but enough is enough.

If this keeps up for too long, I'd expect a mass exodus of grey matter from the US--scientists and rational people will go looking for actual freedom of thought and expression elsewhere, and the states' position as one of the scientific and technological leaders will wither away. Though perhaps, in the big picture, that would be a good thing...

I'd actually love to see more documentaries about OTHER creation myths.


Just about every culture across the world has their own great flood myth. There is some scientific evidence that there was a sudden flood in the Mediterranean region

*yawn*

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

And while you're there, read more of their stuff, such as Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and Can Evolution Make Predictions?

*yawn*

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

And while you're there, read more of their stuff, such as Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and Can Evolution Make Predictions?

*yawn*

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

And while you're there, read more of their stuff, such as Evolution is a Fact and a Theory and Can Evolution Make Predictions?

Have you read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ? When you do, you'll see that evolution predicts the opposite of what you claim-- fossils that match no known species would be a point against evolution. Humans that shared no DNA with bananas, or more DNA with bananas than bats would be a killer hit against evolution. (Note that creationists sometimes say that particular genes are identical (or closer) in two very different species than in seemingly closer species. All of these claims have ended up being false.)

Humans have one less gene than chimps, but human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point. And it isn't just the working genes- we share nearly all of our broken genes. Example from the FAQ:

"Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) Confirmation: Recently, the L-gulano--lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs. It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning... We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes).

"There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes, the RT6 protein gene, the galactosyl transferase gene, and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL). [refs deleted]"

Evolution predicts a fundamental unity of life, that

"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life... (1) replication, (2) heritability (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion).

Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes...

[Falsifiability of this theory] Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nuclei

Have you read the 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ? When you do, you'll see that evolution predicts the opposite of what you claim-- fossils that match no known species would be a point against evolution. Humans that shared no DNA with bananas, or more DNA with bananas than bats would be a killer hit against evolution. (Note that creationists sometimes say that particular genes are identical (or closer) in two very different species than in seemingly closer species. All of these claims have ended up being false.)

Humans have one less gene than chimps, but human gene 2 looks like exactly like chimp genes 2p and 2q fused together, nonfunctioning broken bits of telomeres right at the fuse point. And it isn't just the working genes- we share nearly all of our broken genes. Example from the FAQ:

"Prediction 2.3: Molecular vestigial characters Vestigial characters should also be found at the molecular level. Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character (nota bene: this very prediction was explicitly made by Nishikimi and others and was the impetus for the research detailed below) Confirmation: Recently, the L-gulano--lactone oxidase gene, the gene required for Vitamin C synthesis, was found in humans and guinea pigs. It exists as a pseudogene, present but incapable of functioning... We now have the DNA sequences for this broken gene in chimpanzees, orangutans, and macaques. And, as predicted, the malfunctioning human and chimpanzee pseudogenes are the most similar, followed by the human and orangutan genes, followed by the human and macaque genes, precisely as predicted by evolutionary theory. Furthermore, all of these genes have accumulated mutations at the exact rate predicted (the background rate of mutation for neutral DNA regions like pseudogenes).

"There are several other examples of vestigial human genes, including multiple odorant receptor genes, the RT6 protein gene, the galactosyl transferase gene, and the tyrosinase-related gene (TYRL). [refs deleted]"

Evolution predicts a fundamental unity of life, that

"According to the theory of common descent, modern living organisms, with all their incredible differences, are the progeny of one single species in the distant past. In spite of the extensive variation of form and function among organisms, several fundamental criteria characterize all life... (1) replication, (2) heritability (3) catalysis, and (4) energy utilization (metabolism). At a very minimum, these four functions are required to generate a physical historical process that can be described by a phylogenetic tree. If every living species descended from an original species that had these four obligate functions, then all living species today should necessarily have these functions (a somewhat trivial conclusion).

Most importantly, however, all modern species should have inherited the structures that perform these functions. Thus, a basic prediction of the genealogical relatedness of all life, combined with the constraint of gradualism, is that organisms should be very similar in the particular mechanisms and structures that execute these four basic life processes...

[Falsifiability of this theory] Based solely on the theory of common descent and the genetics of known organisms, we strongly predict that we will never find any modern species from known phyla on this Earth with a foreign, non-nuclei

You also may want to look into the major evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml

You also may want to look into the major evidences for macroevolution http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

1. A few ordinary pygmies and a microcephalic,
2. An extraordinary group of Homo sapiens,
3. Descendants of Indonesian Homo erectus, or
4. Something completely different.

For anyone interested in Hominid species, here is a list and description of 20 main hominids, here are sample fossils for these species, and data on trends in brain sizes by species.

And to hit the pause button on any creationist "there are no missing links" arguments, take a close look at the comparison of hominid skulls, from the very useful 29 Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ -- each evidence complete with examples, references, predictions, and falsifiability tests (the latter two necessary for a theory to be a scientific theory). A shaved and suited Homo erectus is *not* going to be mistaken for a modern Homo sapiens, not with that small brain and strange face (compare especially the forehead and canines, and that he actually uses his wisdom teeth. Ours are on the way out). But he'll obviously be human- upright, great walker, up to 6 feet tall, briefcase filled with stone tools and a fire-starter kit.

And because at least a few of these claims show up in Slashdot threads on biology, here is the Index of Creationist Claims -- CC0 through CC150 covers human evolution -- and the arguments even creationists say to stop using. If your creationist argument is in the index, how about countering the evidence in the index instead of just making the claim?

We don't know how the Big Bang came about, but there are some theories.

"We still don't have the missing link that Darwin himself said you better find before you even start thinking about calling this theory fact."

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml#morphological_intermediates_ex3

When the theory of evolution was first put forth, scientists of that day believed that the Universe has always existed.

We now know that space-time and matter-energy did not always exist, but had a definite beginning.

No matter how far in time you place this beginning, it limits how many times the evolutionary dice can be rolled.

Evolution without the input of some direction from a source of information does not allow enough time for the incredible complexity of living things.

However I do not think that science and faith need to be in an exclusive OR relationship, but can exist peaceably side by side and even be complementary.

You do have actual examples with which to back up your assertions, right? Please, tell us all about this "wilfull deception" you're complaining about.

Black holes, string theory, common descent, the idea that evolution may explain the Cambrian Explosion. Presented as possible ideas they're interesting notions. Presented as solid theories without alternatives or any cautionary notes, they border on athiest.

I'm reasonably certain I could get a book or presentation using evolution to explain the Cambrian Explosion past your average public school board. However, pretending not to see the athiestic implications of using evolution to explain the Cambrian Explosion seems a bit deceptive to me. "God did it", or "An alien spaceship landed" are just as likely, and just as useless.

Why put the word "scientists" in quotes? What are you trying to imply here?

I'm implying a real scientist wouldn't make bold claims of certainty when in doubt. So, this kind of thing mostly comes from apologists, the popular press, and other hangers on...

I strongly suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and do some serious reading of their FAQs...

Not a terrible site, a bit slanted in some ways. I'll do some more reading there. I seem to recall that or a related site had a couple really good books listed which I read a little while ago in a section with 4 scientists showcasing their beliefs. One was "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind", the other was... something by a Jewish biologist dealing a fair bit with the placebo effect, prayer and the like. I'll have to dig it up.

Please point to the textbook or journal paper that "explains the differences between blue-green algae and man"

On the more narrow topic of the Cambrian and pre-Cambrian, if you go to Amazon and look up Steven J. Gould's "Wonderful Life", there will be a whole slew of related books ;->

I can picture the public school classrom now: "Yes, there are all those other books, but this is STEVEN J GOULD we're talking about here. Which do You think makes more sense?" (Note: Ya, I know he mostly skirts the cause issue... but presumably you get the idea, he does write some controversial stuff.)

What the hell does that phrase mean, anyway?

Are we going to argue over the meaning of "explain"? I mean it *is* part of the definition of theory.

Take a look at the other response to my last post if you want to see why I continue to bring up blue-green algae. (It's mostly a litmus test to see how far you'll push evolutionary theory into explaining things... Particularly where it doesn't belong.)

As to trying to "explain" the relationship between Algae and man here are a couple possibilities:
1) Algae and Man share a common ancestor
2) Algae is an ancestor of Man (unlikely based on evidence?)
3) Man is an ancestor of Algae (refuted by evidence)
4) Both ancestors originate from distinct "spark of life" events. (parallel descent)

Aside from kicking out the two refuted by evidence, picking an option at this time and calling it "best" would be a premature attempt at "explanation", theory building, or whatever you want to call it.

"Boundaries being things we're just not meant to understand?"

"Boundaries meaning: This is the part of the map we've actually visited, and this other stuff is made up pictures from off in never never land... Willful deception is at least as bad as willful ignorance."

Please give us some actual examples of "...this other stuff is made up pictures from off in never never land..." You do have actual examples with which to back up your assertions, right? Please, tell us all about this "wilfull deception" you're complaining about.

"The thing that annoys creationists is that they don't say "I don't know, so I'm going to just assume your fairytale is right."

"No, the thing that annoys creationists is when "scientists"..."

Why put the word "scientists" in quotes? What are you trying to imply here?

"...want to pretend their naturalistic fairy tales are better than everyone else's fairy tales."

What "naturalistic fairy tales" are you talking about? Are you sure you aren't confusing Creationist falsehoods and stawmen with what real scientists actually say, and what the real evolutionary theory actually says?

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

Please point to the textbook or journal paper that "explains the differences between blue-green algae and man"... What the hell does that phrase mean, anyway?

I sense that your complaint isn't with Science, or scientists, or evolutionary theory, but is instead with your own misunderstanding of what Science, scientists, or evolutionary theory actually say. I strongly suggest you go to http://www.talkorigins.org/ and do some serious reading of their FAQs... that will give you an accurate picture of what evolutionary theory really is. If you have compliants with the real thing, then we can address them.

Of course, Behe's arguments have been laughed out of court by the mainstream scientific community. He might be right... but they also laughed at Bozo the clown.

Only by an intelligent designer, i.e., God could much of this be plausibly explained.

That's not an explanation, that's a lack-of-explanation. Start explaining at a detailed biochemical level how God might have tailored those molecules and then you'll have an alternative theory.

ID has two challenges: to show that evolution cannot account for observations, and to provide an alternative theory with better explanatory power. So far they have failed on both counts.

Here is a lay summary of observed evolution of an irreducibly complex metabolic path in bacteria. By past experience I expect the ID-ers will say, "oh, that's not irreducibly complex after all.... but look, superman!"

And by the way, Darwin himself, at the end of his life, denied evolution as the explanation for how we got here.

No, he didn't.
And even if he had, what difference would it make? Evolution is a fact, not Darwin's opinion.

If Einstein had renounced his theories on his deathbed would relativity be any less true?

Ahem. Peoples views differ on that.

Read this and see what you think.

I think the next great controversy was about the nature of the theory of evolution. Some physicists were saying it is not a real theory at all; either it doesn't explain any thing or it explains everything.

Disclaimer: I am not a creationist.
Exactly how is the evolution theory falsifiable?

A few examples here and many more if you do a little googling.

Evolution is trivially falsifiable. It not only requires specific facts to fall out in a particular way to hold true (so fact contradicting said expectations would in fact "falsify" or disprove the theory), but makes predictions that can be observed (or not). Evolution has been supported rather than falsified by the mountains of evidence, observation, and even experimentation (with microbes), so it is a very solid theory, but any of those observations, collections of evidence, or experiments could concievably have had a different outcome, and if that had been so, evolution would have been disproven. That makes the theory falsifiable, by definition.

Do not fall for the religious right's ploy of redefining religious assumptions as science, so they can claim that science backs religion. It is deception of the lowest kind, and something any rational, critically thinking person should see through right away. It would be amusing to watch creationists and other "junk"-science sharlatans redefinte the paramters of scientific theory to not include falsifiabilty and other fundamentals of science to be more vague, in order to sneak their patently unscientific nonsense under the radar and lend it the credibility of science, were it not proving so effective at befuddling the gullible masses.

The Christians brought us a thousand years of darkness once before, a period that only ended with the renaissance, secular enlightenment, and the birth of modern science. If we allow the kind of doublethink described above to prevail, we can probably look forward to another thousand years of darkness to follow ... or maybe more.

This is one argument that atheists or agnostics can't make.

Of course we can.

Has no Sodom & Gomorrah been discovered? Was it not charred by a seeming "nuclear type" explosion?

No. Archaeologists have found cities (such as Bab edh-Dhra' and Numeira) that they think might have been Sodom and Gomorrah, but no proof has been found. The two cities mentioned are considered promising by christian apologists because they show signs of being emptied, not because of any "nuclear type" explosion. Of course, there are any number of reasons why a city might be abandoned so it's not really strong evidence either way.

Was there no King Herod who had all the first born children killed?

Actually there's no evidence outside of the bible that Herod (who did exist) had all the first born children killed. None of the histories written at the time mention it.

Was there no flood of any type? Is there no scientific evidence to support this?

Nice try, but the bible specifies a global flood, not a "flood of any type". And there was no global flood. There is plenty of evidence of that.

Was there no Paul?

Was there no Mohammed? Guess you're also a Muslim then.

Now, the Bible may have a lot of unbelievable elements as well (to you).

Such as the idea that an all-knowing, all-powerful god had to sacrifice himself to himself in order to convince himself to change a rule ("sinners" go to hell) that he made himself. It's just nonsensical.

But evolution has a lot of unbelievable (and believable) elements to those that subscribe to the Bible.

That's not surprising.

I believe that Sabre Tooth Tigers existed - I do not believe they devolved into Tigers or that Tigers and domesticated kitty cats are anything related to evolution.

That would be evolved, not devolved. And ignoring the obvious similarity between larger cats like tigers and smaller domesticated cats is just silly.

Strange, it works fine here. Try http://www-biol.paisley.ac.uk/courses/Tatner/biome dia/units/bird3.htm since the OP was unable to insert a link himself.

I believe this document (http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html #pred4) gives a better overview anyway.

Also, with regards to your link, I'm not sure why evolutionists would be "astonished" by particularly rapid evolution; nothing in evolutionary theory says that changes *have* to be slow. Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Also, with regards to your link, I'm not sure why evolutionists would be "astonished" by particularly rapid evolution; nothing in evolutionary theory says that changes *have* to be slow. Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Also, with regards to your link, I'm not sure why evolutionists would be "astonished" by particularly rapid evolution; nothing in evolutionary theory says that changes *have* to be slow. Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Also, with regards to your link, I'm not sure why evolutionists would be "astonished" by particularly rapid evolution; nothing in evolutionary theory says that changes *have* to be slow. Ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.h tml
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html

Actually, my religion can't be debunked by any theory, in that my religion is non-comittal. I specifically said in that post that "the parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life,". I didn't say that it's how life was created, but he's right in that evolution is observable.

On another note, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

#1. "Adaptation is NOT evolution." adaptation: Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Apparently you do not understand the biolgical definition of "adaptation." An adaptation is some change an organism has made to fit it's environment. It's not a process. It's caused by the process "natural selection" which is the mechanism for evolution.

Adaptation, evolution, and natural selection are not several distinct phenomena, like you seem to think. You're mistaking "evolution" for the term "macro-evolution" which involves speciation. Evolution does not have to create new species to be evolution.

Also, about us "never absolutely seen the emergence of a new species"... good job, idiot. I found that all in about 2 minutes. Not that I didn't already know you were wrong, I'm just saying, do a little research before you make these ridiculous claims.

As well as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about? Biology. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. I think we're pretty sure what a species is. Even given various exceptions, it's not like we can't tell what's in a species with ease.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter, as evolution does not have to entail speciation, as you wrongly believe.

And about whatever the Bible says: that's great! I don't care! Didn't I just say to leave your religion out of this? This has nothing to do with the Bible, or the origin of life for that matter.

It just has to do with my point, and the point of the original parent that evolution is observable and going on right now. It is. Accept it. Your religion will not come crashing to its feet, I promise, just stop making these ridiculous claims.

Actually, my religion can't be debunked by any theory, in that my religion is non-comittal. I specifically said in that post that "the parent, however, didn't say anything about the origin of life,". I didn't say that it's how life was created, but he's right in that evolution is observable.

On another note, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about. Seriously.

#1. "Adaptation is NOT evolution." adaptation: Biology. An alteration or adjustment in structure or habits, often hereditary, by which a species or individual improves its condition in relationship to its environment.
Apparently you do not understand the biolgical definition of "adaptation." An adaptation is some change an organism has made to fit it's environment. It's not a process. It's caused by the process "natural selection" which is the mechanism for evolution.

Adaptation, evolution, and natural selection are not several distinct phenomena, like you seem to think. You're mistaking "evolution" for the term "macro-evolution" which involves speciation. Evolution does not have to create new species to be evolution.

Also, about us "never absolutely seen the emergence of a new species"... good job, idiot. I found that all in about 2 minutes. Not that I didn't already know you were wrong, I'm just saying, do a little research before you make these ridiculous claims.

As well as us not being sure what a species is, what the hell are you talking about? Biology. A fundamental category of taxonomic classification, ranking below a genus or subgenus and consisting of related organisms capable of interbreeding. I think we're pretty sure what a species is. Even given various exceptions, it's not like we can't tell what's in a species with ease.

Not to mention the fact that it doesn't matter, as evolution does not have to entail speciation, as you wrongly believe.

And about whatever the Bible says: that's great! I don't care! Didn't I just say to leave your religion out of this? This has nothing to do with the Bible, or the origin of life for that matter.

It just has to do with my point, and the point of the original parent that evolution is observable and going on right now. It is. Accept it. Your religion will not come crashing to its feet, I promise, just stop making these ridiculous claims.

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."

"Microevolution is distinct from macroevolution."
"Macroevolution has never been observed."
"The most primitive cells are too complex to have come together by chance."