Slashdot Mirror

It is true that I was mistaken on one issue: the proper definition of vestigial organs and I do apologize (for that only--the rest still stands). To my chagrin, I used the same incorrect definition the creationists use: "vestigial" being synonymous with "useless." The proper definition is a trace left by something lost, something that doesn't have the function of similar parts in other animals or that function is diminished. Of course, we both would have known that had we read (or in my case, not just skimmed) the page that I linked to in the first place. While that page merely corrects me, it provides you with plenty more problems that your "scientific" creationism can't answer.

Speaking of problems you can't answer, you still have not provided anything to back up your peculiar notion of faith. Faith is NOT based on proof, never has been or will be as amply documented by the Bible itself, in the passages I have provided. Not good enough? Here's two more: I Cor 2:4-5 "My message and my preaching were not with wise and persuasive words [which is to say logical arguments or proofs], but with a demonstration of the Spirit's power[the Word of God], so that your faith might not rest on men's wisdom[ie science and philosophy], but on God's power." Or Colossians 2:2-8 "My purpose is that they may be encouraged in heart and united in love, so that they may have the full riches of complete understanding, in order that they may know the mystery of God, namely, Christ, in whom are hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge[Christ, not science or philosophy]. I tell you this so that no one may deceive you by fine-sounding arguments[ie, put your faith in Christ, not science, logic, or reason]. For though I am absent from you in body, I am present with you in spirit and delight to see how orderly you are and how firm your faith in Christ is. So then, just as you received Christ Jesus as Lord, continue to live in him, rooted and built up in him, strengthened in the faith as you were taught, and overflowing with thankfulness. See to it that no one takes you captive through hollow and deceptive philosophy, which depends on human tradition and the basic principles of this world rather than on Christ[can't get more clear than that]." Yet I expect that no matter how many passages I cite proving that your notion of faith is contrary to the teachings of the Bible, or how many more showing how blasphemous it is to demand proof from God, or to falsely raise the words of men to that of the Almighty, it will make no difference. Besides, not only I have proven that your "scientific" creationists blasphemously seek to test God I have further proven that "scientific" creationists do not have true faith, but instead have weak, conditional faith not based on the Bible at all, but upon the words of men. So really, what would citing the Bible do for someone who's practically an atheist like you? Yet you have the temerity to ask if I am a christian? Unlike you, my faith is not dependent upon a young, old, or earth aged inbetween. Unlike you, it is not dependent upon empirical evidence, proofs, or logical reasoning. It is dependent upon just one thing: and were you truly a christian, you would know what this is.

Creationists only support "microevolution" because they were dragged kicking and screaming to the inescapable conclusion that allele frequency changes over time--see Ronald L. Number's "The Creationists" for a history of the movement. The emergence of "intelligent design" shows that creationists are again being dragged kicking and screaming towards the inescapable conclusion that "macroevolution" ie the emergence of new species occurs. I expect that it will only be another decade or two before creationists are dragged--you guessed it--kicking and screaming towards the--you guessed it again--inescapable conclusion that mutation is capable of building complexity, commonly via gene duplication and subsequent mutation and differentiation.

"I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model."

It's no secret: your local university likely has tens of journals devoted to evolutionary research, but zero devoted to creationist "research," probably because creationists don't actually do any research on creationism. Again, that's on creationism, not slithering through journals and sliming together out-of-context quotes that are made to appear to undermine evolution, even though in fact they don't. Prove me wrong: what is "the" creationist "model?" What evidence(s) support it? What predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable? What differentiates itself from current evolutionary biology, ie what predictions does it make that evolution doesn't, how does it explain existing evidence better than evolution. All of us actually doing science for a living have been waiting a long, long, long time--conservatively 150 years--for creationists to actually do science. Also keep in mind that science requires a testable hypothesis, which by its very definition creationism can't have: tempting God with miracles and proof...or are the creationists finally admitting that they are Pharisees (Matthew 12:38-40)?

"Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs.[emphasis added]"

NO EVOLUTIONIST OF ANY CALIBER HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. It is dishonest to portray your opponent as saying something they haven't said, and last time I checked the Bible was not down with lying. What has been said is that some species will have a few vestigial organs, which is what we find. Pythons have vestigial hip bones, as do some species of whales, for example. Doubtless you've been referred to talkorigins a great many times, by why don't you actually take the time to bother reading it? Might I suggest this page on vestigial organs? Or like most creationists does the thought of reading anything that might be contrary to your medieval worldview terrify you?

By the way, no matter how many times you whine "evolutionists don't understand creationism" it won't make it true. We understand it better than you. That is part of why we aren't creationists. For those of us who are believers, the creationist bastardization of theology is even more appalling than its bastardization of science and thus is an even better reason to not be creationists. Shame on you.

Creationists only support "microevolution" because they were dragged kicking and screaming to the inescapable conclusion that allele frequency changes over time--see Ronald L. Number's "The Creationists" for a history of the movement. The emergence of "intelligent design" shows that creationists are again being dragged kicking and screaming towards the inescapable conclusion that "macroevolution" ie the emergence of new species occurs. I expect that it will only be another decade or two before creationists are dragged--you guessed it--kicking and screaming towards the--you guessed it again--inescapable conclusion that mutation is capable of building complexity, commonly via gene duplication and subsequent mutation and differentiation.

"I'm curious to know when exactly you think that these thousands of scientists are daily studying evolution - because I'm betting they're only studying those portions of evolutionary theory that also are a part of the creationist model."

It's no secret: your local university likely has tens of journals devoted to evolutionary research, but zero devoted to creationist "research," probably because creationists don't actually do any research on creationism. Again, that's on creationism, not slithering through journals and sliming together out-of-context quotes that are made to appear to undermine evolution, even though in fact they don't. Prove me wrong: what is "the" creationist "model?" What evidence(s) support it? What predictions does it make? How is it falsifiable? What differentiates itself from current evolutionary biology, ie what predictions does it make that evolution doesn't, how does it explain existing evidence better than evolution. All of us actually doing science for a living have been waiting a long, long, long time--conservatively 150 years--for creationists to actually do science. Also keep in mind that science requires a testable hypothesis, which by its very definition creationism can't have: tempting God with miracles and proof...or are the creationists finally admitting that they are Pharisees (Matthew 12:38-40)?

"Take for example the philosophy that humans and other creatures would have many vestigial organs.[emphasis added]"

NO EVOLUTIONIST OF ANY CALIBER HAS EVER SAID ANYTHING OF THE SORT. It is dishonest to portray your opponent as saying something they haven't said, and last time I checked the Bible was not down with lying. What has been said is that some species will have a few vestigial organs, which is what we find. Pythons have vestigial hip bones, as do some species of whales, for example. Doubtless you've been referred to talkorigins a great many times, by why don't you actually take the time to bother reading it? Might I suggest this page on vestigial organs? Or like most creationists does the thought of reading anything that might be contrary to your medieval worldview terrify you?

By the way, no matter how many times you whine "evolutionists don't understand creationism" it won't make it true. We understand it better than you. That is part of why we aren't creationists. For those of us who are believers, the creationist bastardization of theology is even more appalling than its bastardization of science and thus is an even better reason to not be creationists. Shame on you.

there's also very solid evidence that the shroud is not a forgery.

Name one.

the only evidence i've heard that says it it a forgery is pollen from plants that were not in that area at the time of jesus.

Carbon dating.

since turkey won't allow anyone to go there, the aerial photographs of the area show a distinct ship-like shape. too perfect to be merely a rock formation.

Oh brother. There's no ship on top of Ararat, and there never was. I've seen the satellite photos, and I don't see anything that looks like a ship, let alone anything that is "too perfect". Post a link if you've got one.

and i believe the ark of the covenant is in a temple in israel somewhere.

No, it's been lost for thousands of years. Various theories put it in Israel, Ethiopia, and somewhere in England. If you know for sure where it is, you ought to tell someone. :)

Pity you couldn't get that article; it was really a fun read with a truly massive bibliography. If you were taught that the Miller-Urey experiment was proof of evolution, then your organic chemistry teacher was either wrong or you misunderstood. At any rate, this is the only example I have ever heard of. Still, the challenge remains: find me a textbook which claims that Miller-Urey is proof of evolution.

"Indeed physics and chemistry are deterministic - they go where the Gibb's free energy dictate they go. Which is why polypeptides don't spontaneously form."

So if you know this, then why make a comment you know to be false, ie chemistry being non-deterministic? Besides, polypeptides do spontaneously form under certain conditions. There is nothing special about an organism or the enzymes and ribozymes it uses to make this happen. It's all still the same chemistry. On a closely related note, I just found this really neat article by Stuart Kauffman (okay, it's just an editorial blurb in Nature on the actual article, Nature vol 382 pg 525-528 (1996) sadly not available online or I'd link it) on a 32-amino acid polypeptide that can autocatalyse its own synthesis by accelerating the condensation of 15- and 17-amino acid fragments in solution. I wonder what's been found in the six years since that was published?

"Aside from chlorophyll, where does adding sunlight produce anything but decay?"

There is nothing special or unique about chlorophyll. You add light or energy of some kind to a system, you (may) get some change. For light, you may get degradation of a compound if it has a photolabile group, you may get isomerization about a chemical bond, or fluorescence, or a change of phase, or drive some anabolic reaction. Photochemistry's a hopping field of study: just google "light polymerization" for one example that's especially topical. I myself had no idea that there was so much out there, commercial light polymerizers and all!

"I have read far more on the topic than the abstract you mention, it's just typical of the work in the field (probably why you selected that one)."

Yet you've also been trying to use a number of old creationist chestnuts which suggests either the abiogenesis material you've read is badly out of date or is written solely by creationists. Spend an afternoon on the talkorigins abiogenesis pages--what have you got to lose?

"You seem to understand fundamentals of chemistry - work out the equilibrium constant of a moderate sized protein in an aqueous solution, given the energy of peptide bonds for a selection of amino acids. Figure it out to 150 or 200 proteins in the peptide. I could give you the answer but working it out yourself you may learn something significant. "

Well, I would like to think that I haven't wasted the last decade I've spent studying biochemistry and chemistry. But far from informative and speaking of creationist chestnuts, I suspect what you're asking me to do is one of the classics. You want me to sit down and calculate the odds of a peptide forming--a specific length, a specific sequence, from a pool of amino acids, at random. In the abiogenesis link that I provided in my first post in this thread is ample description of why this argument is fallacious, right up at the top under the heading "Problems with the creationists' "it's so improbable" calculations."" You can't miss it--they even talk about the same 32-mer autocatalytic protein that I found just by googling around, and the page links to more examples of similar autocatalytic proteins! Wow. SunY looks really interesting.

I've read articles by Behe and Dembski and was not favorably impressed. Behe and Dembski are not taken seriously by the scientific community for that matter either. For example, read Nature's review of Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" (Nature 1996, Volume 383, pages 227-228, available pay-only from them, but freely available here). Another review that is available online is from the National Center for Science Education--the premier science education body in the USA. Naturally, both it and Nature (and, well, science in general) are firmly in the evolutionists' camp. You've probably heard it before, but why not give talkorigins a try? They have their own pages on Behe and Dembski as well.

I've read articles by Behe and Dembski and was not favorably impressed. Behe and Dembski are not taken seriously by the scientific community for that matter either. For example, read Nature's review of Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" (Nature 1996, Volume 383, pages 227-228, available pay-only from them, but freely available here). Another review that is available online is from the National Center for Science Education--the premier science education body in the USA. Naturally, both it and Nature (and, well, science in general) are firmly in the evolutionists' camp. You've probably heard it before, but why not give talkorigins a try? They have their own pages on Behe and Dembski as well.

I've read articles by Behe and Dembski and was not favorably impressed. Behe and Dembski are not taken seriously by the scientific community for that matter either. For example, read Nature's review of Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" (Nature 1996, Volume 383, pages 227-228, available pay-only from them, but freely available here). Another review that is available online is from the National Center for Science Education--the premier science education body in the USA. Naturally, both it and Nature (and, well, science in general) are firmly in the evolutionists' camp. You've probably heard it before, but why not give talkorigins a try? They have their own pages on Behe and Dembski as well.

Wikipedia

talkorigins (one of many)

geology.about.com

Depending on how recent the source and who you talk to, Coelacanth is a name belonging to either a genus or a family, not just one species. There are ~125 species identified from fossils alone, which are used as index fossils; this is not a problem since they are morphologically distinct from each other and the modern coelacanth species.

Abiogenesis has moved on in the 50 years since Miller-Urey. Might I suggest reading a recent article: "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells," it can be found here, just click journals, then Vol 358, January, then pg 59, freely available in .pdf or .svg format. I'd give the link there directly, but the Royal Society doesn't do that for some reason. Anyway, the article and the references contained therein might get one up to speed. A more tractable account of modern abiogenesis research is available on talkorigins' own website as well.

Wikipedia

talkorigins (one of many)

geology.about.com

Depending on how recent the source and who you talk to, Coelacanth is a name belonging to either a genus or a family, not just one species. There are ~125 species identified from fossils alone, which are used as index fossils; this is not a problem since they are morphologically distinct from each other and the modern coelacanth species.

Abiogenesis has moved on in the 50 years since Miller-Urey. Might I suggest reading a recent article: "On the origins of cells: a hypothesis for the evolutionary transitions from abiotic geochemistry to chemoautotrophic prokaryotes, and from prokaryotes to nucleated cells," it can be found here, just click journals, then Vol 358, January, then pg 59, freely available in .pdf or .svg format. I'd give the link there directly, but the Royal Society doesn't do that for some reason. Anyway, the article and the references contained therein might get one up to speed. A more tractable account of modern abiogenesis research is available on talkorigins' own website as well.

For some reason, this has proved a lot more difficult than it has with other things people don't understand (relativity, quantum mechanics, most of astronomy, geology, etc.). As far as I can tell, the only people who get as much flak from a bunch of know-nothings who never studied their subject beyond the high school level are economists. Let me give you and everybody else out here a hint: If you disagree with an entire branch of science, and you're only taken one or two classes in that field, you probably don't know what you're talking about. Maybe you have some uncommon insight that nobody else has had, but I doubt it.

If you want evidence, rather than waiting for it to fall in your lap on Slashdot, try http://www.talkorigins.org. Use the search engine to search for answers to your questions. These people typically actually have a background in the stuff they write about, and can correct common misconceptions like the idea that a species not changing much is evidence against common descent. They'll even answer questions in the talk.origins newsgroup.

When I follow that link I get two pages. The first: talkorigins feedback 1997:"First, permit me to point out that the big bang theory is by no means a theory for evolutionists only. That the universe appears to have a unique beginning is certainly very attractive to creationists. D. Russell Humphreys, in his book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, implicitly recognizes the strong observational support for the cosmic distance scale, and for the initial big bang model. He tries to reconcile this with a 6000 year old universe by appealing to general relativity in a remodeled cosmology. It is, so far as I know, the first serious attempt to deal with cosmological reality in a young-earth framework (this does not mean I think he is likely to be right, only that I accept that he is making a serious try at real science)." This is not particularily positive especially as Humphreys' work moves up a peg simply by going against earlier creationists' efforts to deny the Big Bang theory outright.

The second: talkorigins feedback 2003: "The major problem I see with Humphreys' cosmology is that it is impossible, if one sticks to the laws of physics as we know them. This weakness Humphreys readily acknowledges, although to him it is a strength. Humphreys refers to Isaiah 40:22, Who stretches out the heavans like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to Dwell in. To Humphreys, this is an indication that God side-stepped the laws of physics, to drag space-time out of its own black hole and force the universe to expand, in what Humphreys calls a "white hole cosmology". The need for devine intervention comes about because Humphrey's assumes a bounded universe with a distinct center, both of which are aspects absent from standard cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology does not violate the laws of physics, simply because it is unbounded. Humphreys' cosmology does violate the laws of physics, simply because it is bounded. It's a clever idea that relies on direct, devine intervention, in order for the universe as we know it to exist at all." This, on the other hand, is completely hostile. So calling on one hand Russel's work the "first serious attempt" while noting that it is unlikely correct (and the author is likely just being polite here, given the inflamatory nature of the argument), and on the other hand a scathing attack on Humphreys' work is good for creationists how? Especially as talkorigins is a popular website/newsgroup, not a peer-reviewed academic journal? Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" managed to get a few book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals, did Humphrey's book? Note that a book review is a very, very far cry from an actual paper investigating Humphrey's position, even if both were to be found in the same academic journal--and it is this last item that Humphreys and his fellow YECers desperately need to have any level of legitimacy in the eyes of mainstream science whatsoever.

When I follow that link I get two pages. The first: talkorigins feedback 1997:"First, permit me to point out that the big bang theory is by no means a theory for evolutionists only. That the universe appears to have a unique beginning is certainly very attractive to creationists. D. Russell Humphreys, in his book Starlight and Time: Solving the Puzzle of Distant Starlight in a Young Universe, implicitly recognizes the strong observational support for the cosmic distance scale, and for the initial big bang model. He tries to reconcile this with a 6000 year old universe by appealing to general relativity in a remodeled cosmology. It is, so far as I know, the first serious attempt to deal with cosmological reality in a young-earth framework (this does not mean I think he is likely to be right, only that I accept that he is making a serious try at real science)." This is not particularily positive especially as Humphreys' work moves up a peg simply by going against earlier creationists' efforts to deny the Big Bang theory outright.

The second: talkorigins feedback 2003: "The major problem I see with Humphreys' cosmology is that it is impossible, if one sticks to the laws of physics as we know them. This weakness Humphreys readily acknowledges, although to him it is a strength. Humphreys refers to Isaiah 40:22, Who stretches out the heavans like a curtain, and spreads them out like a tent to Dwell in. To Humphreys, this is an indication that God side-stepped the laws of physics, to drag space-time out of its own black hole and force the universe to expand, in what Humphreys calls a "white hole cosmology". The need for devine intervention comes about because Humphrey's assumes a bounded universe with a distinct center, both of which are aspects absent from standard cosmology. Standard Big Bang cosmology does not violate the laws of physics, simply because it is unbounded. Humphreys' cosmology does violate the laws of physics, simply because it is bounded. It's a clever idea that relies on direct, devine intervention, in order for the universe as we know it to exist at all." This, on the other hand, is completely hostile. So calling on one hand Russel's work the "first serious attempt" while noting that it is unlikely correct (and the author is likely just being polite here, given the inflamatory nature of the argument), and on the other hand a scathing attack on Humphreys' work is good for creationists how? Especially as talkorigins is a popular website/newsgroup, not a peer-reviewed academic journal? Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" managed to get a few book reviews in peer-reviewed academic journals, did Humphrey's book? Note that a book review is a very, very far cry from an actual paper investigating Humphrey's position, even if both were to be found in the same academic journal--and it is this last item that Humphreys and his fellow YECers desperately need to have any level of legitimacy in the eyes of mainstream science whatsoever.

You know why Americans can't find Iraq on a map? Because the public education system has been run (into the ground) by liberals for the last 50 years.

And perhaps the reason that many Americans don't believe in evolution (so you claim) is because of the influence of the Christian Agenda (both in schools, and everywhere else) for the last 2000 years?

As for your strawman, I'm atheist, but generally pro-capitalist and dislike communism as an economic system.

Fifty years ago, teachers complained that the biggest discipline problem was students chewing gum in school.

And five hundred years ago, it was torture, people being burnt at the stake, and wars fought over religion.

and man, not God, is the bestower of rights and liberties.

Last time I looked, man is the bestower of rights and liberties in religion also. Who gets to "interpret" your God? Whether it's priests, or the man on the street, it's still men. Just look at how many religions disagree with each other.

Have a read of http://talkorigins.org/. And learn what science is before you comment on it.

Europe is well on the way to being totally rotten. Europe's leaders won't even mention God in the EU's constitution, but I say that's for good reason. It is appropriate that a Godless people have a Godless government. You have not welcomed God in your society.

If only that were true! Whilst I've never heard of any European that believes in creationism, non-fundamentalist Christianity has a strong influence. For example, children are still forced to take part in rituals such as singing and prayer at school.

It's no wonder Europeans can't understand America's heartland.

At least we can find it on a map. Perhaps the "liberal" education you speak of is better than you think?

Darwin, Newton, Einstein & Co. all are worthwhile reading, mostly to see where in the past a field came from and how these people revolutionized science. They are not particularly useful for telling where a field is going today. For instance, my last paper had 61 references. To break them down by decade, 13 were from the 2000's, 26 from the 1990's, 11 1980's, 4 1970's, 5 1960's, and two all the way back from 1959. For the field, my paper had an extensive (perhaps overly so) review of the literature before delving into the issues at hand. I did not cite anything earlier because it simply wasn't relevant--reinventing the wheel, so to speak. As far as the field was concerned, earlier works laid the foundations but are compressed and sorted into textbooks. Similarly for the evolutionary biologists, they seldom cite Darwin. Why? Because the field has moved on--his work is no longer on the cutting edge but instead is a part of the foundation of the field. So if you want to attack current thinking in a field, you should do so by using references as current as possible. Fields move rapidly, and what was cutting edge twenty years ago is old hat today. Also when you quote something, it is improper and dishonest to take a reference's quotation and cite it as your own if you have not read the original quoted material youself. A more proper quote would be something like "X said Y, as quoted in Z." Or would you care to demonstrate you actually read those original sources? Just the sentence on either side of the quotes will do--and yes, I have access to the original sources to check up on you.

But maybe before you bother, you should know that "Scientific American" is a popular magazine, not a technical journal (and your quote has no impact on current thinking in either evolution or abiogenesis). Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biochemist, so his views on protein structure and their probabilities of existing are no more informed than any other layman. Francis Hitching it turns out is a writer, mainly on the paranormal, with titles to his credit such as "Dowsing: the Psi Connection." As far as Behe goes he's regarded as a crackpot. Black Parrot's already pointed out talkorigins' thorough debunking of his ides, but if you don't trust the site try the National Center for Science Education and do a search for "Behe". I particularly like the first hit, a review of "Darwin's Black Box." In a nutshell, it's crap. 200 year old rehashed debunked crap, actually.

"Your" (actually Hoyle's, see above) statistical improbabilities: you could read Black Parrot's or barakn's posts, or for something more thorough go here to talkorigins and read. Why do I put trust in the site? Besides being in my own experience an excellent, factually correct, and largely up-to-date source on the topic, it is endorsed by Science, Scientific American, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Smithsonian Institute, and The Geological Society of America, among many others. In other words, the scientific mainstream: the people who work in labs and in the field, who write papers presenting their findings and their ideas, papers which must stand up to the criticism of their peers, persons whose careers are shaped by their abilities to form and support hypotheses and correct past errors of in their field, using evidence and reason. Your concept of "orginal thinkers" seems to be those who would ignore the vast body of know

Darwin, Newton, Einstein & Co. all are worthwhile reading, mostly to see where in the past a field came from and how these people revolutionized science. They are not particularly useful for telling where a field is going today. For instance, my last paper had 61 references. To break them down by decade, 13 were from the 2000's, 26 from the 1990's, 11 1980's, 4 1970's, 5 1960's, and two all the way back from 1959. For the field, my paper had an extensive (perhaps overly so) review of the literature before delving into the issues at hand. I did not cite anything earlier because it simply wasn't relevant--reinventing the wheel, so to speak. As far as the field was concerned, earlier works laid the foundations but are compressed and sorted into textbooks. Similarly for the evolutionary biologists, they seldom cite Darwin. Why? Because the field has moved on--his work is no longer on the cutting edge but instead is a part of the foundation of the field. So if you want to attack current thinking in a field, you should do so by using references as current as possible. Fields move rapidly, and what was cutting edge twenty years ago is old hat today. Also when you quote something, it is improper and dishonest to take a reference's quotation and cite it as your own if you have not read the original quoted material youself. A more proper quote would be something like "X said Y, as quoted in Z." Or would you care to demonstrate you actually read those original sources? Just the sentence on either side of the quotes will do--and yes, I have access to the original sources to check up on you.

But maybe before you bother, you should know that "Scientific American" is a popular magazine, not a technical journal (and your quote has no impact on current thinking in either evolution or abiogenesis). Fred Hoyle was an astronomer, not a biochemist, so his views on protein structure and their probabilities of existing are no more informed than any other layman. Francis Hitching it turns out is a writer, mainly on the paranormal, with titles to his credit such as "Dowsing: the Psi Connection." As far as Behe goes he's regarded as a crackpot. Black Parrot's already pointed out talkorigins' thorough debunking of his ides, but if you don't trust the site try the National Center for Science Education and do a search for "Behe". I particularly like the first hit, a review of "Darwin's Black Box." In a nutshell, it's crap. 200 year old rehashed debunked crap, actually.

"Your" (actually Hoyle's, see above) statistical improbabilities: you could read Black Parrot's or barakn's posts, or for something more thorough go here to talkorigins and read. Why do I put trust in the site? Besides being in my own experience an excellent, factually correct, and largely up-to-date source on the topic, it is endorsed by Science, Scientific American, the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Smithsonian Institute, and The Geological Society of America, among many others. In other words, the scientific mainstream: the people who work in labs and in the field, who write papers presenting their findings and their ideas, papers which must stand up to the criticism of their peers, persons whose careers are shaped by their abilities to form and support hypotheses and correct past errors of in their field, using evidence and reason. Your concept of "orginal thinkers" seems to be those who would ignore the vast body of know

> Behe's conclusions are recent and unchallenged.

Get a clue, man. Behe's conclusions have been thoroughly debunked.

> While it may be true that Behe, et al. believe that life can evolve from life, they clearly believe that it cannot sponateously create itself from non-life.

Perhaps you can cite something where they claim that? You were totally unaware that they subscribed to the theory of evolution until we pointed it out to you.

> No one has said in these posts what is responsible for Behe's Irreducible Complexity theory solving problem.

I have clearly explained the major flaws in Behe's argument.

> Nor has anyone corrected the probabilities offered

I have shown that your numbers are irrelevant, whether correct or not.

> nor addressed that the quotes I have given include proper citations from distinguished scientists and respected works and journals.

I addressed that as well.

> Just replies of sophomoric counter-positions lacking true substance.

Pointing out that you don't have an argument is about as substantial as the case requires.

> As for sticking to "scientific mainstream" you seem to mean sticking only to those writings and authors that agree with you. Well, I choose the path of Galileo, a man who pursued what he himself believed was right, and specifically avoided conforming to populist viewpoints (i.e., "mainstream") simply to "get along". Now, of course, you will no doubt point out that he strayed from religionists, which is true, but the motivation of the religionists of his day was not the defense of scriptural truths per se, but rather to avoid upsetting the status quo. In this, you share the same dogmatic "go along to get along or we'll ruin you" position as the 16th century Catholic church.

You have absolutely no clue how much controversy goes on in science, nor how that controversy is exercised. If you know a scientist's name it is almost certainly because that scientist revolutionized some field or sub-field of science without getting ostracized.

However, you are performing one very useful service, by showing the lurkers that the typical evolution denier doesn't even understand what the theory of evolution is, let alone the arguments various people offer for or against it.

Just to sample how far off base you are: "Of course, there are some 2,000 protiens that serve as enzymes, which are absolutely required for sustaining life." You do know that Mycoplasma genitalium with a whopping 468 genes, of which only 265-350 are absolutely required, is the current record holder for smallest genome, right? Come on--besides likely being distorted the material your source(s) quote is 20+ years old. You don't expect anyone to believe you had those quotes all by yourself, now do you? You probably haven't read any of them! Your strawmen are dealt with in detail on talk.origins. Perhaps to prevent yourself from looking foolish you should read some of it, or at least read something from the scientific mainstream, preferrably something that isn't older than you are.

> The case for creation completely embraces the notion that the universe began in a "Big Bang" or similar act of creation.

That's why there isn't a case for creation: the arbitrary will of and omnipotent being is compatible with anything, and is therefore lies outside the realm of things that can be studied on the basis of evidence.

> There are many renowned and respected scientists that use the scientific method to disprove the theory of evolution.

Actually there are aren't that many at all, as Project Steve jokingly calls to your attention.

> One such theory is called the "Irreducible Complexity Theory." It argues that living organisms are so complex that they cannot have a singular chemical starting point, but rather come to a point where the intracacies are so interdependent that it becomes a mathematical impossibility for them to form spontaneously.

Actually the major proponent of IC, Michael Behe, thoroughly accepts biological evolution and the common descent of the species. He merely claims that there are some specific biological structures/procesess that could not have arisen by evolution, concluding that something else must have been at work in addition to evolution. Unfortunately for him and his followers, his claims rely on some assumptions that aren't actually a part of the theory of evolution, so the best he can claim is that his strawman version of evolution didn't result in the biological structures/processes that he has called attention to. No evolutionary biologists would dispute that! (More than you could want possibly want to read about all this can be found at the talk.origins archive).

> Which leads to a point: Evolution is still a theory and remains unproved.

Yeah, that's kind of the way science works. Proof, as they say, is for mathematicians, beverages, and gunpowder. The empirical sciences don't have such a luxury. (Perhaps you've heard of "atomic theory", "theory of gravitation", "electromagnatic theory", and a bunch of other scientific discoveries with similar names?)

> The irony is that no one would argue that a laptop computer ever came into existence on its own, out of the random swirlings of sand and oil (an evolutionist's view), but in the next breath argue that in the case of humans and all other life, which is inarguably inifinitely more complex, did come into existance that way.

The intersting thing is that the theory of evolution doesn't say that humans came into existence out of random swirlings of sand and oil. The whole point of a theory is to describe the mechanism that explains why seemingly improbable things happen regularly in the universe. Atomic theory explains why we get the - Wow! - integer ratios between the amount of reactants consumed when we mix chemicals (an amazing improbability if you're unaware of the mechanism), and biological evolution explains why we get the wonderful diversity of life we have out of a mindless universe.

> This pertains to the main article because "fossils" only prove prior existence of something. They do not prove how those things came into existence. Such a conclusion is an imaginative leap.

Fossils are a phonomenon with a curiously non-random distribution, and that demands an explanation. The theory of evolution is the best explanation anyone has ever set forward for it. You're welcome to try going it one better, if you wish.

> (As an aside, if fossil hunters had found the proof they needed to unequivocally support evolution, they would not still be looking for "it".)

Paleontologists don't hunt fossils in search of "proof" of evolution; they search for them in order to fill out the details of biological history.

> Religionists always get the bad rap of being closed-minded, but I think that parent

> It's always seemed odd to me that we are "up here" while apes and chimps are "down there" and other mammals kind of dribble down from that. Why nothing in-between?

Right now is sort of an anomaly in the family tree. For most of "human" history there were multiple species of "humans" living concurrently, and there were formerly many more species of ape alive at the same time too.

Also, the lack of in-between-ness is exaggerated by the nonlinearity of what has been going on in our species. If you compare the material culture of modern humans to that of chimps it looks like an unbridgeable gulf, but if you instead compare our material culture of 1,000, 10,000, 100,000, and 1,000,000 years ago to the current material culture of chimps, the gap really closes up.

It appears that a small difference in cognitive ability can make a huge difference when its results are allowed to accumulate over the millenia.

> It would be cool if there was some other species that slightly filled that gap bewteen us and the animals.

True, but arguably there already is. Take away the chimps and observe how wonderfully they fill the gap between ourselves and gorillas. Take away gorillas and observe how well they fill the gap between us+chimps and the other apes.

Our corner of the family tree is an interestingly dense bush as it is, and would be even more interesting if not for the extinctions over the past few million years.

Recommended readings:

"The Culture of Chimpanzees" (PDF) Overview of culture among chimpanzees.

"Planet of the Apes" (Just a tease; see the full article in your neighborhood library.) Breadth of the ape family tree in the Miocene.

"Hominid Species" What we currently know about our sub-branch of the family tree.

"What are the current best theories for reconciling Quantum Mechanics and Relativity?

I'll refer you to this argument:

The universe is so complex it must have been designed

"The presence of design in the universe proves there is a God. Surely you don't think all this appeared here just by chance?"

This is known as the Argument From Design.

It is a matter of dispute whether there is any element of design in the universe. Those who believe that the complexity and diversity of living creatures on the earth is evidence of a creator are best advised to read the newsgroup talk.origins for a while, or consult the archive at <URL:http://www.talkorigins.org/>.

There is insufficient space to summarize both sides of that debate here. However, the conclusion is that there is no scientific evidence in favor of so-called Scientific Creationism. Furthermore, there is much evidence, observation and theory that can explain many of the complexities of the universe and life on earth.

The origin of the Argument by Design is a feeling that the existence of something as incredibly intricate as, say, a human is so improbable that surely it can't have come about by chance; that surely there must be some external intelligence directing things so that humans come from the chaos deliberately.

But if human intelligence is so improbable, surely the existence of a mind capable of fashioning an entire universe complete with conscious beings must be immeasurably more unlikely? The approach used to argue in favor of the existence of a creator can be turned around and applied to the Creationist position.

This leads us to the familiar theme of "If a creator created the universe, what created the creator?", but with the addition of spiralling improbability. The only way out is to declare that the creator was not created and just "is" (or "was").

From here we might as well ask what is wrong with saying that the universe just "is" without introducing a creator? Indeed Stephen Hawking, in his book "A Brief History of Time", explains his theory that the universe is closed and finite in extent, with no beginning or end.

The Argument From Design is often stated by analogy, in the so-called Watchmaker Argument. One is asked to imagine that one has found a watch on the beach. Does one assume that it was created by a watchmaker, or that it evolved naturally? Of course one assumes a watchmaker. Yet like the watch, the universe is intricate and complex; so, the argument goes, the universe too must have a creator.

The Watchmaker analogy suffers from three particular flaws, over and above those common to all Arguments By Design. Firstly, a watchmaker creates watches from pre-existing materials, whereas God is claimed to have created the universe from nothing. These two sorts of creation are clearly fundamentally different, and the analogy is therefore rather weak.

Secondly, a watchmaker makes watches, but there are many other things in the world. If we walked further along the beach and found a nuclear reactor, we wouldn't assume it was created by the watchmaker. The argument would therefore suggest a multitude of creators, each responsible for a different part of creation (or a different universe, if you allow the possibility that there might be more than one).

Finally, in the first part of the watchmaker argument we conclude that the watch is not part of nature because it is ordered, and therefore stands out from the randomness of nature. Yet in the second part of the argument, we start from the position that the universe is obviously not random, but shows elements of order. The Watchmaker argument is thus internally inconsistent.

Apart from logical inconsistencies in the watchmaker argument, it's worth pointing out that biological systems and mechanical systems behave very differently. What's unlikely for a pile of gears is not necessarily unlikely for a mixture of biological molecules.

Tyreth wrote:

This is something that would be a lack of evidence for. Couldn't it always be said "we simply have not seen mutations result in a new species"?

You could say it, but you would be wrong. We have seen mutations result in a new species, we have seen it often, both in the wild and in the laboratory. The talk.origins site has a page devoted to speciation evidence.

Well then call me an evolutionist. I still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all creatures originated from an initial kind (humans from Adam & Eve). Do I still qualify as an evolutionist?

If you are asking whether you can simultaneously believe in your view of Creation, and accept the theory of evolution as valid, you most certainly can. Remember, science is incapable of producing truth, merely increasingly accurate predictions. There is nothing stopping you from saying "I believe the Truth is, God created the Earth 6000 years ago, but I accept Evolution theory as a useful and valid means of predicting biological events, even though it implies things that I consider untrue."

Please, however, keep in mind that we don't get the age of the universe from the Theory of Evolution. You would need to say similar things regarding: Astrophysics, Astronomy, Geology, Paleontology, Archaeology, Anthropology, and probably many other sciences I haven't thought of.

If you are concerned with more aspects of Creationism than the age of the universe, keep in mind that it also says things like we are all descended from eight people (Noah, his three sons and their wives) who, according to Ussher, didn't land in the Arc until Wednesday, May 5, 1491BCE. According to historians, the Eighteenth Dynasty of Egypt was thriving before, during and after the period of time that Bishop Ussher claims the world was underwater and the only survivors were non-Egyptians.

I would also point out that many people who believe in God and the Bible are quite willing to accept that the word commonly translated as "day" in the Book of Genesis does not necessarily equal a 24 hour day-night cycle, that a "year" in the ages of biblical figures does not necessarily equal a 12 month year as we currently understand it, and that admitting that the Bible does not clearly define a specific moment as when the universe begins is not contrary to a faith in God. Some parts of the Bible are clearly and explicitly metaphors, why not the Book of Genesis too?

A metaphor isn't false, it's merely trying to explain something hard to understand using terms that are easier to understand, I think it goes without saying that most versions of the Creation of the Universe are pretty hard to understand.

You sound like a reasonable person. I haven't felt insulted by you or mistreated, which I commend you for. Usually I find evolutionist to be mocking, sometimes disguised, sometimes very openly. But I've yet to find one that understands the creationist position, and I wonder if that's why they (you) are so quick to reject it?

I find no need to insult or mock, and you are clearly a thinking person, even though some of your beliefs don't match mine. However, you would find me a lot harder to get along with if you were actually threatening me with Creationism. Far too often, lately, Creationism hasn't come up as a matter of personal belief, but in terms of "Creation Science", and in school boards being pressured to teach "Creation Science" to their students as science (along with or instead of Evolution). Not only do I object to the views of Creationism being presented as science to impressionable minds, when it is not science, but I also strenuously object to the political movement that is trying to get Christianity taught in our public schools, in direct contradiction to the Establishment clause. I think this movement is unhealthy

1. We know that mutations occur, and have observed them repeatedly and in detail;
   
2. We know that some mutations will result in a new species, this too has been observed;
   
3. To corroborate the above, we have recreated certain mutations in the laboratory, verified that they results in a new species, and confirmed that the results matched (and in fact bred with) the corresponding mutations in the wild.

Nope, it is a powerful blow to Austin's credibility. You say that you have recieved the same response before - I'm not surprised since this is such a basic thing. You seem to be hung up on the idea that it was a blind test - but it was a poorly done test because he violated a simple but very important rule. So of course you get a garbage result - garbage in, garbage out.

By the way, the samples were low in Ar - from
talkorigins.org

First, Austin sent young, low-potassium (and therefore very low in radiogenic argon) rocks to Geochron Laboratories, which specifically states in its advertisements: "We are not in a position to analyze samples expected to be younger than 2 M.Y."

-asb

A worthless "falsifiable" evidence, since we know that mutations can be inherited. I'm looking for things we don't know.

You say:
Saying we haven't observed something isn't evidence against it, it's merely a lack of evidence for it.
And you also say:
If it can be shown that mutation can not result in a new species, that would kill the "origin of species" part of his theory.

I'm afraid like most evolutionists you don't really understand the creationist position. We believe in natural selection. It's proven, tested, and observable. It's maths, a fact of life and logic. We don't dispute that. Your list of four points, we agree with them all. And this is not where our dispute with evolution lies.

Well then call me an evolutionist. I still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all creatures originated from an initial kind (humans from Adam & Eve). Do I still qualify as an evolutionist?

How do the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for Darwin's theories?

You sound like a reasonable person. I haven't felt insulted by you or mistreated, which I commend you for. Usually I find evolutionist to be mocking, sometimes disguised, sometimes very openly. But I've yet to find one that understands the creationist position, and I wonder if that's why they (you) are so quick to reject it?

Well, I guess I'd rather ask you a question rather than assume. The reason why the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for evolution is two-fold:
1. They are just as much "evidence" for creation theory as they are for the GTE (general theory of evolution, in which I include long ages, the change from simple life forms->complex, etc)
2. The Galapagos finches do not show the process of change which would ultimately result in new creatures. This is where I fear the problem of misunderstanding will lie. People forget that most changes in a species or population are due to already existing genetic traits - not mutations. Evolutionists just assume that all the traits around today originated from mutations, but we've never *seen* that. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'd like to see what your thoughts are first. Do you see how this is evidence for the creation model also?

And regarding those 29+ evidences of evolution - every single one of them has already been addressed by a creationist. You will find on the talkorigins website a link to a response by one of their own to the creationist's response. On that creationists website you will find a response of the response to the response :) A long chain, but needless to say, it's been dealt with and we don't need to go into that.

Sure, I wrote a list of them all for someone else on slashdot, so here it is:

Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response

A worthless "falsifiable" evidence, since we know that mutations can be inherited. I'm looking for things we don't know.

You say:
Saying we haven't observed something isn't evidence against it, it's merely a lack of evidence for it.
And you also say:
If it can be shown that mutation can not result in a new species, that would kill the "origin of species" part of his theory.

I'm afraid like most evolutionists you don't really understand the creationist position. We believe in natural selection. It's proven, tested, and observable. It's maths, a fact of life and logic. We don't dispute that. Your list of four points, we agree with them all. And this is not where our dispute with evolution lies.

Well then call me an evolutionist. I still believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old, and that all creatures originated from an initial kind (humans from Adam & Eve). Do I still qualify as an evolutionist?

How do the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for Darwin's theories?

You sound like a reasonable person. I haven't felt insulted by you or mistreated, which I commend you for. Usually I find evolutionist to be mocking, sometimes disguised, sometimes very openly. But I've yet to find one that understands the creationist position, and I wonder if that's why they (you) are so quick to reject it?

Well, I guess I'd rather ask you a question rather than assume. The reason why the Galapagos finches fail to be evidence for evolution is two-fold:
1. They are just as much "evidence" for creation theory as they are for the GTE (general theory of evolution, in which I include long ages, the change from simple life forms->complex, etc)
2. The Galapagos finches do not show the process of change which would ultimately result in new creatures. This is where I fear the problem of misunderstanding will lie. People forget that most changes in a species or population are due to already existing genetic traits - not mutations. Evolutionists just assume that all the traits around today originated from mutations, but we've never *seen* that. There's a lot more to it than that, but I'd like to see what your thoughts are first. Do you see how this is evidence for the creation model also?

And regarding those 29+ evidences of evolution - every single one of them has already been addressed by a creationist. You will find on the talkorigins website a link to a response by one of their own to the creationist's response. On that creationists website you will find a response of the response to the response :) A long chain, but needless to say, it's been dealt with and we don't need to go into that.

Sure, I wrote a list of them all for someone else on slashdot, so here it is:

Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response

This is the list of links I have so far:
Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response

Apart from these I cannot find an additional link that you mentioned. Could you post it please?

Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.

Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?

As for the rest of this post, I have lost the motivation to reply.

This is the list of links I have so far:
Initial article
Response by Camp to initial
Response to Camp
Response by Camp to the response of his first response

Apart from these I cannot find an additional link that you mentioned. Could you post it please?

Do you know anything about research and performing experiments? You seem not to. Not only are Austin's results not good for anything, it is unethical to try to draw the types of conclusions he did from the lab results.

Why don't you elaborate on why I misunderstand research, why Austin's results are good for nothing, and why his conclusions were unethical, instead of just telling me it's a fact?

As for the rest of this post, I have lost the motivation to reply.

Until you can, you have no better basis or argument than creationists that you ridicule do.

Read this. It's a lot more compelling than anything you've said today.

The evolutionist argument is effectively "no, of course we can't prove that this is what happened millions of years before any of us was born; but look, here's a vast corpus of evidence that supports that theory."

The creationist rebuttal is generally along the lines of "aha, so you can't prove it! So it's equally likely that the world was sneezed, fully-formed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure."

A post in parts, Part 2 Evolution Theory

Tyreth asks:

You tell me, what proof is there of evolution? Even better! What is the scientific theory of evolution by which we can test the theory? What is the scientific theory of evolution which creationists disagree with - that all life evolved from simple single celled life. Show me something we can test.

You ask as if it's hard to find. The core of Evolution Theory is found in The Origin Of Species, by Charles Darwin. It can be found onlne at http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/charles _darwin/origin_of_species/index.shtml.

Darwin's hypothesis was borne from very detailed observations Darwin did, that could be easily repeated. Among his observations were, the techniques and effects of animal and plant husbandry, the variations of finches in the Galapagos islands, the fossilized findings of the relatively new field of paleontology. His theory has been widely tested, and has directly enhanced the industry of husbandry. Other fields of study started independantly of Evolution (eg Genetics) were found to dovetail so neatly that Evolution is considered to have very strong observational backing. It is a strong theory that has been so useful and accurate it has become one of the cornerstones of modern biological science.

As time went on and more things got observed, the theory was tweaked in places, and expanded upon in places, but at it's core, modern evolution theory is very close to what Darwin expounded in his books. It pretty much boils down to:
1) Within a species of organism, there is a certain amount of variation.
2) A population of an organism is under a set of environmental pressures (eg. scarce food, predators, etc)
3) These pressures will be more effectively met by some variations within the population than others, the better adapted variations will thrive in relation to the more poorly adapted variations. This process is called natural selection
4) Since different populations can be under widely different sets of pressures, natural selection can encourage variations to increase between populations, sometimes to the point where they are no longer the same species as each other.

As far as evidence goes, as well as falsification tests for pieces of modern theory, I can't possibly do better than the people at talk.origins. You can find their examination of the subject at http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Here's a link to the response to Camp's critique. It explains the strawman arguements that he used.

And now you tell me there's a unanimous consensus about the facts of evolution when I can assure you that:
a) It is not unanimous, a few significantly educated scientists reject evolution

First, I said *virtually*. Also, most of those few scientists who disagree are not working in the fields related to evolution - they are speaking outside of their expertise. Or, to quote, "Take me out of my field of study and I'm just another guy sitting on a barstool".

You know, have you actually ever bothered to look past the talkorigins propaganda and see if what the creationists are saying is true? It's awfully easy to stand with a bunch of bullies throwing stones at someone, never asking whether what you are doing is right. It is another thing entirely to actually step inside our shoes and consider. I'm not talking about our faith - I'm talking about logic, reason and fact. You betray ignorance and worse than that - arrogance. You spew forth the same propaganda rubbish that every other evolutionst seems to.

Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right. And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.

I looked at your ICR criticisms - I have in fact discussed some of those issues with an evolutionist. We didn't get on well. Regarding asking to date a knowingly young sample when the lab said they couldn't is dodging the root question: why is the lab unwilling to date samples, say, less than 2Ma? Answer that question.

I assume it is due to the type of equipment or proceedure that they use. But to abuse that like Austin did raises ethics questions on his part - that is the *real* root question.

The transitional fossils that have been presented so far are less than weak, certainly not enough to pursuade a rational man. Darwin himself expected a lot more. The predictory power of evolution failed to predict what the fossil record explains - so the liquid nature of evolution was changed to now predict such a fossil record.

No, the traditional fossil record is not weak, and have convinced quite a few scientists. Darwin did not expect alot more, even though we have found far more transitional fossils since Darwin's time. Your comment about evolution changing - are you referring to punctuated equilibrium? Darwin states this in the Origin of the Species:

One other consideration is worth notice: with animals and plants that can propagate rapidly and are not highly locomotive, there is reason to suspect, as we have formerly seen, that their varieties are generally at first local; and that such local varieties do not spread widely and supplant their parent-forms until they have been modified and perfected in some considerable degree. According to this view, the chance of discovering in a formation in any one country all the early stages of transition between any two forms, is small, for the successive changes are supposed to have been local or confined to some one spot. Most marine animals have a wide range; and we have seen that with plants it is those which have the widest range, that oftenest present varieties; so that with shells and other marine animals, it is probably those which have had the widest range, far exceeding the limits of the known geological formations of Europe, which have oftenest g

I have a stronger grasp of probability and statistics, however. Your preemptive strike against talkorigins.org notwithstanding, there is a good write up by Dr. Ian Musgrave there at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob. html. Let's assume that you're right about lipid globules. It still looks like Dr. Musgrave's statistical analysis hangs together quite a bit better than yours, and your post didn't come near addressing all of his answers to your claim. I'll assume you're leaving out details for brevity, but it does appear that there are a lot of assumptions in your post that stack the deck a bit. Also, 10^50 is the accepted standard for impossible? Please. Flip a quarter 165 times. The sequence you just got was one of more than 2*10^50 possible sequences. It was impossible. It should never have happened. You can't look backward and calculate a probability like that without some context.

Finally, the fact that you believe that Hovind's $250K offer is actually meaningful says a lot about how carefully you examine his works. He requires you to "Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under 'known options') is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." Read that last part carefully. THE ONLY POSSIBLE WAY. Not "the best theory" but the ONLY way. He's asking you to disprove all of theology. Not to mention it goes to a panel of "experts" hand picked by him (the person who has an interest in keeping the challenge alive and pointing to it to support his claims) whose identities he will not reveal. I have a challenge. Prove that you were conceived by human beings and born to a female mother. Prove it to the exclusion of all other possibilities, including the claim that God made you directly and faked all evidence of your birth. And prove it in front of a panel the I pick. I'll let you know what their verdict is. I promise. If you can do it, I'll empty my pockets for you and dance around naked in the streets.

I have a challenge for Mr. Hovind: Get one of your complaints about evolutionary theory published like a real scientist rather than writing popular bunk for the credible masses. Not a whole book that tries to shoot everything down. Write one paper that picks at one supporting detail. If you don't like radiological dating, write some original research that debunks it or calls it into question and GET IT PUBLISHED in a real scientific journal. That's a hell of a lot easier than his impossible challenge, and he hasn't even gone that far. In case you were wondering, that's what all the real scientists are busy doing. They're testing their work in front of scientists rather than in the court of public opinion.

If one of those babies happened within 100 light-years, you could lose a bit more than an appendage.

I hasten to add that your challenge of the survival of the fittest society as a tautology is a very similar response to a common Evolution challenge.

"Natural selection is the survival of the fittest. The fittest are those that survive. Therefore, evolution by natural selection is a tautology (a circular definition)."

However, this argument is countered here (far better than ever I could).

I'm not suggesting my pet moral "evolution" theory is actually right, of course. I have no evidence to support it. I just think it's "cute". :)

That's nothing more than some creationism "science".
Check this and this or some real hardcore science instead. If you want more, just google for "sun radius annual shrinkage" or smth like that. Talk.Origins is also a good source of information.

In a year we'll be hearing reports of Talk Origins being blocked as "Blasphemy" and "Violent pornography".

I think librarians should take blocked sites and print them out and put on the shelves. The pro-filtering people want nothing more than to burn all dissidents and create lots and lots of unquestioning little robots to share in their delusion. Force them to be honest about it.

Thinking people cannot be ruled. The children shouldn't be thinking, they should be obedient copycats of their parents. Great. A nation of idiots in the making.

Mark me flamebait if you must, or troll. I'm just so tired. So tired of all this bullshit. DMCA, CITA, lawyers everywhere, creationists, John Edwards and a nation of gullibles. Just fucking great.

Stop trying to drop elephants into every line. It was unecessary to say there's overwhelming evidence, because again I disagree.

Disagree all you want - there is no credible evidence that the earth is not billions of years old - at least evidence that would convince scientists working in the related fields.

Be careful not to be hypocritical, accusing us of unscientific positions when you yourself propose unscientific propositions. You tell me - did that first life come from God, pink unicorns or chance? What you believe, not what is possible.

Taking me out of context, I see. I guess I'll have to restate it - BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION OCCURS AFTER THE FIRST REPLICATING CELLS HAVE BEEN CREATED - THEREFORE, HOW THE FIRST CELL CAME ABOUT IS NOT PART OF EVOLUTION.

How about this, a reply in which I posted a link to a rebuttal of those 29 evidences? How about you pick one of those you consider very convincing and we'll look at it in detail? I'm not going to skim over 29 examples - it is far better to examine one in depth.

A strawman rebuttal to the link I provided.

About that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution, and many scientists in the fields related to evolution are Christian:

They are considered allies of evolution only so long as there is resistence. If the creationist movement was to ever be utterly destroyed, then I imagine the atheistic evolutionists would then move to attack Christian evolutionists.

Are you serious? I think that you need a reality check - you seem to think that there is some sort of conspiracy. And you seem to think that creationism is taken seriously by scientists in anything other than a political sense.

They aren't involved with AiG, ICR or any of the other major organisations I respect, so yeah.

Duane Gish is with the ICR, btw. You actually respect the ICR? I consider the ICR despicable for their dishonesty - "Lying for Christ" is not the way of a true Christian. Here's a visit.

I'll tell you how I feel about this whole thing. I've talked to many evolutionists, and they all come from a patronising position as if I am a fool to believe what I do. And I think this is mostly due to organisations like talkorigins.org and a general culture of intolerance.
How do you feel about people who believe that the earth is flat? That the haulocaust didn't happen? That the moon landing didn't occur? They believe these things with a passion, and that there is some sort of conspiracy against them.

I want to deal with specifics as I've said before. I want to demonstrate to you step by step, if you are willing, that I have indeed thought about what I believe and I don't just blindly accept. So you can also see that I have a rational mind and I listen to reason.

No, you don't. You use (post) strawman arguements, and have the mind of a "true believer". Your dismissal of the virtually unanimus agreement by scientists in the fields of biology, astronomy, physics, and geology, along with agreement with mainstream Christian denominations proves it.

-asb

About abiogenesis:
A common copout. Of course the theory of evolution strictly refers to after the formation of life. However, the general phrase "evolution" refers to a number of realms besides biological evolution (even though this is not correct usage). If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the earth is in fact around 6000 years old, then the theory of evolution will be declared false.

Yep, like all scientific theories, it is falsafable. And since there is overwhelming evidence in the fields of geology, astronomy, and physics that the earth is billions of years old, there is plenty of time for evolution to occur.

If it is demonstrated beyond doubt that the first life that evolution requires could never have formed or come into existence, then evolution will be declared false.

Nope - it doesn't matter if the first life arose from natural causes, The Invisible Pink Unicorn, your God, or aliens from planet Zork - that wouldn't prove that evolution was false.

So even though evolution doesn't directly deal with these areas, it lies on that foundation without which it has no foothold. That is why it is a copout to ignore them.

But as I said, it really doesn't matter where the first life came from.

I know, I have something we can discuss - how about you cite for me one major evidence for evolution?

How about this? It's a listing of a set of 29 evidences for macroevoultion.

And I don't suppose that has anything to do with the materialistic/atheistic bias of many/most of these scientists? No, of course not. Because while creationists are fairly accused of bias, it is unfair to accuse materialistic atheists of being biased against creationism.

While I don't know what percentage of scientists working in the areas related to evolution or the age of the earth who are Christian, it is a significant number, and it is one of the reasons I have mentioned numerous times that many major Christian denominations have no problems with evolution - or are they atheists in disguise? :).

Heck, I know a Christian biologist who is also an evolutionist. He's relatively high up in his work place. He believes evolution, but he hadn't even *heard* about the creationist arguments. So it's absolutely no surprise to me

Well, my wife is a Christian biologist, and is also an evolutionist - she got her degree from a Methodist college, where evolution is taught as part of the normal curiculum.

For example, many of the points in SciAm's 15 answers to creationist nonsense are based on misunderstand or misrepresentation of the creationist position (example, no creationist with the slightest bit of knowledge would argue against natural selection).

Ever heard of the Institute for Creation Research? Duane Gish? Ken Hovind? It's ok if you want to distance yourself from these guys. :).

-asb

You think that I haven't looked into this at all don't you? You think that I've heard some people saying "we have overwhelming evidence that the earth is young" and left it at that?

And how many scientists in the field of biology, geology, astronomy, physics, and chemistry have you convinced? About zero. You cannot even convince most mainstream Christian denominations.

Mutations have not been observed to gradually give rise to new species.

Just grabbing a few quick references...

Barton, N. H., J. S. Jones and J. Mallet. 1988. No barriers to speciation. Nature. 336:13-14.

Callaghan, C. A. 1987. Instances of observed speciation. The American Biology Teacher. 49:3436.

Cracraft, J. 1989. Speciation and its ontology: the empirical consequences of alternative species concepts for understanding patterns and processes of differentiation. In Otte, E. and J. A. Endler [eds.] Speciation and its consequences. Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 28-59.

Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.

Ramadevon, S and Deaken, M.A.B., 1991, The Gibbons speciation mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 145(4) pages 447-456.

Sharman, G.B., Close, R.L, Maynes, G.M., 1991, Chromosome evolution, phylogeny, and speciation of rock wallabies, Australian Journal of Zoology, Volume 37(2-4), pages 351-363.

Nevo, E., 1991, Evolutionary Theory and process of active speciation and adaptive radiation in subterranean mole rats, spalax-ehrenbergi superspecies, in Israel, Evolutionary Biology, Volume 25, pages 1-125.

And here is a nice page.

The processes that evolution claim created life on earth have *never* been observed.

Sorry, but evolution has nothing to do with the creation of the initial life form - it deals with life once it has formed. The area investigating initial life forms is referred to as abiogenesis.

And ditch your elephant hurling - "This is a debate tactic known as âelephant hurlingâ(TM). This is where the critic throws summary arguments about complex issues to give the impression of weighty evidence, but with an unstated presumption that a large complex of underlying ideas is true, and failing to consider opposing data, usually because they have uncritically accepted the arguments from their own side.

ROTFL. I'm not really here to teach you biology. There are large complex undelying ideas in evolution, but there is also a tremendous amount of evidence in support of it. Consider opposing data? Well, I've seen so many creationist whoppers that I have a hard time understanding how some of them can look at themselves in the mirror with the lies that they have told. Noah's ark, the speed of light, 2nd law of thermo, dinosaur/manprints, the Grand Canyon, basking shark/plesiosaur, blatent misquotes of various evolution supporters.....

Problems with geology, chemistry, physics, astronomy, biology? I'd rather deal with them because I think they can be answered.

Go ahead. But so far, you and your supporters have failed to convince a noticable number of scientists working in those areas.

-asb

About the evidence refuting a worldwide flood:

How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?

Sure. Heres a Link that not also gives the arguements, but also has links to additional information.

About mtDNA:

Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster

Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.

It seems that you are a young earth creationist - here is a page with links to articles on the problems with a young earth.

About the evidence refuting a worldwide flood:

How pursuasive. Care to point me to actual arguments?

Sure. Heres a Link that not also gives the arguements, but also has links to additional information.

About mtDNA:

Later it was discovered the mutation rate was around 20x faster

Parsons found a rate that was 20 times higher than other researchers, but the original value tends to result in better correlation with the fossil record.

It seems that you are a young earth creationist - here is a page with links to articles on the problems with a young earth.

There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"

Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "

There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"

Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "

There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"

Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "

There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"

Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "

There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"

Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "

There are multiple FAQs/reviews on Bones of Contention. "The major argument of Marvin Lubenow's book Bones of Contention (1992) is that the various species of hominid cannot form an evolutionary sequence because they overlap one another in time... Once it is realized that this argument is based on a misunderstanding of evolutionary theory, Lubenow's book loses much of its force."

Do you think Java man is a human or ape? Looking at all the species of hominids we know about, can you draw a line to separate human from ape? Why can't Gish, Lubenow and others agree on which are apes? As one Lubenow FAQ asks: ""If two eminent authorities cannot agree whether these skulls are human or ape, does this not imply that they are, um, intermediate?"

Interesting point on Scopes. Another FAQ on Nebraska Man (including the Scopes trial) talks about this "...Osborn apparently began to have doubts about his identification of the tooth shortly before the Scopes "monkey trial" in July 1925, and he stopped mentioning it in his publications. It seems likely that the crumbling of the Fundamentalist assault on evolution in the years following the Scopes trial prevented the Hesperopithecus affair from becoming a serious embarrassment to evolutionists. Although Nebraska Man did not survive long enough to become widely accepted by the scientific community and was quickly forgotten when its true identity was recognized, Hesperopithecus is again being trotted out in the current recrudescence of creationist attacks on evolution. The creationists who belittle mistakes by scientists cannot admit that science advances, in part, by correcting error. "

But specifically, in reference to your listing of Piltdown, Nebraska man, and Java man, read the extensive talk.origins FAQs on these very items: (emphasis added by me)

• Nebraska man: "as creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man... before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary... The true story is much more complex... The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer... was done for a British popular magazine... ...Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate... It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible."
• Java man: "Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at the same level and had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles (104 km) of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer 1993).

  Nor is it true, as is often claimed, that Dubois kept the existence of the Wadjak skulls secret because knowledge of them would have discredited Java Man. Dubois briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications in 1890 and 1892. Despite being corrected on this in a debate in 1982 and in print (Brace 1986), Gish has continued to make this claim, even stating, despite not having apparently read Dubois' reports, that they did not mention the Wadjak skulls (Fezer 1993)."

• Piltdown: It took *less* than 50 years and suspicions that they were a hoax existed by 1914. Even so, Piltdown represents a bad episode in science: "...the hoax points to common and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax."

  In the 90 years since then have we developed better and more rigorous testing methods? Yes. But even during those 40 years it took for the full hoax to be revealed, faults with Piltdown were found, long before testing showed that they were recent skulls: "...It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man ... Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.

  This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopith

But specifically, in reference to your listing of Piltdown, Nebraska man, and Java man, read the extensive talk.origins FAQs on these very items: (emphasis added by me)

• Nebraska man: "as creationists tell the story, evolutionists used one tooth to build an entire species of primitive man... before further excavations revealed the tooth to belong to a peccary... The true story is much more complex... The imaginative drawing of Nebraska Man to which creationists invariably refer... was done for a British popular magazine... ...Most other scientists were skeptical even of the modest claim that the Hesperopithecus tooth belonged to a primate... It is simply not true that Nebraska Man was widely accepted as an ape-man, or even as an ape, by scientists, and its effect upon the scientific thinking of the time was negligible."
• Java man: "Many creationists have claimed that Java Man, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1893, was "bad science". Gish (1985) says that Dubois found two human skulls at nearby Wadjak at the same level and had kept them secret; that Dubois later decided Java Man was a giant gibbon; and that the bones do not come from the same individual. Most people would find Gish's meaning of "nearby" surprising: the Wadjak skulls were found 65 miles (104 km) of mountainous countryside away from Java Man. Similarly for "at the same level": the Wadjak skulls were found in cave deposits in the mountains, while Java Man was found in river deposits in a flood plain (Fezer 1993).

  Nor is it true, as is often claimed, that Dubois kept the existence of the Wadjak skulls secret because knowledge of them would have discredited Java Man. Dubois briefly reported the Wadjak skulls in three separate publications in 1890 and 1892. Despite being corrected on this in a debate in 1982 and in print (Brace 1986), Gish has continued to make this claim, even stating, despite not having apparently read Dubois' reports, that they did not mention the Wadjak skulls (Fezer 1993)."

• Piltdown: It took *less* than 50 years and suspicions that they were a hoax existed by 1914. Even so, Piltdown represents a bad episode in science: "...the hoax points to common and dangerous faults. The hoax succeeded in large part because of the slipshod nature of the testing applied to it; careful examination using the methods available at the time would have immediately revealed the hoax."

  In the 90 years since then have we developed better and more rigorous testing methods? Yes. But even during those 40 years it took for the full hoax to be revealed, faults with Piltdown were found, long before testing showed that they were recent skulls: "...It should be remembered that, at the time of Piltdown finds, there were very few early hominid fossils; Homo neanderthalensis and Homo sapiens were clearly fairly late. It was expected that there was a "missing link" between ape and man ... Piltdown man had the expected mix of features, which lent it plausibility as a human precursor.

  This plausibility did not hold up. During the next two decades there were a number of finds of ancient hominids and near hominids, e.g. Dart's discovery of Australopith