Slashdot Mirror

a supernova that hit hard enough to kill 40% of [Phytoplankton] would have killed many more land species, and I don't recall anything like that.
Man, you must have some memory!

it may be that Australopithecus was evenly distributed all over Africa, but was generally smart enough to avoid the sudden burials that form most fossils.

I am not a Paleontologist (in fact I can't even spell it), but it seems to me that land species getting caught in circumstances conducive to producing fossils was the exception rather than the rule. And not only did conditions have to be just right to form fossils, but conditions from that point on had to be conducive to not eroding the fossils back into dust.

While we have substantial fossils going back to the Neanderthal era, I think the total number of sites where hominid specimens older than 1 millions years have been found can be counted on both hands.

So to make any inference as to whether or not any specific environmental event made a noticable change in the evolution of hominids that long ago, is anybody's guess. However, the earliest member of the genus Homo, Homo habilis did appear just about 2 million years ago. Though various Australopithecus species continued to exist in parallel with the Homo species for several hundred thousand years after that.

It's not true at all that evolution doesn't make predictions. See the the Talk.Origins archive for more information than I can possibly provide, particularly this article.

It's not true at all that evolution doesn't make predictions. See the the Talk.Origins archive for more information than I can possibly provide, particularly this article.

We agree that random change was insufficient to create a single celled organism from amino acids & a lipid bilayer. In fact, all evolutionists agree with you. Since you misunderstood the evolutionist argument in this manner, I assumed that you were not familiar with it. Dawkins is the first person to suggest that natural selection must already be in place for something as complicated as a single celled organism to come into existence. I don't see how that point could possibly debunk him.

Of course you need a self-replicating system. That is why people searching for the origins of life tend to look for simple self-replicating systems. Not single celled organisms.

There are a number of candidate simple self-replicating systems. None of them are particularly impressive, but it's imaginable that they could have lead to RNA and protein chains. We may not have discovered the correct process. We may never. This does not make evolution false.

You might feel that Dawkins has been debunked. But you also seem to think that all of evolution has been debunked. Evolutionists certainly haven't abandoned Dawkins because of something Behe said. No one has ever brought up Behe in this sort of discussion with me after they had heard the counterpoint. A good starter is here. That review's mousetrap argument is pretty lame, but the rest is ok.

Behe's irreducible complexity argument has been asked and answered many times before Darwin's Black Box. Just because one scientist cannot imagine an evolutionary pathway does not mean that one did not exist.

Still, Dawkins' books aren't flawless. No one's ever complained to me about him, but in a simple reading of any of his books, a number of little details rubbed me the wrong way. None of those details, however, are essential to his conclusions. I only brought up his book because he has a good discussion of Fred Hoyle's argument (and yours).

Anyway, I would love to continue this conversation in email. I think it's a little out of place on slashdot, but I'll leave it up to you as to where we should continue.

Dig your user name btw.. what Banks book is that from? Exession?

As a GSV I get to choose my own name <grin>. It's inspired by Excession, as you guessed. The conversations between the Minds in that book are very reminiscent of internet/usenet/webforum culture.

> Behe gives exceedingly detailed examples of bio-molecular structures that fit his notion of being irreducibly complex. That is his evidence. His hypothesis is falsifiable if anyone can give a plausible sequence of mutations that conform to natural selection and can result in these structures. ... No one has done that.

Sorry, but you have been misinformed. A readily accessible reference is here.

Several times Behe has staked a claim, had it refuted, and responded with "No? Well, how about this one?" The result has been an (apparently) infinite postponement of the evidence.

So again I say: his claims are not derived from evidence; he made his claim and is offering a series of guesses as 'evidence'. He is not even meeting the scientist's responsibility to scrutinize his own evidence carefully before running to the press with it. Meanwhile, he has not retracted his claim; he feels entitled to an infinite number of tries.

That's pseudoscience. Real science works forward from the evidence to the theory. Behe can't very well do that, since he never had any evidence to work from, just some lame claims that were only good enough to mislead the uninformed.

Evolutionists still have to answer that question by hiding behind millions of years

"hiding behind", that's funny.

The Talk Origins Misconceptions is a good place to begin learning about the typical and willfully ignorant misunderstanding of creationists.

The changes witnessed in the labs are actual genetic changes. Genes changed. The way Creationists try to classify Evolution into Micro and Macro Evolution shows that they don't understand what genes are and how they can (and do) change.

Hiding behind millions of years. That really cracks me up. You just go ahead and whip out your millions of years to prove me wrong, buddy!

My millions of years can kick your millions of years' ass!

Michael Denton's explains this all brilliantly in his book Evolution: A Theory in Crisis. Read it extremely carefully THREE TIMES and if you are lucky you will be jolted out of your ignorance

Two thorough refutations of Denton's facts and methods are here and here.

Denton's flawed and dishonest methodology is exposed in this discussion of proteins:
At the molecular level, Denton discredits himself by quoting Emile Zuckerkandl to show that "it is now generally conceded by protein chemists that most functional proteins would be difficult to reach or interconvert through a series of successive individual amino acid mutations"(Denton, 1985, p. 320). Zuckerkandl's quote (Zuckerkandl, 1975, p. 21) seems quite damning to the casual reader, but when one reads the entire article, one finds out that Zuckerkandl largely contradicts Denton. By Zuckerkandl's analysis, most advanced functional proteins cannot interconvert directly, and cannot be reached by some saltational mechanisms, but that they certainly can each be reached through gradual evolution from a common ancestor.

If Denton is the best that creationist can produce, statements like "I can assure you that you are completely wrong" need a firmer foundation.

> Last time I checked a dictionary, irreduceably means that it cannot be broken down into smaller parts, i.e. that if it is irreduceably complex now, it has always been irreduceably complex since the beginning of time.

You have fallen for Behe's trick. He gives a precise meaning to "irreducible complexity", but he gives it a name that will lead the casual reader to think it means something other than what his definition says. (I suspect that this is deliberate deceit on his part, though of course I can't prove it.)

His actual definition is "if you remove a part it quits working properly". It does not follow from that definition that something that is IC has been IC since the beginning of time. Next time you're in a building with stone archways you might want to ask yourself whether they meet Behe's definition of IC, and then ask yourself how they were built.

The whole "intelligent design" form of creationism is just a collection of smoke and mirrors designed to mislead the unwary.

And it's targeted at the unwary rather than at critical thinkers, because it's part of Johnson's "wedge strategy" for sneaking creationism into the public education system in the USA. That requires a political win, not a scientific win. And that's fortunate for them, because they aren't doing any science -- they're just going through the motions in hopes of fooling the masses and the courts.

People who want to know what's going on with Behe, Johnson, irreducible complexity, intelligent design, and the wedge, and all that stuff, should visit the talk.origins archive and browse the FAQs.

Darwin's Black Box Review

The book basis its premace on six fallacies:

Fallacy one: There is a boundary between the molecular world and other levels of biological organization.

Fallacy two: The current utility of a given feature (molecular or otherwise) explains "why" the feature originally evolved.

Fallacy three: Unless we can identify advantages for each imaginary gradual step leading to a contemporary bit of biochemistry, we cannot invoke a Darwinian explanation.

Fallacy four: Molecular evolution: "a lot of sequences, some math, and no answers."

Fallacy five: There is a conspiracy of silence among scientists concerning the failure of Darwinian explanation.

Fallacy six: The evolution of complexity is unaddressed and unexplained.

More: Darwin's Black Box Review

Behe's empty box
"Behe's colossal mistake is that, in rejecting these possibilities, he concludes that no Darwinian solution remains. But one does. It is this: An irreducibly complex system can be built gradually by adding parts that, while initially just advantageous, become-because of later changes-essential. The logic is very simple. Some part (A) initially does some job (and not very well, perhaps). Another part (B) later gets added because it helps A. This new part isn't essential, it merely improves things. But later on, A (or something else) may change in such a way that B now becomes indispensable. This process continues as further parts get folded into the system. And at the end of the day, many parts may all be required."

"The point is there's no guarantee that improvements will remain mere improvements. Indeed because later changes build on previous ones, there's every reason to think that earlier refinements might become necessary. The transformation of air bladders into lungs that allowed animals to breathe atmospheric oxygen was initially just advantageous: such beasts could explore open niches-like dry land-that were unavailable to their lung-less peers. But as evolution built on this adaptation (modifying limbs for walking, for instance), we grew thoroughly terrestrial and lungs, consequently, are no longer luxuries-they are essential. The punch-line is, I think, obvious: although this process is thoroughly Darwinian, we are often left with a system that is irreducibly complex. I'm afraid there's no room for compromise here: Behe's key claim that all the components of an irreducibly complex system 'have to be there from the beginning' is dead wrong."

[b]The Fallacy of Conclusion by Analogy[/b]

When it comes to explaining science to the public, analogies and metaphors are essential tools of the trade. We all can better understand something new and unusual, when it is compared to something we already know: a cell is like a factory, the eye is like a camera, an atom is like a billiard ball, a biochemical system is like a mouse trap. An A is like a B, means A shares some conceptual properties with B. It does not mean A has all the properties of B. It does not follow that what is true for B is therefore true for A. Analogies can be used to explain science, but analogies cannot be used to draw conclusions or falsify scientific theories. Yet Behe commits this fallacy throughout his book.

For example:

[ol][li]A mousetrap is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]A mousetrap is a product of design.
[li]The bacterial flagellum is "irreducibly complex" - it requires all of its parts to work properly.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is like a mouse trap.
[li]Therefore the flagellum is a product of design.

More: Features: Behe's empty box

Publish or Perish

On page 179 of Darwin's Black Box Michael Behe claims:

"There has never been a meeting, or a book, or a paper on details of the evolution of complex biochemical systems."
He closes the chapter with this ludicrous statement:

"In effect, the theory of Darwinian molecular evolution has not published, and so it should perish"

(Did someone say publish or perish?: The Elusive Scientific Basis of Intelligent Design Theory)

To be honest, I suspect that the extent of detail Behe is demanding would require a combination cutting-edge biochemistry lab and a time machine. How else can science fully recover, for example, every single step in the evolution of the bacterial flagellum that took place billions of years ago?

More: Publish or Perish

Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)
For those who have not already encountered this book or one of its numerous reviews, let me simply say that the author sets out to argue that the organic world is so complex, particularly at the level of molecular biology and biochemistry, that Darwinian evolution cannot possibly have led to it. As evolution cannot produce irreducibly complex systems (the blood-clotting process, for instance, the biochemist's analogue of the eye), they must be the outcome of the activities of an Intelligent Designer. In other words, the book is a tiresome reworking at the molecular level of the timeworn "design" argument.

So much has already been written by reviewers of this book that it seems unnecessary to add anything more (go to ahref=http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish .htmlhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish. html>). Specialists far more competent than me have analyzed the numerous and gross deficiencies in Dr. Behe's flatulent arguments in considerable technical detail (see especially ahref=http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.htmlhttp://w ww.cbs.dtu.dk/dave/Behe.html>), so there would be an emptiness in my remarks if I were to try to emulate them. If I am to add anything to the discussion, I am forced to choose to look at the book from a different perspective. The perspective I shall adopt is that of misrepresentation, for that quality pervades this book at every level.

More: Review of Michael Behe, Darwin's Black Box (1998)

[YAWN]
Irreducible Complexity is a crock, like the rest of Creationism.
I for one am sick of seeing the 'debate' re-hashed here all the time.
Here's the refutation you asked for:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

[YAWN]
Irreducible Complexity is a crock, like the rest of Creationism.
I for one am sick of seeing the 'debate' re-hashed here all the time.
Here's the refutation you asked for:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/publish.html

Evolution is defined (by biologists) as "a change in the gene pool of a population over time" (*)

According to this, the only way one can state with certainty that evolution "stopped" is when the population drops to zero, i.e., the species becomes extinct.

The most one can say is that there is less selection pressure now than there was a few centuries ago. This can (and most probably will) change. When that happens, you can bet that we'll continue to evolve! (or go extinct)

(*) See the talk.origins FAQ for a fine introduction to evolutionary biology.

This brings up an interesting point: Does, and will, Darwinism extend into the Robotics field as so many of us fear?

Since scientists are obviously idiots, they never thought about this until you (or was that Fred Hoyle?) brought it to their attention, right?

Bah. The problem with simplistic explanations as to why "abiogenesis is impossible" is that scientists have very good answers such so-called proof of impossibility.

The short story: you can prove anything if you start with a false premise. And unfortunately, the premise underlying your supposed proof of impossibility is false.

Those who are actually interested in the science of biology rather than creationist dogma might be interested in this page.

You know what, I'm really getting sick of the bigotry that I see here on Slashdot. Anytime a story is posted based on our rights, department of justice, business, etc... there always has to be a flame aimed towards the United States of America. I'm assuming most of the readers here have mostly a leftist view on most political issues, and that's absolutely fine.
But what about the conservatives who read Slashdot? What about us? How do the people who read Slashdot with a right winged attitude feel about biased comments that contain negativity, and to some of us, a fallacy (sp?) towards our government, economy, policies, etc...
Am I the only one who finds the irony in this post? The story is about how the Chinese government doesn't allow dissent and is telling ISPs to police emails for subversive statements. You then complain that Americans shouldn't dissent so much and should stop criticizing the American government so you don't get offended by people disagreeing with you. It would therefore seem that you would be in favor of the Great Firewall of China, right? I doubt you are, of course, but that's only because your thinking is confused and logically inconsistent.
Criticism of the country in general (as opposed to the government) is certainly different. Your post draws no distinction. I don't see why you think conservatives should be more offended by that than anyone else- unless you somehow think that conservatism and patriotism are the same thing.
As far as criticism of the government is concerned- democracy only works when citizens constantly criticize and question those in power. Perhaps you'd rather live in a country where there is no criticism of the government.

Comments as well (I'm posting this anonymously for a reason). Whenever I post a comment that will go against something I read in an article that will have a conservative view to it, maybe 75-80% of time time it will get modded down to -1 (52 posts, no flames, Karma 2, you do the math). Whatever happened to getting 2, 3, 4, everyone's side of the story?
Oh please. You sound like the people who write in to talkorigins.org complaining that the creationist side of the issue isn't getting equal treatment on the site. Nobody is obligated to rate your posts up merely so that both sides of every story are presented. Sometimes it's obvious which side is wrong. If fewer than half of the participants in a public forum like /. share your opinions on things, it might reflect on us Slashdotters as a whole, but it's statistically more likely to just reflect on you personally. Either find a forum with people who agree with your opinions already or stop whining in this one.

The moderation system on slashdot is awful and wrong. Using an analogy of a hostile government. If I say anything remotely conservative, I will get modded down. Hmm... seems fair enough.
A "hostile government" is modding your posts down?!? I know you're just making a bad analogy, but seems like another case of politically correct whining. You couldn't ask for fairer treatment than you're getting. /. is very democratic. Moderators are chosen at random from people that visit the site.
What would you replace the current system with? One where YOU or "remotely conservative" minded people like you are the sole moderators? Your definition of "remotely conservative" might be reasonable, but it might very well fit my or other people's definition of "kookily conservative". How are we supposed to know? You posted as an AC so we can only guess.
As long as we're making questionable analogies between websites and governments, there are many online forums where the people in charge simply delete posts they don't like. Any dissent on those boards is quickly met by people saying creepy things like "soon you and your posts will go away, heh heh." Wouldn't that make a better analogy with a "hostile government"?

Sucks that you posted anonymously and lost all that karma. Bet you wish you weren't such an anonymous coward now, eh? :)

This paleontological evidence comes in the form of tidal rhythmites, also known as tidally laminated sediments. Rhythmites have been subjected to intense scrutiny over the last decade or so, and have returned strong results. Williams (1990) reports that 650 million years ago, the lunar rate of retreat was 1.95±0.29 cm/year, and that over the period from 2.5 billion to 650 million years ago, the mean recession rate was 1.27 cm/year. Williams reanalyzed the same data set later (Williams, 1997), showing a mean recession rate of 2.16 cm/year in the period between now and 650 million years ago. That these kinds of data are reliable is demonstrated by Archer (1996). There is also a very good review of the earlier paleontological evidence by Lambeck (1980, chapter 11, paleorotation)

Yes, that's what the seed of a crystal does.

What the MIT researchers have done is isolate one property of a pre-existing biological reaction which is itself part of an immense chicken-and-egg problem. They have not generated anything essentially new, nor anything which could form spontaneously, or form from pre-biotic material, or exist outside a very specialised laboratory environment.

More importantly, think about those 580,000 base pairs. That's over half a million combinations (choice of 4 at each point) which have been randomly generated, selected, and integrated into the population in only 4 billion years, which is asking a bit much, even ignoring the problem of the complex machinery within which said generation and selection takes place, and of propagating a change through squillions of precursors.

What we're seeing with these programs is not deity being squeezed into a niche ecology, it's people putting their wishful materialistic ideas into practice.

In each case, this has helped Diety to shoulder His way back into the general scientific consciousness.

Yeah. When was the last time you saw a peer-reviewed study whose conclusion was "goddidit!"?

The curious thing is that despite GAs being widely researched for over 20 years, they seem to have found few practical applications that I am aware of. It is tempting to blame this on lack of computing power, but I am not sure that is the real reason. Either way, the possibility of automated design is very exciting indeed and I hope more people find ways to apply it in the real world.

Did he say those exact words?

Yes.

And he said then in an article where he made it abundantly clear that by "transitional forms" he meant the transitions between relatively small gaps from one form to another. He clearly didn't mean transitional forms along the major pathways of evolution. Those have been found, found in abundance, and documented verbosely. As you would know if you stopped studying your creationist tracts and learned what scientists have been doing in the last couple of hundred years.

Don't believe me? I already pointed you at a site which includes a FAQ on transitional vertebrates, and another on observed speciation.

And before you continue regurgitating lies, note that Gould's words were, extreme rarity. Not, complete absence. Even in transitional species with the very tight meaning of transition that he had, there are documented instances. In fact Gould was one of the people (as I already told you) who documented them.

Which means that Gould has, as I said, a hell of a lot more than just inference. If this doesn't fit with the crap you read, it is because you read crap. I do not speak lightly. I very likely have examined more creationist arguments than you have. There was not one which was not based on factual misunderstandings, out of context misrepresentation, or outright lies.

Take this one for instance. In context, Gould sure as hell obviously meant something different by "transitional" than you were told it meant. Gould sure as hell never intended to imply that there were none ever observed. But he has been systematically misquoted and misinterpreted by people like yourself, with absolutely zero intellectual integrity. Because if you had some you wouldn't just take someone's word that Gould said that and it means what you hope it means, you would actually go out and find the original, read it in the original, and understand that he was talking about something radically different than what you thought.

Did he say those exact words?

Yes.

And he said then in an article where he made it abundantly clear that by "transitional forms" he meant the transitions between relatively small gaps from one form to another. He clearly didn't mean transitional forms along the major pathways of evolution. Those have been found, found in abundance, and documented verbosely. As you would know if you stopped studying your creationist tracts and learned what scientists have been doing in the last couple of hundred years.

Don't believe me? I already pointed you at a site which includes a FAQ on transitional vertebrates, and another on observed speciation.

And before you continue regurgitating lies, note that Gould's words were, extreme rarity. Not, complete absence. Even in transitional species with the very tight meaning of transition that he had, there are documented instances. In fact Gould was one of the people (as I already told you) who documented them.

Which means that Gould has, as I said, a hell of a lot more than just inference. If this doesn't fit with the crap you read, it is because you read crap. I do not speak lightly. I very likely have examined more creationist arguments than you have. There was not one which was not based on factual misunderstandings, out of context misrepresentation, or outright lies.

Take this one for instance. In context, Gould sure as hell obviously meant something different by "transitional" than you were told it meant. Gould sure as hell never intended to imply that there were none ever observed. But he has been systematically misquoted and misinterpreted by people like yourself, with absolutely zero intellectual integrity. Because if you had some you wouldn't just take someone's word that Gould said that and it means what you hope it means, you would actually go out and find the original, read it in the original, and understand that he was talking about something radically different than what you thought.

Gould wrote an entire essay about how people used that misquote.

Why don't you track down the source for the quote, his essay on the misquote, compare with the bullshit you have been told about the quote, and open your eyes to the fact that the snippets you hear from scientists are being systematically distorted.

And no, I won't bother telling you where the mis-quote is from or where the essay on how ticked off Gould is about it. If you actually give a damn you can find out either with an internet search or by wandering down to your local bookstore or library, looking for all of the collections of essays that Gould has published, and leafing through them. I am actually hoping you might do the latter and actually learn something beyond the bigoted ignorance you are regurgitating back out on the world.

If you want to be lazy, looking for something called talk.origins might help. They even have an easy to find website with a FAQ on this very issue.

Allow me to assure you that I have never met a creationist who knew the facts, was honest, and continued to spout the usual bull. I have, however, known many creationists who thought they had learned something because they had read many creationist tracts and could vomit the lies back verbatim. (They didn't, of course, realize that it was lies they were spewing, but don't let that matter.)

As for you, you are not worth any more of my time. There are a thousand more where you came from. If you actually give a shit about being honest you will find out the truth behind your misquote, and hopefully realize how much and consistently you have been lied to. If you don't, then nothing I could say in the space of this post would convince you.

Oh, boy, will you get flamed!

But not by me. I'm nowhere near a pro, but even I recognise the huge faws in your arguments.

Wobbly suns mean planets are orbiting around them, even though they cant be seen. Maybe they just wobble once in awhile. I know I do. ;)


Nothing moves without a force being applied to it. If there is no force, there is no motion. In your case, the force is alchol and gravity. In the case of a star it must be gravity, unless there's some really bizarre other force as yet undiscovered. However, since our own sun wobbles in accordance with the laws of gravity, as do the planets with moons, it's pretty safe to assume other stars are acting under the same forces.
There are also other methods of detecting extra-solar planets.

The universe keeps getting older, because we know exactly how light behaves over time and space. What happens when we invent yet larger and/or more powerful telescopes? Will galaxies continue to be found which are further and further away?

Up to a point. You never read "A Brief History of Time", did you? :) Better telescopes will only reveal older galaxies, further away up to the point where galaxies were first created. Once you get to that point, you can't see new galaxies, onlythe material from which they were formed.. which probably will be undetectable. And this assumes, of course, that the earliest galaxies gave off light and radiation which has not been blocked by an object between them and the Earth (say a younger galaxy in our own cluster). It also assumes that the radiation is strong enough to be picked up.. it's travelled an awful long way and it may be impossible to detect no matter how sensitive the device.

The moon must only be about 5-10 thousand years old, since it only had a half-inch or so of dust on it, uniformly and consistently.

This article should cover pretty much everything there. Here's a brief quote:

Even though the creationists themselves have refuted this argument, (and refutations from the mainstream community have been around for at least a decade longer than that), the "moon dust" argument continues to be propagated in their "popular" literature, and continues to appear in talk.origins on a regular basis

So you've fallen foul of a popular myth propogated by some Creationists. Took me 2 minutes to find that article using Google and a search for "age of the moon".. please do some basic checking of this kind of thing.. propogation of ignorance is not a good thing.

Wrong. Read this.

The real bottom line is, the theory of evolution is sound, but unprovable

Sigh. NO scientific theory is "provable". Theories can only be disproven. This is why the "theory" of creation isn't even a theory, as it can never be disproved; because you can always just say that God made it look that way.

Well, you're using a slightly different definition of Scientific Creationism. I'm speaking of those who come up with "scientific" evidence to "prove" that the literal creation stories are true. They sound convincing, but don't hold any water when held to the light of science.

See the Talk Origins web site....

It discusses in scientific detail what is wrong with the radioactive dating methods both theoretically and in their application.

There are ways to get better answers.

No one has ever bred a new species artificially--and both plant and animal breeders have been trying for hundreds of years, as have scientists.

I've heard this one before too. And it's wrong. Way wrong. There are several observed instances of speciation (especially in the world of botany). A good easy read to start with can be found at the Talk.origins Speciation Faq if you're interested in the background and some references to real papers on the issue. I'm sorry, but any book published after 1915 or so that claims that scientists and plant breeders have never been able to come up with new species is blatantly ignoring established facts and probably not worth your time.

> try http://www.answersingenesis.org and http://www.trueorigins.org for some interesting evidence against evolution

Or, if you prefer to see the views of scientists rather than religious leaders, visit www.talkorigins.org (yeah, I already said that).

Though I doubt that their "whales" documents have been updated yet.

Whereas evoulution is supposed to be an ongoing phenomon. Where are the species transforming into other species ?

Whereas evoulution is supposed to be an ongoing phenomon. Where are the species transforming into other species ?

As to why I have issues with evolutionary theory, here are my tests for a good scientific theory:
1. Must be falsifiable. If there is no reasonable way it could be proved wrong, it's not science.
2. Must make verifiable predictions. If a theory doesn't make any predictions that can be checked, it's not terribly useful.

And evolution is falsifiable, and has made verifiable (and verified) predictions. I commend the Gentle Reader to the Talk.Origins Archive, which has much information on these subjects.

As to why I have issues with evolutionary theory, here are my tests for a good scientific theory:
1. Must be falsifiable. If there is no reasonable way it could be proved wrong, it's not science.
2. Must make verifiable predictions. If a theory doesn't make any predictions that can be checked, it's not terribly useful.

And evolution is falsifiable, and has made verifiable (and verified) predictions. I commend the Gentle Reader to the Talk.Origins Archive, which has much information on these subjects.

but creationists don't think the universe is only 6,000 years old, or that the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

n the Old Testament, these are referred to as days, but they were periods of undetermined length (some suggest these periods were about 1,000 years each).

I find this humorous since the other theories of man and Earth's origin, such as the Big Bang Theory, Darwinism, etc., require an equal dose of blind faith and inconsistent and impractical arguments and ideas.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h tml

Evolutionary theory also doesn't really make testable predictions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.h tml

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.h tml

Evolutionary theory also doesn't really make testable predictions.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/predict.h tml

If this article actually DOES change anybodies opinion about Microsoft, please ensure that those people stay CLEAR of bizarre cults.

When are folks going to realize that this:
1.) bashing of MS
2.) copy all sorts of MS techniques into Linux
3.) bash again
is just plain dumb.

The linux community should be thankful for Microsoft. It gives splinter groups (gnome & kde, vi & emacs, dev & devfs, xfs & ext3fs, etc) a common enemy...

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

Polonium halos?
1, 2
"Decay" of planetary magnetic fields.
1, 2, 3
Interplanetary dust?
1, 2, 3, 4

And many more, all information that "smug liberals idealogues" have compiled and endlessly link to in their patient responses to rants like yours in the talkorigins.org feedback.

All cross-referenced and detailed in their explanations.
I thought you were surely a troll, which was why you were marked up as "funny" but now I recognise the same empty arguments from the feedback.

I believe you meant to say the BLUE SKY estimates that were pulled OUT OF SOMEONE'S ASS, based on measurements with a tool not designed for the job. The real estimates give an expected dust depth which tallies with what was observed. And as always, in science, the real measurements will trump the estimates every time. A dozen other verifiable clocks require us to start the sun's life at about 5 billion years ago, and the existence of the planets sometime shortly after that. One blue-sky estimate which doesn't conform and is proven wrong later doesn't mean jack.

How do you verify the other dateing methods?

How do they actualy work?

Well enough in practice. There's too much to talk about here. See Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale for an overview of general dating, and Isochron Dating Methods on using multiple isotopes to cross-check each other. There are some class notes: Module 2 and Module 4, if you're interested in the grisly details.

It's worth noting that isotope dating techniques had to prove themselves in the 1910's through '50s. They weren't just proclaimed as The Way by the Secret Evilutionist Cabal, as some have implied. 8^)
--

How do you verify the other dateing methods?

How do they actualy work?

Well enough in practice. There's too much to talk about here. See Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale for an overview of general dating, and Isochron Dating Methods on using multiple isotopes to cross-check each other. There are some class notes: Module 2 and Module 4, if you're interested in the grisly details.

It's worth noting that isotope dating techniques had to prove themselves in the 1910's through '50s. They weren't just proclaimed as The Way by the Secret Evilutionist Cabal, as some have implied. 8^)
--