Slashdot Mirror

A single dinosaur bone in Precambrian sandstone would disprove evolution quite nicely, or a bird fossil found in sediments that date from before the evolution of reptiles.

Sigh. No it wouldn't... just like the scores of oddities that exist in the fossil record that evolution has similarly chosen to explain away.

Yes, well, welcome to more nuanced philosophy of science than Popper as misinterpreted by idiots (to Popper's credit, he did manage to distill out a sufficiently robust idea that, even when regurgitated by Slashdotters, it still makes a fair amount of sense). If we instead go with Kuhn (as a slightly more modern take on philosophy of science than Popper) we see that, indeed, a single piece of evidence to the contrary is not going to overturn a theory; it will get explained away, or folded into the present understanding by some adjustments to the theory. It's only when a critical mass of such problems builds up (it must, after all, be enough evidence to provide significant counterweight to all the positive evidence in favour of a theory) that a theory will get refuted and a significant change in thinking will occur.

That doesn't make Popper's observation pointless -- if your theory isn't even in principle falsifiable then you clearly aren't doing science -- it just isn't a sufficient condition to be doing science. What you really need is a plausible possibility that it would be practical for a sufficient amount of counter-evidence to build up to overturn the theory. And evolution does meet this: it's just that there is so much positive evidence in favour of evolution -- so many things that match up so well -- that it is going to take enough counter-examples to show systemic problems. The few here and there (and they really are few and far between) that can be reasonably explained away ("polystrate" trees for example) just don't cut it. Find enough issues like that however, and evolution could certainly conceivably be overturned; it is going to take a lot of such evidence however.

Did these school board members fail history class? You can't teach creationism in a public school science class, the courts have already been quite clear on this. Oddly enough the Supreme Court, in the case I linked to, struck down a Louisiana law as unconstitutional. It was in your very own state!

Let's hope the board has a good lawyer on hand to tell them to forget this idea, otherwise it's going to cost the taxpayers a pile in legal fees to defend this turd.

Poe's law makes it difficult to tell, but just in case you aren't trolling...

"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the ancestor of everyone alive on earth today. Therefore, she could not be the biblical Eve.

The fact that it may be possible to genetically modify humans to live longer does not support the biblical creation story. It just doesn't contradict it.

Finding evidence of localised floods, each of which happened at completely different times does nothing to support the notion of a global flood. Will you put away your bullshit religious rhetoric and look at the evidence honestly?

Poe's law makes it difficult to tell, but just in case you aren't trolling...

"Mitochondrial Eve" is not the ancestor of everyone alive on earth today. Therefore, she could not be the biblical Eve.

The fact that it may be possible to genetically modify humans to live longer does not support the biblical creation story. It just doesn't contradict it.

Finding evidence of localised floods, each of which happened at completely different times does nothing to support the notion of a global flood. Will you put away your bullshit religious rhetoric and look at the evidence honestly?

That's interesting, can you give me a list of useful scientific accomplishments that rely on the Theory of Evolution? For instance, would it be possible for a person to invent something like the air plane, light bulb, internal combustion engine, microprocessor, rockets, refrigerator, etc. without knowledge of the Theory of Evolution?

Here you go.

You didn't read the next section. The Big Bang does not violate thermodynamics, except possibly if you go to more extreme (and thus far purely hypothetical) versions of the theory, at which point, if you're dealing with pre-Big Bang events, how could anyone justify trying to limit what happened by any laws of physics which only apply to the universe post-Big Bang. In these hypothetical arrangements (and again, I stress, these are hypothetical, and not even properly theoretical) there are likely different physical laws in place (in fact, in metaverse theories there may be an infinity of universes each with their own different laws and formulations of universal constants).

At any rate, if you had scrolled down one section you would have found this:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#secondlaw

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html#firstlaw

The claim that the Big Bang violates thermodynamics is bullcrap.

...despite what you were told in school, the definition of "species" has become considerably fuzzier than "can mate". It is not a cut-and-dried designation at all anymore, which obviously complicates counting the total number of species on the planet.

This source includes discussion on what counts as a species.

Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?

Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.

To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.

Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.

In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...

Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.

Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.

No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.

If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.

Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.

Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.

That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.

Who is advocating teaching them that all life arose through random chance?

Exactly this statement is why I wish evolutionists would find a different word to refer to the origin of life.

To answer your question: every evolutionist, when he switches from speaking about the records that support the theory of natural selection and starts using those records to support Evolution as the way life began.

Anyone that claims that evolution has anything to do with the origin of life doesn't know what they're talking about. Evolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis or any other theory on the origin of life. They are completely separate theories. Evolution only covers how life evolved to the current state of biodiversity that we see throughout the fossil record until today. It's about the mechanisms that enabled this to happen.

In fact, since ID deals with how life began, every person here who is claiming that evolution disproves ID is making the claim that life arose out of random chance. The random combination of just the right molecules that gave that collection of molecules an advantage over others, and thus subject to natural selection. Then the random connection of those into something with a bigger advantage. Just like the random mutations that gave preference to one offspring over another...

Having an advantage over others doesn't make something subject to natural selection. Everything is subject to it, advantages or not. That which survives to reproduce gets to live on, those that don't, don't. Chance is only a component, but the process is deterministic.

Evolution -- change in existing systems. ID -- creation of new systems. Two different concepts, routinely conflated. There is no reason evolution cannot coexist with ID, other than a common goal of evolutionists is to prove there is no God. Otherwise, there is no reason evolutionists would be so rabidly anti-ID.

No reason, except that ID is not a scientific theory, is not falsifiable, is not predictive, and is not supported by any evidence. Other than that, no reason at all.

If you have a another scientific theory to present, then please present it.

Evolution as the "origin of life" is not a scientific theory, since it is patently untestable and completely undisprovable. So no, not "another" scientific theory. "The origin of life" is a question we will NEVER be able to prove (or disprove) the answer to. It's outside the scope of our knowledge, and will remain so forever. To pretend that one has a "scientific theory" that disproves everything else regarding the origin of life is completely absurd and shows a lack of understanding of what the scientific method is.

Then why the belief in ID if the origin of life is something that can never be known? Why not just say it's unknown? That's what science does. They come up with theories, of which there are several, but they acknowledge that we really don't know if any of them are correct. IDers don't do that, and they have even less evidence to back up their claims.

That's all really beside the point anyway. As I said before, evolution doesn't cover the origin of life. The theories that do cover it will never be proven in the absolute sense, as no scientific theory is ever proven in the absolute sense. They may eventually be able to prove that life could have originated in one way or another, or possible in multiple ways. We may not be able to know for sure, so we'll just have to accept that we only know of possible ways that it originated. Whatever the scientific outcome, ID is still a load of garbage, and nothing more than ancient myths updated to sound pseudo-scientific.

This is my feeling as well, I personally feel that God the creator created the universe. I have too hard a time with any 'spontaneous creation' scenario (the Big Bang seems to fly in the face of the second law of thermodynamics IMO) to give them credence.

If you have a problem with "spontaneous creation", you're probably arguing against the First Law of Thermodynamics, not the Second. This article from Talkorigins should clear things up for you...

----Ridiculous questions snipped---

I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

You understand that people are giving angry responses because it's obvious that you haven't done the first bit of research before throwing out those inane questions, right?

Please educate yourself about the theory and then come back and ask some sensible questions. Preferably some that aren't already answered here.

----Ridiculous questions snipped---

I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

You understand that people are giving angry responses because it's obvious that you haven't done the first bit of research before throwing out those inane questions, right?

Please educate yourself about the theory and then come back and ask some sensible questions. Preferably some that aren't already answered here.

----Ridiculous questions snipped---

I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

You understand that people are giving angry responses because it's obvious that you haven't done the first bit of research before throwing out those inane questions, right?

Please educate yourself about the theory and then come back and ask some sensible questions. Preferably some that aren't already answered here.

----Ridiculous questions snipped---

I am not saying evolution is untrue, nor am i saying that ID is untrue. I am saying that we have no method of verifying our "scientific" finding that life evolved and there was never any ID involved at all. To me, that means the science that is frequently put forward as truth is actually just a theory and not really a fact. This belief of mine is furhter solidified in my mind by the fact that we still cannot create life from lifelessness. We can create synthetic life using building blocks from existing life, but no one, to my knowledge has taking a bunch of inorganic material and make it a living and procreating life-form. Statistically, i believe that such life from lifelessness is very very improbable without some form of ID, somewhere along the line. I also believe evolution occurs without needing ID. That is, once life exists, it evolves to suit its environment, or it dies.

You understand that people are giving angry responses because it's obvious that you haven't done the first bit of research before throwing out those inane questions, right?

Please educate yourself about the theory and then come back and ask some sensible questions. Preferably some that aren't already answered here.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You're either an ignoramus or a liar. There really are no other choices.

And just to put it in your pipe and smoke it, macroevolution (speciation) has even been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

You're either an ignoramus or a liar. There really are no other choices.

And just to put it in your pipe and smoke it, macroevolution (speciation) has even been observed:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html

Even the IC claim is so heavily hedged, and the willingness of ID advocates to really back it up with anything other than a few examples such that it's hard to call those claims positive. The fact of the matter is that IC was predicted decades ago by H. J. Muller as, ironically enough for Behe and his ilk, evidence for evolution:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ICsilly.html

As I said in another post, Behe's position in particular is absolutely unforgivable. He's a molecular biologist. The work of guys like Muller ought to be very familiar to him. There are two explanations. One is that Behe is just a bad researcher (and there seems to be little evidence that he's that incompetent), or that Behe is a liar, and the latter seems to be the better explanation.

But yes, IC is a hypothesis, though one that was falsified long before it was ever formulated. It would be rather like me claiming "Australia doesn't exist!" Yes, I made a falsifiable claim, albeit one falsified several hundred years before I was born.

I would ask for the addition to define evolution. Evolution is tossed about to mean both micro- and macro-evolution as if they are one thing. Evolutionists would do themselves a tremendous favor to make a distinction between the two. Micro-evolution to a degree can be seen. Macro-evolution has no evidence of existence at all.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Care to retract, or will you just keep repeating a 25 year old Creationist lie. It's one thing to be a fool, it's something far worse to be a fool who repeats another fool's lies.

Design theories go all the way back to ancient Greece. There is plenty to teach about.

Darwin's argument is many ways theological/philosophical and is trying to falsify design theories. So I guess if design arguments of any type isn't worth teaching and isn't science, Darwin shouldn't be taught either. How can a negative answer to design be considered science but a positive answer (even if you think it is false) is science? It just doesn't work unless you simply want to say any argument we find wrong or fault "isn't science", which opens its own can of worms.

You apparently have no idea what the theory of evolution actually is, or of the evidence for it. Please educate yourself on it before making further ridiculous statements.

Maybe teach creationism, ID AND evolution in school... teach them as the three most widely-accepted ideas on how the world started and push them forward as all *theories* and there is no scientific proof (there is evidence for some, but that is not conclusive proof) for any of it yet?

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution

The number of scientists, and more importantly biologists, who think there is any question about the factuality of evolution is so exceedingly remote as to pretty much be considered universal consensus.

As to how the world started, um, that's cosmology, stellar formation, planet formation and geology. Evolution is the study of genetic change in populations, not in how the world came about.

Now if only the same rules were applied to the fraudsters who promote evolutionism...

Responding to a troll, I know... but if you really want the data on evolution (as opposed to foaming at the mouth and making up words to make yourself feel better about the mythology you chose that tells you that faith is when you blindly believe while being unable to show any data [Hebrews 11:1, bitches]): http://talkorigins.org/

None of this is the "amoeba to human" (to use a figure of speech) evolution that explains the appearance of highly complex organisms on Earth.

No-one makes claims about "amoeba to human" (to use a figure of speech) evolution, except Creationists.

In fact I've never seen a scientific, proven example of a mutation that added new genetic information that did not previously exist.

This should get you started.

None of this proves or disproves the concept of evolution, but it does make it a much more mysterious process than we are usually led to believe. It's the kind of thing I hope science one day has a better understanding of.

There are few theories that are understood better than Evolution.

Don't get too hung up on the definition of a species. It's a term that helps us to categorize things, and although there are fuzzy areas, it's merely a tool. The main points of evolution are that populations change over time. We see this all throughout nature. If you have, say, a population of camels, and over time some of them move to one region and others move to another region, the populations will be isolated from each other. Given enough time, they will continue changing, and natural selection will take its toll, removing the least fit, while those with better adaptations will survive. This could mean a thicker coat in the colder region, or the ability to go longer without water in a desert region. It could be changes in color, or running ability, or any number of other things. Eventually, if the two populations are isolated long enough (thousands of generations), they could look very different and even be unable to interbreed.

I would suggest the TalkOrigins.org site as a good starting point. It gives some good overview information and evidence.

Don't get too hung up on the definition of a species. It's a term that helps us to categorize things, and although there are fuzzy areas, it's merely a tool. The main points of evolution are that populations change over time. We see this all throughout nature. If you have, say, a population of camels, and over time some of them move to one region and others move to another region, the populations will be isolated from each other. Given enough time, they will continue changing, and natural selection will take its toll, removing the least fit, while those with better adaptations will survive. This could mean a thicker coat in the colder region, or the ability to go longer without water in a desert region. It could be changes in color, or running ability, or any number of other things. Eventually, if the two populations are isolated long enough (thousands of generations), they could look very different and even be unable to interbreed.

I would suggest the TalkOrigins.org site as a good starting point. It gives some good overview information and evidence.

Don't get too hung up on the definition of a species. It's a term that helps us to categorize things, and although there are fuzzy areas, it's merely a tool. The main points of evolution are that populations change over time. We see this all throughout nature. If you have, say, a population of camels, and over time some of them move to one region and others move to another region, the populations will be isolated from each other. Given enough time, they will continue changing, and natural selection will take its toll, removing the least fit, while those with better adaptations will survive. This could mean a thicker coat in the colder region, or the ability to go longer without water in a desert region. It could be changes in color, or running ability, or any number of other things. Eventually, if the two populations are isolated long enough (thousands of generations), they could look very different and even be unable to interbreed.

I would suggest the TalkOrigins.org site as a good starting point. It gives some good overview information and evidence.

Don't get too hung up on the definition of a species. It's a term that helps us to categorize things, and although there are fuzzy areas, it's merely a tool. The main points of evolution are that populations change over time. We see this all throughout nature. If you have, say, a population of camels, and over time some of them move to one region and others move to another region, the populations will be isolated from each other. Given enough time, they will continue changing, and natural selection will take its toll, removing the least fit, while those with better adaptations will survive. This could mean a thicker coat in the colder region, or the ability to go longer without water in a desert region. It could be changes in color, or running ability, or any number of other things. Eventually, if the two populations are isolated long enough (thousands of generations), they could look very different and even be unable to interbreed.

I would suggest the TalkOrigins.org site as a good starting point. It gives some good overview information and evidence.

They've demonstrated adaptation/change via passage of genetic traits. That's literally, without hyperbole, the definition of evolution.

Well, if we change the definition to something we have proof of, then yes, we do have proof!

If we use actual scientific definitions instead of whatever nonsense you're using, then yes, we have mountains of evidence that more than meet what most people consider to be proof.

You speak of genetics and inheritence, not EVOLUTIONOLOGY that has so many faux-intellectual zealots masturabating onto each other here. Pay attention to what is being disputed in the article: "Do you believe your ancestors were monkeys despite us never finding a missing link and all supposed missing links up until now have been proven to be different species entirely? If not, it's because YOU HATE SCIENCE!" Yeah, guys, groupthink manipulation tactics REALLY prove your point.

There is no single "missing link". Every generation of organisms is a link. Fossilization is relatively rare. We don't expect to find a fossilized example of every generation of every organism out there, so there will always be missing links in the fossil record. As for your claim that they were all proven to be different species, well that's going to require a bit more explaining as to what you're actually referring to. Being different species doesn't mean that one is not a predecessor of another or that they don't share a common ancestor.

Educated doubt is a noble scientific endeavor, and ad-hominem attacks only invite deeper inspection. In fact, so many slashdotters have become so brainwashed, as soon as I say "I doubt the validity of your unproven/non-disprovable hypothesis, because I find the supporting evidence has been repeatedly gathered under an inadequacy of scientific rigour" then they IMMEDIATELY consider me intellectually inferior. It's conditioned into them -- though if I wanted, I could probably argue FOR evolution better than they ever could.

No, they probably look at the rest of your post(s) and conclude that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Consider the following: An esimated 1,000+ species go extinct every year without evolving into something else. Every single one is observable evidence that evolution does NOT happen like predicted. 1,000 pieces of evidence a year, and you just ignore that?

That paragraph is observable evidence that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory. Please educate yourself before posting nonsense.

They've demonstrated adaptation/change via passage of genetic traits. That's literally, without hyperbole, the definition of evolution.

Well, if we change the definition to something we have proof of, then yes, we do have proof!

If we use actual scientific definitions instead of whatever nonsense you're using, then yes, we have mountains of evidence that more than meet what most people consider to be proof.

You speak of genetics and inheritence, not EVOLUTIONOLOGY that has so many faux-intellectual zealots masturabating onto each other here. Pay attention to what is being disputed in the article: "Do you believe your ancestors were monkeys despite us never finding a missing link and all supposed missing links up until now have been proven to be different species entirely? If not, it's because YOU HATE SCIENCE!" Yeah, guys, groupthink manipulation tactics REALLY prove your point.

There is no single "missing link". Every generation of organisms is a link. Fossilization is relatively rare. We don't expect to find a fossilized example of every generation of every organism out there, so there will always be missing links in the fossil record. As for your claim that they were all proven to be different species, well that's going to require a bit more explaining as to what you're actually referring to. Being different species doesn't mean that one is not a predecessor of another or that they don't share a common ancestor.

Educated doubt is a noble scientific endeavor, and ad-hominem attacks only invite deeper inspection. In fact, so many slashdotters have become so brainwashed, as soon as I say "I doubt the validity of your unproven/non-disprovable hypothesis, because I find the supporting evidence has been repeatedly gathered under an inadequacy of scientific rigour" then they IMMEDIATELY consider me intellectually inferior. It's conditioned into them -- though if I wanted, I could probably argue FOR evolution better than they ever could.

No, they probably look at the rest of your post(s) and conclude that you have no clue what you're talking about.

Consider the following: An esimated 1,000+ species go extinct every year without evolving into something else. Every single one is observable evidence that evolution does NOT happen like predicted. 1,000 pieces of evidence a year, and you just ignore that?

That paragraph is observable evidence that you have no understanding of evolutionary theory. Please educate yourself before posting nonsense.

Well, I agree that evolution is a theory (I wish people would do a better job of remembering that). I don't agree that it is ridiculously strong, particularly if you are talking about evolution as the origin of life.

Yes, it's a theory in the scientific sense not the colloquial sense. In other words, a self-consistent model supported by evidence that explains phenomena and makes testable predictions. Many people misuse the word "theory" in ordinary conversation to mean basically the same thing as "guess". This is NOT the sense that theory is used in the scientific disciplines.

In the first place, it violates the second law of thermodynamics. That ought to be sufficient argument against it.

Completely and totally wrong. The second law has long allowed for the local reduction in entropy while the overall universal entropy shows a net increase. If this weren't the case, how can someone turn a pile of materials and human labor into a house, for instance? The house is decidedly more organized than the raw materials and this organization was accomplished through work and expenditure of energy.

As we learn more about the complexity of the cell, and of DNA, the amount of information contained therein becomes ever more staggering. Five billion years is simply insufficient for any known mechanism to allow that much information to occur through random chance.

This reminds of people who claim that we never made it to the moon because we could never do something that advanced with the technology of the time. My response to this point is the same as what I'd say to one of them: how do you know it's not possible? Also, there's this whole random thing that inevitably appears in every denier's argument. The random nature of mutations is only a portion of evolutionary development. There's natural selection and the combining of genes through sex, for example. Evolutionary development can also take advantage of exponential growth which means a lot of development can happen very suddenly and over a (relatively) short time period.

Beyond all that, there are no known examples of intermediate species. Considering how much evolution must have occurred (if we assume evolution to be correct) there ought to be scads of intermediate forms walking the planet today. Where are they?

I hear this one a lot also. Most people just haven't looked but here is a list of instances go. Also, there's a fundamental problem with what you're asking for. You won't see any intermediate species walking around because by definition, they were an intermediate species which means they've continued development to their current form. Now a species you do see walking around may be an intermediate species for something that will exist in the future but you can only tell if something is an intermediate in hindsight because at a given point in time you're just seeing their current form.

the fact that the Big Bang does not explain the state of existence at T(Big Bang) - 1. It does not explain creation

Neither does evolution, relativity, quantum electrodynamics, or any other scientific theory. Do you suggest we shouldn't trust them either?

Big Bang is not meant to explain creation, it simply explains that the universe was at one point very small and very hot, and explains how it developed from there. It does a very good job of explaining our universe based on the model that it was once very small and hot. It is in fact the basis for much of modern astronomy. If you're not convinced, try taking a look at some of the evidence.

Big Bang is a ridiculously strong theory, it's really hard for anyone to not "accept" it unless they do so based on ignorance.

> But Meve and Yadam do tell us that every male alive came from one man and one woman.

No, that's not what it means. Those people were not the "origin" of humanity. MEve was not the "first woman" and Y-Adam was not "the first man" - they lived in different eras. They both came from human parents and lived as part of a larger human population. And this fact still says nothing at all about the origins of marriage.

These articles should clear up your misconceptions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

> But Meve and Yadam do tell us that every male alive came from one man and one woman.

No, that's not what it means. Those people were not the "origin" of humanity. MEve was not the "first woman" and Y-Adam was not "the first man" - they lived in different eras. They both came from human parents and lived as part of a larger human population. And this fact still says nothing at all about the origins of marriage.

These articles should clear up your misconceptions:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mtDNA.html

Here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/cromagnon.html

Cro-magnon: 1600cc (Ice age humans, ca 30 000 years ago)
Us: 1400cc

So our ancestors had 12.5% larger brains.

My apologies for inordinate craptitude.

I mean Morton's Demon.

See here; http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/feb02.html

It's an idea off the back of Maxwell's Demon (all those M's, confusing :-P)

Instead of (as in Maxwell's demon) letting molecules past depending on their energy/room they are in (as part of a thought-experiment that tried to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics), Morton's demon;

" ... was a demon who sat at the gate of my sensory input apparatus and if and when he saw supportive evidence coming in, he opened the gate. But if he saw contradictory data coming in, he closed the gate. In this way, the demon allowed me to believe that I was right and to avoid any nasty contradictory data."

If you regard arguing with Creationists as a stress-relieving hobby (like some people treat squash - they ARE similar; hitting dense objects hard so they bounce around... ), it is a term you will eventually run accross.

Outside of that arena it has gained some recognition;

http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/evil-deeds/200811/truth-lies-and-self-deception

You can’t call something a prediction when you already knew it. You can’t call something falsifiable when it simply explains what you already knew.

Well, if you believe that evolution is wrong, then at least some of the claims it makes must be wrong, right? So where's the evidence to falsify those claims? Maybe you think there's something that it doesn't account for? Present evidence of that! Otherwise, why are you disputing it if you think all of the claims are consistent with the evidence?

I’ve already seen on plenty of occasions how evolutionists deal with people who try to offer evidence that doesn’t support the theory of evolution. First they insist that it just ain’t so. Then they make excuses why it just ain’t so. If all else fails, they attack the messenger... oh wait, no, that generally comes every step of the way.

You mean they offer scientific explanations for natural phenomena?! The horror!!

There is plenty of evidence that I could give you. I simply have absolutely no desire to change your mind about anything because I know that absolutely no amount of evidence can do that. So I’m not even trying.

That's where you're wrong. Actual evidence that disproves evolution, in whole or in part would be amazing! Not only would it teach us something important about how such evidence could have been missed and how we can improve our methods of research, but it would also allow us to learn something new and possibly ground-breaking about our world which could advance science in all kinds of ways. So yeah, if you had actual evidence that would be awesome! But so far you haven't presented anything that hasn't already been explained (and some of your evidence was explained and settled over 100 years ago by religious scientists).

Test it all you want. Or with other life forms; I hear they’re doing some pretty fascinating tests with E. coli. I suppose you’re right — you’ll never be done testing, but at some point I’d have to conclude you’re insane for continuing to repeat the same experiment and hoping to eventually get a different result.

If we saw something happen in the way you're describing, it would actually disprove evolution, because it just doesn't happen over the course of a few generations.

Don’t worry, you’ll find out.

We talking about eternal damnation, that kind of stuff? More mythology so twisted in its logic and meanings as to be incomprehensible to anyone with any conscience or intellect.

You should go and visit "uncommon descent" the blog HQ of intelligent design. They're always bringing up AGW skepticism, since the notion of a far-reaching conspiracy of scientific propaganda and elitist repression is the same excuse they use to wave away the fact that the overwhelming majority of scientific opinion is in favour of evolution. Throwing their lot in with other denialists "makes their worldview make sense".

Also institute for creation research states:

• Global warming appears to have been occurring for the last 30-50 years.
• This warming may only be a short-term fluctuation but could be a longer-term trend.
• Evidence is still inconclusive whether man is causing the warming.
• No "natural" causes for global warming have been confirmed.
• One possible new theory is that galactic cosmic radiation (GCR) modulated by solar activity affects low-level cloud cover and is causing the warming.

Global warming may affect some parts of our society negatively but would likely benefit others. In fact, the current warming trend may be returning our global climate closer to that prevalent in the Garden of Eden. Compared to climate changes which have occurred in earth history, a temperature rise of a few degrees is a small fluctuation which will not lead to a complete melting of the polar caps or another ice age. Earth has a stable environmental system with many built-in feedback systems to maintain a uniform climate. It was designed by God and has only been dramatically upset by catastrophic events like the Genesis Flood. Catastrophic climate change will occur again in the future, but only by God's intervention in a sudden, violent conflagration of planet Earth in the end times

Answers in genesis cry conspiracy and even cite "The Day After Tomorrow"!

The tactic used by Lomborg (quote mining) is the definitive modus operandi of a denialist. It is the bread and butter of Creationists, and for the person employing it, it is a strong indicator of either severe cognitive dissonance or outright lying.

No, you haven’t. You’ve given me tautological explanations of evidence. Since they were not falsifiable, I merely gave my own explanation of the same evidence.

Did you even bother to read the links I posted? Every section in this document gives examples of how the claims could be falsified! You know, under the "Potential Falsification" headers after the claims? The fact that they haven't been disproved yet shows that they are highly consistent with the observed evidence. It's still possible that they could be disproved if we find something that contradicts a claim, such as one of the many examples they give.

Evolution is conveniently devoid of actual, real, testable and falsifiable scientific claims. Everything evolution “predicts” either already happened, or will be so far in the future that we’ll all be dead before we can confirm it. Thus, not testable.

Wrong again. Plenty of the claims could be proven false today. They haven't been because nobody has found any evidence that contradicts the claims. The link above gives a bunch of claims and examples of falsifications. How come you can't offer any evidence to falsify even one of them?!

You want an actual, real, testable and falsifiable scientific claim from creationism? A lizard will never evolve into a bird. Ever. No, I don’t care if you claim it happened ten million or billion years ago. It won’t happen NOW, and it won’t ever happen, because it can’t, because it doesn’t work like that.

How is that testable? Didn't you just say that things that would take so long that we'd all be dead before we could confirm it are not testable? I'm not sure how you think evolution works, but I'm pretty sure you've got the wrong idea. Birds DID evolve from theropod dinosaurs. There's lots of evidence to support this, and you haven't shown anything that contradicts it except your own insistence that it just ain't so. Sorry, but that's not scientific evidence.

Want another? Read the book of Revelation. For added convenience, you’ll get to test this one even if you die before the main events take place.

WTF does that even mean?

No, you haven’t. You’ve given me tautological explanations of evidence. Since they were not falsifiable, I merely gave my own explanation of the same evidence.

Did you even bother to read the links I posted? Every section in this document gives examples of how the claims could be falsified! You know, under the "Potential Falsification" headers after the claims? The fact that they haven't been disproved yet shows that they are highly consistent with the observed evidence. It's still possible that they could be disproved if we find something that contradicts a claim, such as one of the many examples they give.

Evolution is conveniently devoid of actual, real, testable and falsifiable scientific claims. Everything evolution “predicts” either already happened, or will be so far in the future that we’ll all be dead before we can confirm it. Thus, not testable.

Wrong again. Plenty of the claims could be proven false today. They haven't been because nobody has found any evidence that contradicts the claims. The link above gives a bunch of claims and examples of falsifications. How come you can't offer any evidence to falsify even one of them?!

You want an actual, real, testable and falsifiable scientific claim from creationism? A lizard will never evolve into a bird. Ever. No, I don’t care if you claim it happened ten million or billion years ago. It won’t happen NOW, and it won’t ever happen, because it can’t, because it doesn’t work like that.

How is that testable? Didn't you just say that things that would take so long that we'd all be dead before we could confirm it are not testable? I'm not sure how you think evolution works, but I'm pretty sure you've got the wrong idea. Birds DID evolve from theropod dinosaurs. There's lots of evidence to support this, and you haven't shown anything that contradicts it except your own insistence that it just ain't so. Sorry, but that's not scientific evidence.

Want another? Read the book of Revelation. For added convenience, you’ll get to test this one even if you die before the main events take place.

WTF does that even mean?

Many, many instances can be observed where “old” fossils are deposited atop “young” fossils. This should never happen, so evolutionists postulate that geologic faulting and fracturing must have slid the older rock onto the top of the newer rock.

Of the ones I know of, this isn't entirely arbitrary -- multiple measures are used to date rock, everything from the fossils in it to carbon dating to corresponding dating methods used on other areas of rock.

Evolutionists’ response?

Well, let's see if I can't find some:

Contrary to the claim, geologists do find convincing evidence of a thrust fault between the strata (Strahler 1987, chap. 40).

That's just the start. You can read the rest here -- biased source? Maybe, but it's cited. Your task now, if you choose to accept it, is to actually go back to the sources referenced in each argument and see which one makes sense. Unfortunately for you, one of those sources is a creationist -- it just happens to be one with some geology training, who didn't entirely throw out said training when examining this piece of evidence.

But hey, if that wasn't enough:

The photo in Whitcomb and Morris's (1961) book The Genesis Flood showing the "Lewis Overthrust contact line" (Figure 17, p. 190) is not really a photo of the contact line, but of rocks 200 feet above it.

Tell me that's not dishonest.

Want something not from talkorigins? Here's one.

You seem to be taking the attitude that because there are arguments on both sides, you should take the one that makes you feel better, rather than actually investigating the arguments used. Now, I'm not a geologist, but the Talkorigins page does mention one creationist geologist who disagrees with you:

This is true even of young-earth creationists with geology training. For example, Kurt Wise (1986, 136) said that "[a] close examination of the contact between the Cretaceous and Precambrian rocks leaves no doubt that the contact is a fault contact."

Tell me that's a biased source.

Still waiting for your refutation of justnowism.

science only deals in theories

Absolutely not correct. Most of the process is gathering the facts and getting a firm understanding of what the evidence is.

You're basically describing a scientific theory, which is, by definition, an explanation based on facts and evidence. So when you teach the theories, you will, of course, discuss the facts and evidence behind them. The theories are what you're teaching though. Your claim that theories don't belong in a science class is ridiculous.

You don't teach non-scientific theories, which equate to a guesses or hunches, and you certainly don't teach religion.

I agree. Evolution has no place in a science class.

Evolution is backed by tons of evidence and is the only scientific theory in existence that explains the evidence well. There are still areas that are weaker than others, but that's true of pretty much every scientific theory. What you're proposing is not science.

Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.

Actually, evolution makes many predictions.

Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.

Actually, evolution makes many predictions.

Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.

Actually, evolution makes many predictions.

Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.

Actually, evolution makes many predictions.

Evolution is merely a theory which was conjured up to explain the existing evidence. It does not attempt to make any predictions, and any predictions that it accidentally makes are generally untestable.

Actually, evolution makes many predictions.

It's too bad your post didn't get modded more insightful. You brought up an excellent and very fair point. When I first read this I have to be honest, I have to admit I've taken this on faith.

This is something most atheists/agnostics/scientists don't like to admit to. At some point you have to take certain things on faith. I'm not a scientist and even if I was, I wouldn't be an expert in every field. I'd have to accept the testimony of other scientists. This is faith of a kind.

I had to do some digging, because I really could not think of an example I knew for a fact. The article CA210: Evolution predictions on TalkOrigins describes how evolution has made accurate predictions of the past and how predicting the future is not a prerequisite for science to be useful.

The article also links to another article on CA215: Practical uses of evolution that makes the point that while without evolution you can know a lot of useful things about biology, evolution is what helps you understand it. ID could be said to do the same thing, but you get back to the testability question.

It's too bad your post didn't get modded more insightful. You brought up an excellent and very fair point. When I first read this I have to be honest, I have to admit I've taken this on faith.

This is something most atheists/agnostics/scientists don't like to admit to. At some point you have to take certain things on faith. I'm not a scientist and even if I was, I wouldn't be an expert in every field. I'd have to accept the testimony of other scientists. This is faith of a kind.

I had to do some digging, because I really could not think of an example I knew for a fact. The article CA210: Evolution predictions on TalkOrigins describes how evolution has made accurate predictions of the past and how predicting the future is not a prerequisite for science to be useful.

The article also links to another article on CA215: Practical uses of evolution that makes the point that while without evolution you can know a lot of useful things about biology, evolution is what helps you understand it. ID could be said to do the same thing, but you get back to the testability question.

I acknowledge there are those that operate at that level, but a fair number are those reacting to treating science as dogma. Evolution as observed in alterations of populations under pressure is one thing, jumping from that to all life descended from a common ancestor is something different. From my high school evolution class, I recall that the fossil record indicates a series of "punctuated equilibria" where populations remain largely the same and then experience periods of sharp change. The standard high school biology textbook does a poor job conveying that this is still a poorly understood phenomena. Evolution has the same flaws as Newtonian physics - in the readily observable world it works, but if you look to the extremes, the models break down a bit (relativity and wave-particle in the physics world). There is also the dogma that is no more scientific than creationism that evolution "proves" religion is no more than silly superstition. The Catholic church accepts evolution as a vehicle of God's will, and many mainline protestant churches do as well.

Common ancestry is a separate theory from evolution. It's still quite well supported until you get as far back as the very earliest life forms where things get much more difficult do to the nature of the types of gene transfer that were prevalent at that level. As for punctuated equilibria, do you know what the actual issues are around it? I've read quite a lot about evolutionary theory, but even I was having a difficult time understanding the issues around that subject. I doubt most high school students would fare much better. Whatever the outcome of that particular argument, it's not going to invalidate the theory of evolution. It would probably be better addressed in more advanced college level biology or paleontology courses.

As a Christian, I admire what they are doing, but I do disagree. At least with teaching Creationism in the classroom. I feel that should be left to the parents and to churches.

Agreed, the government has no business teaching religion to anyone. That's a personal matter for kids and their family.

I am, however, of the belief that evolution should be taught as a "theory" and not as "a hard scientific fact".

Everything in science is a theory. That's just elementary science education. Some theories carry more weight than others because they have more evidence behind them. Evolution has a LOT of evidence behind it.

Do I believe that all life on earth evolved from some primordial soup? Heck no - that's more far more out there than Creationism theory - the chances of life evolving by chance are astronomical, and there is no hard data supporting that.

The theory of evolution does not cover the origin of life. It only covers what came after that. How the first life developed on earth is still a subject for much debate, but the answer to that question doesn't make much difference to the theory of evolution which only covers how life has changed and evolved since then.

Also, belief in creationism should not necessarially mean that one does not believe in evolution. Look at the creation story in Genesis - the ORDER in which life was created. Then think that maybe the "days" in Genesis may not be literal days, but periods of time, possibly millions of years. What do you have?

Well, you still have a fable with parts cribbed from other more ancient fables. You can believe in a creator and still believe in evolution. Many scientists do. It can't be disproved that there was a creator that set into motion all the natural processes that govern evolution and all other natural processes that we witness. So even though we don't see evidence of a creator, there's no way to disprove something like that either.

No, really and truely, why are we making all of these assumptions about if stuff like placing the Ten Commandments in a government building is a violation of church and state? Do people honestly think this is new? It was happening in 1776. So why did the founding fathers not specifically state this, or try putting a stop to it?

By allowing the government to endorse any religion, you allow it to give preferential treatment and elevate one or more religions above others. This is a bad direction to go in if you believe in freedom of religion. Nobody is going to stop you from praying in school as long as you're not disrupting anything. How could they even know you were praying? I don't see why people feel that the government has any place in teaching religion. It's just not the government's job, and when it comes to public schools, nobody has a right to teach religion to anyone else's kids, so it has no place there. It's a personal matter for the kids and their family.