Slashdot Mirror

Yes, I am claiming I am not a creationist.

when you get to the meat of the differences between creation and evolution, they are so small and in the unprovable parts of each that it is more or less a pissing match between what indicators tend to lend credence to each

The point of it is that life has always been the same life

Is this the bubble theory you are referring to? It says nothing about fully formed animals magically popping out of nowhere. In fact, it deals with how the first cells came to be.

The so called transition fossils we see are more or less early versions of existing animals respectively and not extinct cousins of a different or parent species.

Surely you don't take that much time to process something as simple as what I have stated.

Of course not. I simply don't visit Slashdot every day (or every week).

No, they are separating the parts that they can agree on and the part that they can't.

False. Organization like AiG have a stated purpose of replacing science with religion.

They weren't incapable of interbreeding, they didn't chose to.

False.

Something that has artificially been manipulated on purpose for years but in the end they are still dogs.

Are a wolf and a poodle both dogs? It is a matter of definition. These definitions are abritrary, and often discussed at great length in the scientific community. Also, dogs have been bred in a way that does not prevent interbreeding, but if a poodle and a wolf were unable to interbreed, you would have two vastly different organisms that are also different species.

No one ever said there was a barrier which prevents small changes from adding up to a large set of changes. What was said was that a monkey will always be a monkey, a human will always be a human a dog will always be a dog.

In other words: You are saying that small changes over time to not result in major changes. Again, please point to the barrier which prevents this from happening.

I have asked you for this evidence about five times now. You haven't been able to provide anything that wasn't circumstantial at best.

False. You are simply ignoring all evidence that does not match your superstition.

How does it feel when you can't prove your religion?

It is not a religion, and I don't have to prove it. I have pointed you to scientific evidence. Whether I am religious or not does not affect the reliability of this scientific evidence.

And I posted a link calling your DNA hogwash.

What link was that? The link that also stated that DNA is useless and cannot be used in court cases because it doesn't prove anything?

This has been a point of conjecture for many years in science and you are on the loosing side of things.

What has been a point of conjecture, and who is on the "winning" side? AiG? :D

What facts? You haven't brought any about that solve the macro verses micro thing.

I have pointed to speciation and no limit to how an organism can change, as well as links to sites like talkorigins.org that explain all of this. It is you who choose to ignore the evidence.

A theory is an attempt to explain facts or observation but is never a fact or law.

A theory explains and takes all known facts into account. I also explained that, indeed, it does not become fact or law.

In biological evolution, a lot of jumps are made.

False.

Nothing, I repeat nothing- and you cannot show anything, that was created specifically because of the portions of evolution that is in conflict.

What are you talking about? Created? Huh?

There is no conflict here. Not among scientists. Scientists overwhelmingly agree that evolution is indeed correct. There is no conflict in the scientific communnity.

And without empirical evidence, you cannot say that you are not wrong about anything.

Without empirical evidence? Are you so thick that even now, you cannot remember the observed speciation instances and Nylonase?

The judge in the case you keep quoting doesn't make any determination about Science.

He does indeed. He ruled that ID is religion, and evolution is science. Just like scientists have been pointing out all along.

You do

However, for flooding to occur locally it meant that the land surface itself must rise and fall below ocean level.

When this problem is faced at all, the hot earth is explained away by arguing that the earth's heat is sustained by decaying radioactive elements deep within the core.

The population of the earth today is about six billion. Using the formula employed by demographers it can readily be shown that it would take just about 5,000 years to reach this figure beginning with Noah's family and assuming only 2.4 children per family.

Which conclusions? How similar are they, really? And most importantly, why are the commonalities better explained by a common "spiritual truth" than by the fact that the practitioners who come up with this stuff are all humans with a religious bent, sharing a common nature? It's not unreasonable to put the burden of proof on the believer when every testable supernatural prediction of religions has turned out false. For example, numerous cultures have global flood myths and astrology, but when you look closely, you find that the details are different and the science doesn't work out. Many people have out-of-body experiences, but when you look closely, you find that they can't really see anything they wouldn't have been able to otherwise. You can't point to shared belief as evidence without taking into account basic features of human thought such as selection bias.

It takes ten years of college to do original research in physics, but even middle school students can learn Newton's Laws. Are your universal principles written down anywhere in a simple form that everyone can agree on? What are the limits of these principles? What do they cover and what do they not cover? Why has there been no progress in thousands of years when every other field of human endeavor has seen great revolutions in thought? Why, if these truths are so compelling, is there still so much strife between religions?

I agree that atheists need to take a deeper approach to analyzing religions, but you don't need to be an expert to ask these sorts of questions and realize that you get more sensible and consistent answers if these beliefs are simply incorrect.

Okay, all of Behe's examples of irreducible complexity have by now been so thoroughly refuted that it's really sad some people still cling to them.

See http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html

For this one.

Okay, here goes:

(Items 1 and 2 don't have particular arguments, so I'm skipping those):

3. Niagara Falls only dates to the last ice age, so it's not that old. Are do you expect a waterfall to last as long as the Earth does?

4. Halley's is not a long-period comet. There are comets with periods of millions of years and whose orbits go out hundreds of astronomical units, far past Pluto. Where did they come from, or did God create them on their way in?

5. Eddy and Boornazian are wrong about the Sun shrinking in diameter.

6. Even Answers in Genesis (a creationist organization) says the argument about Moon dust is fallacious.

7. Helium can escape the atmosphere through the mechanism of ion outflow.

8. Salt doesn't stay suspended in the waters of the Dead Sea but becomes part of the rock around it.

9. The rate of 2.4 children per family is a huge increase and far from typical. Remember, these children have to survive to adulthood and breed. Even if you assume that such a rate has persisted, you can calculate back to find such absurdities as only about a dozen Egyptians being around to build the Pyramids.

10. Contrary to the claim, there are many ways of independently calibrating radiometric data.

11. People seem to think that a coelacanth is a specific species of fish. It's not, it's a whole classification, on the same level as rodentia. It's no surprise that the grouping has lasted seventy million years.

It took me maybe fifteen minutes to come up with evidence that every single one of these claims was false to the point of being ludicrous. It should be no wonder that atheists (or any rational human being) just pooh-poohs young Earth claims if these are as good as they get.

Okay, here goes:

(Items 1 and 2 don't have particular arguments, so I'm skipping those):

3. Niagara Falls only dates to the last ice age, so it's not that old. Are do you expect a waterfall to last as long as the Earth does?

4. Halley's is not a long-period comet. There are comets with periods of millions of years and whose orbits go out hundreds of astronomical units, far past Pluto. Where did they come from, or did God create them on their way in?

5. Eddy and Boornazian are wrong about the Sun shrinking in diameter.

6. Even Answers in Genesis (a creationist organization) says the argument about Moon dust is fallacious.

7. Helium can escape the atmosphere through the mechanism of ion outflow.

8. Salt doesn't stay suspended in the waters of the Dead Sea but becomes part of the rock around it.

9. The rate of 2.4 children per family is a huge increase and far from typical. Remember, these children have to survive to adulthood and breed. Even if you assume that such a rate has persisted, you can calculate back to find such absurdities as only about a dozen Egyptians being around to build the Pyramids.

10. Contrary to the claim, there are many ways of independently calibrating radiometric data.

11. People seem to think that a coelacanth is a specific species of fish. It's not, it's a whole classification, on the same level as rodentia. It's no surprise that the grouping has lasted seventy million years.

It took me maybe fifteen minutes to come up with evidence that every single one of these claims was false to the point of being ludicrous. It should be no wonder that atheists (or any rational human being) just pooh-poohs young Earth claims if these are as good as they get.

first, we have to define terms. micro-evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. macro-evolution has *not* been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If only creationists *would* define terms. Most creationists use "Macroevolution" to mean any evolution for which we can't provide direct living or fossil evidence. In any case, Macro evolution is just accumulated micro-evolutionary steps.

*if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.

I suggest reading this site. But you know you won't. Because your conclusion is already preordained. You have too much of your entire life invested in believing in supernaturalism.

there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.

Ah, the final weapon of the creationists. If they can find any question, now matter how small, that doesn't have a rock-solid answer, then they loudly proclaim that "HA! YOU SEE?? YOU SEE?? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!" Any open questions means that every theory is equally valid. It's akin to saying, "Since the Earth's horizon makes it look like a flat disk, therefore, the flat Earth theory is just as valid as the round Earth theory."

Well, every theory ISN'T equally valid. First of all, there is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence against evolution. ZERO. There are certainly open questions about how certain things may have evolved, but that means there is a neutral question, not that it's "evidence against" evolution. So you have a Mount Everest of evidence for evolution, a large number of open questions (just the diversity of life and genetics means we're going to have a lot of open questions), zero evidence against evolution, and absolutely ZERO evidence that supports creationism. And, just to top it off, we have an entire planet-sized volume of evidence against the Earth being only 10,000 years old.

THAT is the carved-on-stone-tablet (if you'll pardon the expression) truth. If there really is a God (there isn't, but let's say), he must be constantly slapping his hand against his forehead screaming, "The bible is full of allegory, you idiots! What, do you think I could've explained physics to the damn barbarians?? Will you people use the brains I gave you, already?? It's a SOCIAL book, not a freaking science book!!"

first, we have to define terms. micro-evolution has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. macro-evolution has *not* been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

If only creationists *would* define terms. Most creationists use "Macroevolution" to mean any evolution for which we can't provide direct living or fossil evidence. In any case, Macro evolution is just accumulated micro-evolutionary steps.

*if* you had the irrefutable evidence, you'd present it. you don't, so you, well, don't. you just proclaim it truth and fact as though that makes it so... such arrogance.

I suggest reading this site. But you know you won't. Because your conclusion is already preordained. You have too much of your entire life invested in believing in supernaturalism.

there is some evidence for, there is some evidence against... we really don't know. that's the truth that should be taught in school.

Ah, the final weapon of the creationists. If they can find any question, now matter how small, that doesn't have a rock-solid answer, then they loudly proclaim that "HA! YOU SEE?? YOU SEE?? NO ONE KNOWS FOR SURE!!" Any open questions means that every theory is equally valid. It's akin to saying, "Since the Earth's horizon makes it look like a flat disk, therefore, the flat Earth theory is just as valid as the round Earth theory."

Well, every theory ISN'T equally valid. First of all, there is ZERO -- ZERO -- evidence against evolution. ZERO. There are certainly open questions about how certain things may have evolved, but that means there is a neutral question, not that it's "evidence against" evolution. So you have a Mount Everest of evidence for evolution, a large number of open questions (just the diversity of life and genetics means we're going to have a lot of open questions), zero evidence against evolution, and absolutely ZERO evidence that supports creationism. And, just to top it off, we have an entire planet-sized volume of evidence against the Earth being only 10,000 years old.

THAT is the carved-on-stone-tablet (if you'll pardon the expression) truth. If there really is a God (there isn't, but let's say), he must be constantly slapping his hand against his forehead screaming, "The bible is full of allegory, you idiots! What, do you think I could've explained physics to the damn barbarians?? Will you people use the brains I gave you, already?? It's a SOCIAL book, not a freaking science book!!"

Unfortunately, you (like most of the populace) fail to grasp the definition of science.

What you describe is not science but experiment. And as I seriously doubt that it would be possible for any intelligent species to conduct any experiment that last over a 1000 years (unless individuals of said species live for significantly long lifespans to reduce the number of interim generations to a manageable number). This is not a possible experiment.

However we've done multiple experiments with worms, fruit flies and bacteria (aka. lesser species) that not only display evolution, but show speciation (cite: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). So evolution is a fact, unless you contend that humans are not governed by the biological rules affecting all other known lifeforms. The only scientific argument left involves the process of speciation, primarily the theoretical aspects.

Science is not experiment. Science is the process we use to understand how the universe works (why is left to the theologians). Science is looking at observable phenomenon, and then making our best guess as to how it happened, then looking at more phenomena, running some experiments implied by our guess and seeing if we're wrong. We can never truly know if we are right, just that we are not wrong. (weird, huh?)

Anyway, I admire your faith. Just not your reasoning.

...doesn't mention a lick of the phrase "intelligent design" and even uses the word "scientific" a couple of times. I really think the gist of this is simply to be able to keep an open mind about ANY theory about life's origins, including evolution, in the sense that it is dangerous in a general sense to enforce something like "The only way we will allow teachers to discuss [some topic] is via [some theory]".

If any of them even breathe the "design" word, you can always send them to pages like this. ;)

Populations can split and don't always go in the same direction. There's many niches and ways to be successful at living. That's why you'll find a bird with a medium sized beak might be a common ancestor of short-beaked and long-beaked birds (and perhaps no medium-beaked birds). Somewhere there's a common ancestor of monkeys and men - and that common ancestor had progeny taking many forms that are successful (and, assumably, many that have disappeared). Imagine a giant tree showing possible descendants of a species. Now cut out the parts that include animals that aren't successful in procreating (or were just unlucky). What's left is what we have, and can include whatever worked - however diverse that is.

Here's a good article talking about intermediate forms here, of which there are a number of clear examples. You have to understand, though, that the fossil record is not complete - and it's only chance that we find some things and not others in it. It takes a series of fortunate events for an animal to be fossilized and for us to find it.

I'm not saying these arguments are unreasonable, but I don't think they're terribly strong. Similarly, one could find arguments against plate tectonics - the Earth's surface is tremendously complex and I'm sure there's many features that are puzzling. But we don't have debates about this (and nobody bothers to "debunk" plate tectonics in their classroom) because it's not tied to a political/religious issue.

I hear the same concerns and misconceptions about evolution quite a bit. To me, that's evidence evolution - whether it's being taught as "theory" or "fact" - is not being taught well. If people spent a quarter as much time learning about the theory as they do debating it, the debate could take place on a much better level.

What you call "normal time" is gravity time.

Tree rings, such as those from the Bristle Cone Pines in the White Mountains of California measure time by the yearly seasonal cycle, as clocked by gravity. The oldest of these has about 6000 such rings.

atomic time MEASUREMENT is still slowing down

So in gravity time the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

What you call "normal time" is gravity time.

Tree rings, such as those from the Bristle Cone Pines in the White Mountains of California measure time by the yearly seasonal cycle, as clocked by gravity. The oldest of these has about 6000 such rings.

atomic time MEASUREMENT is still slowing down

So in gravity time the earth is less than 10,000 years old.

Humphreys is a crank, and nobody outside the echo chamber of creationist websites takes this stuff seriously. The wikipedia article on him is fairly hopeless, but a reasonable short summary of the problems with his "theory" is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE412.html

b/c you haven't defined what you mean by "evolution," i don't know if your statement is accurate or not. i assume you mean micro- and macro-evolution, in which case you are wrong, imho.

micro-evolution is an observed fact, as far as i'm concerned. it has been tested, it can be replicated, it is rational and there is an abundance of direct evidence to support it. everything is great so far.

macro-evolution, on the other hand, has many gaping holes so big you could drive a slashdot car analogy through them.

Macroevolution is an observed fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html . Also see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html .

perhaps the single biggest hole in macro-evolutionary theory, which i've never heard discussed in public, is that, if true, it strongly suggests a 100% extinction rate of 100% of all transitional entities that led to the species that we observe today

I don't think it does at all. I don't see why.

b/c you haven't defined what you mean by "evolution," i don't know if your statement is accurate or not. i assume you mean micro- and macro-evolution, in which case you are wrong, imho.

micro-evolution is an observed fact, as far as i'm concerned. it has been tested, it can be replicated, it is rational and there is an abundance of direct evidence to support it. everything is great so far.

macro-evolution, on the other hand, has many gaping holes so big you could drive a slashdot car analogy through them.

Macroevolution is an observed fact: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB910.html . Also see http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html .

perhaps the single biggest hole in macro-evolutionary theory, which i've never heard discussed in public, is that, if true, it strongly suggests a 100% extinction rate of 100% of all transitional entities that led to the species that we observe today

I don't think it does at all. I don't see why.

You don't seem to understand or grasp the concept. And that's ok, ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance (aka stupidity) is a different story. Please don't be stupid. Learn what evolution actually posits before you dismiss it as the strawman you think it is.

I hate to trot it out over and over as eventually it will just get dismissed as "evolution rhetoric", but the Talkorigins.org website is a very comprehensive, well-citationed resource on the facts of evolutionary theory. The Index to Creationists' Claims is my favorite as it debunks all the usual arguments right there in a nice, organized manner, complete with citations. Here's a few examples, specific to the arguments you brought up:

If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?

Transitional fossils are lacking.

You don't seem to understand or grasp the concept. And that's ok, ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance (aka stupidity) is a different story. Please don't be stupid. Learn what evolution actually posits before you dismiss it as the strawman you think it is.

I hate to trot it out over and over as eventually it will just get dismissed as "evolution rhetoric", but the Talkorigins.org website is a very comprehensive, well-citationed resource on the facts of evolutionary theory. The Index to Creationists' Claims is my favorite as it debunks all the usual arguments right there in a nice, organized manner, complete with citations. Here's a few examples, specific to the arguments you brought up:

If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?

Transitional fossils are lacking.

You don't seem to understand or grasp the concept. And that's ok, ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance (aka stupidity) is a different story. Please don't be stupid. Learn what evolution actually posits before you dismiss it as the strawman you think it is.

I hate to trot it out over and over as eventually it will just get dismissed as "evolution rhetoric", but the Talkorigins.org website is a very comprehensive, well-citationed resource on the facts of evolutionary theory. The Index to Creationists' Claims is my favorite as it debunks all the usual arguments right there in a nice, organized manner, complete with citations. Here's a few examples, specific to the arguments you brought up:

If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?

Transitional fossils are lacking.

You don't seem to understand or grasp the concept. And that's ok, ignorance can be overcome. Willful ignorance (aka stupidity) is a different story. Please don't be stupid. Learn what evolution actually posits before you dismiss it as the strawman you think it is.

I hate to trot it out over and over as eventually it will just get dismissed as "evolution rhetoric", but the Talkorigins.org website is a very comprehensive, well-citationed resource on the facts of evolutionary theory. The Index to Creationists' Claims is my favorite as it debunks all the usual arguments right there in a nice, organized manner, complete with citations. Here's a few examples, specific to the arguments you brought up:

If we are descended from apes, why are there still apes around?

Transitional fossils are lacking.

And, as others in this thread have pointed out, it is actually not that strong, even if it were true.

The geologic evidence I mentioned is controversial in my mind, but I have not yet seen an explanation for the abundance of comets, which have a relatively fast decay rate as they crash into things.

You should have a look at this list of Young Earth Creationist arguments. As you can see, Mr. Hovind's arguments are based on misinformation, misunderstandings, lies and straw men. Hovind is, in fact, not a "Dr." at all. His title is fake. He is a religious fundamentalist, not a scientist. He has no scientific background or education what so ever. He even lies about having been a science teacher. This is all well-documented. I think you can find it at TalkOrigins.

And, as others in this thread have pointed out, it is actually not that strong, even if it were true.

The geologic evidence I mentioned is controversial in my mind, but I have not yet seen an explanation for the abundance of comets, which have a relatively fast decay rate as they crash into things.

You should have a look at this list of Young Earth Creationist arguments. As you can see, Mr. Hovind's arguments are based on misinformation, misunderstandings, lies and straw men. Hovind is, in fact, not a "Dr." at all. His title is fake. He is a religious fundamentalist, not a scientist. He has no scientific background or education what so ever. He even lies about having been a science teacher. This is all well-documented. I think you can find it at TalkOrigins.

Comets crash into things quite often, and should be extinct by now if the solar system is millions of years old. The Oort cloud theory suggest that a cloud of matter 50000 AU away is replenishing our supply, but it doesn't provide a plausible mechanism for launching comets out of the cloud and into the inner solar system (at least, from what I have read about it).

This particular creationist claim - just like just about any - has already been debunked: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB621_1.html

I was actually the second study that provided the 6000 number. They did this by measuring the mtDNA mutation directly rather than using using assumed migration dates. As another commenter pointed out in this article http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/mitoeve.html, the "mtDNA" evidence is not as damaging to evolution at it appears at first glance.

If I am wrong, it is because I am the victim of bad science, not because I am grasping at any evidence to support my belief system.

The problem with the books on evolution I have read is that they assume evolution is true, and then fit the pieces into that assumption. This is different from books on the other branches of science, which start with the basic experiments, and then introduce the theory to explain them.

For example, any description of relativity begins with important observed facts, like the null result of the Mitchelson-Morley experiment or the reduced rate of decay of particles traveling at relativistic velocities. Only then do they introduce the theory to explain those facts. Every explanation of evolution I have read basically says, "We evolved from lower live forms, and here is how the facts fit into that assumption," which is exactly the opposite approach.

I get the feeling that you are being intentionally dishonest. You use anecdotal evidence to "prove" that evolution is somehow different than other fields in science, but this is not the case at all, as anyone even remotely familiar with science would know.

Whether fact or theory is mentioned first, that does not change the way the facts support the theory. Even if it was true what you claim, that evolution is presented differently from relativity (but not from gravity or electricity), this is merely a red herring, because the facts don't become more or less supporting of the theory in question depending on whether they are mentioned before or after. Again a sign that you are grasping for straws. That you have definitely made up your mind already and are only looking to reinforce your own beliefs.

If this had not been the case, you would have looked up the four false claims you made in your other post, and taken the actual facts into account. You did not, so you are either not willing to actually check the claims that you have found on creationist sites, or you are aware that what you posted had already been refuted, which means that you are being intentionally dishonest.

I cited four examples for creation evidence off the top of my head, but I have read hundreds more.

If you would like to educate yourself, go through your list of "hundreds more" examples, and look them up in this index of creationist claims.

If I am wrong, it is because I am the victim of bad science, not because I am grasping at any evidence to support my belief system.

The problem with the books on evolution I have read is that they assume evolution is true, and then fit the pieces into that assumption. This is different from books on the other branches of science, which start with the basic experiments, and then introduce the theory to explain them.

For example, any description of relativity begins with important observed facts, like the null result of the Mitchelson-Morley experiment or the reduced rate of decay of particles traveling at relativistic velocities. Only then do they introduce the theory to explain those facts. Every explanation of evolution I have read basically says, "We evolved from lower live forms, and here is how the facts fit into that assumption," which is exactly the opposite approach.

I get the feeling that you are being intentionally dishonest. You use anecdotal evidence to "prove" that evolution is somehow different than other fields in science, but this is not the case at all, as anyone even remotely familiar with science would know.

Whether fact or theory is mentioned first, that does not change the way the facts support the theory. Even if it was true what you claim, that evolution is presented differently from relativity (but not from gravity or electricity), this is merely a red herring, because the facts don't become more or less supporting of the theory in question depending on whether they are mentioned before or after. Again a sign that you are grasping for straws. That you have definitely made up your mind already and are only looking to reinforce your own beliefs.

If this had not been the case, you would have looked up the four false claims you made in your other post, and taken the actual facts into account. You did not, so you are either not willing to actually check the claims that you have found on creationist sites, or you are aware that what you posted had already been refuted, which means that you are being intentionally dishonest.

I cited four examples for creation evidence off the top of my head, but I have read hundreds more.

If you would like to educate yourself, go through your list of "hundreds more" examples, and look them up in this index of creationist claims.

Of course there is, but nobody has made a fossil today, from a recently deceased life form. Go ahead, make me a fossil today.

Did you forget what we were talking about? The subject was predictions of evolutionary theory. The theory most certainly does not predict that fossils can be made in a day, so that is pretty ridiculous. The theory does, however, make predictions about the nature of fossils that will be found in the future.

When I study a computer program, I too can make predictions of how this code will likely show up in other, similar programs with the same goals and execution patterns. Same can be said for the DNA code.

Any time anybody makes a major discovery or invention, there is always a crowd of wannabe's saying, "That's nothing; I coulda' thought of that." Only they didn't. Oddly enough, all of the discoveries about DNA code have been made by people who based their investigations on the predictions of evolutionary theory.

So all the evidence shows that the processes that execute the DNA programs follow certain predictable rules, just like the processors in the computer in your computer. The designer of these processors is no more irrational than the the engineers at Intel that designed the x86 in your computer.

They are indeed predictable--if you base your predictions on the idea that changes from species to species are the result of selection for randomly occurring sequence changes in DNA. They don't make sense from any kind of standpoint of rational design. Once again, we have people saying after the fact, "I coulda' predicted that." Only they didn't

Any computer codes express and embody logical or mathematical algorithms. So of course also the codes stored in DNA express algorithms of protein and other molecular synthesis. Computer algorithms and the code that executes them always originate with a human programmer. Why is it so far fetched to theorize that DNA codes and algorithms also come from a higher, non-human programmer?

Wrong again. The computer codes used for genetic algorithms don't mimic algorithms of protein and molecular synthesis--they mimic the processes of evolution by mutation, recombination, and natural selection--the very processes that design advocates claim didn't happen and don't work. It was computer scientists who studied evolution, and predicted, "This should work in the computer, because the evidence shows that it worked in nature" who discovered and validated these genetic algorithms as a tool for design.

Even there, humans mimic nature. Human made virus code also inserts itself into other human generated code

That's not the point. We aren't talking about computer viruses. The point is that the same remnants of ancient viral infection (real viruses, not computer) are found in the same place in DNA of closely related experiments--just as was predicted based upon the theory of common descent.

So what will ducks, platypuses, fish, monkeys and people evolve into next?

Here you misunderstand what prediction means in science. A scientific theory must make testable predictions, but that does not mean that a theory should be able answer any arbitrary question that you pose to it. Statistical theory makes very powerful predictions--reliable enough for casinos to make consistent profits day in and day out--yet they still can't answer the question "If I flip this coin, will it come up heads or tails." Evolution is a statistical process, and just like a casino, the theory of evolution predicts trends and patterns, not individual outcomes.

Has the theory of evolution ever predicted an organism that came into being from some other organism, that we have actually seen occurring today?

There are num

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

In 1950, taxonomist Willi Hennig proposed a method for determining phylogenetic trees based on morphology by classifying organisms according to their shared derived characters, which are called synapomorphies (Hennig 1966). This method, now called cladistics, does not assume genealogical relatedness a priori, since it can be used to classify anything in principle, even things like books, cars, or chairs that are obviously not genealogically related in a biological sense (Kitching et al. 1998, Ch. 1, p. 26; ). Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent. ...

So, let's talk about the evolution of buildings. We can even use the same system ...

Caveats with Phylogenetic Inference

As with any investigational scientific method, certain conditions must hold in order for the results to be reliable. A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny. ...

So, things start to break down if a 3rd party got creative. But that would probably be considered untestable, just like many other theories. Maybe it will be testable at some time in the future ...

-x-x-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Only

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

In 1950, taxonomist Willi Hennig proposed a method for determining phylogenetic trees based on morphology by classifying organisms according to their shared derived characters, which are called synapomorphies (Hennig 1966). This method, now called cladistics, does not assume genealogical relatedness a priori, since it can be used to classify anything in principle, even things like books, cars, or chairs that are obviously not genealogically related in a biological sense (Kitching et al. 1998, Ch. 1, p. 26; ). Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent. ...

So, let's talk about the evolution of buildings. We can even use the same system ...

Caveats with Phylogenetic Inference

As with any investigational scientific method, certain conditions must hold in order for the results to be reliable. A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny. ...

So, things start to break down if a 3rd party got creative. But that would probably be considered untestable, just like many other theories. Maybe it will be testable at some time in the future ...

-x-x-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Only

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

In 1950, taxonomist Willi Hennig proposed a method for determining phylogenetic trees based on morphology by classifying organisms according to their shared derived characters, which are called synapomorphies (Hennig 1966). This method, now called cladistics, does not assume genealogical relatedness a priori, since it can be used to classify anything in principle, even things like books, cars, or chairs that are obviously not genealogically related in a biological sense (Kitching et al. 1998, Ch. 1, p. 26; ). Using firm evolutionary arguments, however, Hennig justified this method as the most appropriate classification technique for estimating evolutionary relationships generated by lineal descent. ...

So, let's talk about the evolution of buildings. We can even use the same system ...

Caveats with Phylogenetic Inference

As with any investigational scientific method, certain conditions must hold in order for the results to be reliable. A common premise of all molecular phylogenetic methods is that genes are transmitted via vertical, lineal inheritance, i.e. from ancestor to descendant. If this premise is violated, gene trees will never recapitulate an organismic phylogeny. ...

So, things start to break down if a 3rd party got creative. But that would probably be considered untestable, just like many other theories. Maybe it will be testable at some time in the future ...

-x-x-

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html

Only

OK, but the only reason biologists have to defend so vehemently is evidenced by the topic of this article and *cough* kansas

also
you're feeding the THEORY trolls. natural selection is a mechanism in evolution, an already semi-well-modeled and definitely well-documented/observed one that can result in craploads of change. You saying that there are other "mechanisms of change" comes across a bit like astrology to me. Yea jupiter could be said to be exerting some sort of force on my brain, but those are hugely outweighed by the baseball bat that just came into contact with my head. Indeed that baseball bat is natural selection.

"have only seen macroevolution in the fossil record".... Well we didnt really see it then did we. Darwin wrote Origin in 1859, thus humans have only been able to TRY to observe and explain it for 100 years. Not that this matters though, posts above have already linked to accepted speciation events within quickly reproducing species. Also if you're talking about common descent, there is a hell of a lot more evidence than just the fossil record.

OK, but the only reason biologists have to defend so vehemently is evidenced by the topic of this article and *cough* kansas

also
you're feeding the THEORY trolls. natural selection is a mechanism in evolution, an already semi-well-modeled and definitely well-documented/observed one that can result in craploads of change. You saying that there are other "mechanisms of change" comes across a bit like astrology to me. Yea jupiter could be said to be exerting some sort of force on my brain, but those are hugely outweighed by the baseball bat that just came into contact with my head. Indeed that baseball bat is natural selection.

"have only seen macroevolution in the fossil record".... Well we didnt really see it then did we. Darwin wrote Origin in 1859, thus humans have only been able to TRY to observe and explain it for 100 years. Not that this matters though, posts above have already linked to accepted speciation events within quickly reproducing species. Also if you're talking about common descent, there is a hell of a lot more evidence than just the fossil record.

> No one has witnessed Macro-Evolution (changes from one species to another).

Perhaps you ought to have a glance at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Mind you if you come back in 10 minutes (or anything less than 2 weeks) we will know you haven't read it. Especially if you post a random link to "Answers in Genesis".

There are "prophets", but they aren't called prophets. There are "sacred books", but they tend to be things like "Principia Mathematica", "Origin of Species", or other such books.

No, these books are not "sacred books of atheism". Please try again.

Firstly, it doesn't follow that an atheist believes either of these things (it seems to be that atheists usually accept logic, mathematics and science, but this isn't part of the definition). Secondly, anything in those books is accepted based on whether it is logical and can be verified to be true - not simply because it is written in that book. I also feel this quote is relevant from http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CG/CG001.html , discussing the myth that Darwin recanted: The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.

atheism was an official state religion

Religions were outlawed, I would like to see a source that they introduced a new religion that was named "atheism"?

Mao's "Little Red Book" certainly fits the role of religious scripture with a near deification of Mao's actions

So? Call it Mao-ism then. You seriously believe that all atheists are communists and accept the teachings of Mao?

I have observed "congregations" of atheists that have come together in terms of organizing a social network for the common good.

Yeah, so do geeks, role-players and swingers. Since when did having a social meet mean anything to do with religion? Just because religion can be social doesn't imply anything social is religious!

Atheism is much broader and deeper than you are implying here, and takes on many different forms.

Which is exactly why it isn't a religion.

Start with http://talkorigins.org/ . You know, to gain knowledge, you have to actually pursue it, rather than sitting around and aping an idiotic position out of sheer ignorance.

You could also try a library.

You are correct in describing facts and theories, but "evolution" can refer to both. This article explains it well I think - Evolution is a Fact and a Theory.

talk.origins is happy to relieve you of this particular doubt.

The second law of thermodynamics states, for any closed system not in equilibrium the entropy over time must increase. Living beings are not closed systems, though, and neither are the abiotic processes that generate organic materials. The entropy in a part of a system can always go down as long as entropy in other parts of the system go up. So, assemblies of molecules in water can lose entropy as long as some other part of the system they interact with (the water they float in, or the air above it) gain enough entropy to offset the loss. The Sun is constantly raining useable energy into the systems on Earth, so there's constantly a temperature differential to drive processes and remove entropy from earthly systems; the entropy doesn't disappear of course, the entropy of the Sun merely goes up covering the balance in the other part of the system, the Earth.

I can't believe this comment has gone this long without an explanation. In good faith I will assume you are not trolling.
There is a lot of good information at Talk origins. In summary, it says "The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease." (Which, I believe, is what you are referencing.) It goes on to say "However, they neglect the fact that life is not a closed system. The sun provides more than enough energy to drive things."

Ed

Care to explain to me precisely what the magnetic fields of Uranus and Neptune have to do with evolution?

Also, helium diffusion shows the earth to be 6000 years old. The levels of helium found by an evolutionist third party sent to an evolution-believing lab were correctly predicted by creationists, because they assumed that 6000 years worth of helium would have been lost.

The ol' helium article.

Helium is a very light atom, and some of the helium in the upper atmosphere can reach escape velocity simply via its temperature. Thermal escape of helium alone is not enough to account for its scarcity in the atmosphere, but helium in the atmosphere also gets ionized and follows the earth's magnetic field lines. When ion outflow is considered, the escape of helium from the atmosphere balances its production from radioactive elements (Lie-Svendsen and Rees 1996).

Rebuttal

How can we take you guys seriously in a scientific setting when you don't even know the basics of what you're talking about?

You'll find more observable evidence that the planets and other "bits" were set in motion at a particular point

chaotic explosion

rocks to become spherical planets, perfectly revolving and orbiting as is needed for the universe to exist as a balanced, functioning universe

which also subsequently allowed for conditions on planet earth to be such as to support life.

Apparently you dogmatically follow the doctrine of the theory of evolution set before you by worldly, deceptive scientists (...) brainwashed

As far as creation scientists can ascertain, is that the fossils exist due to a world wide flood.

Coincedentally, there just happens to be a world wide flood written about in the Bible. Interestingly, it is supported by indigenous cultural groups all over the world. The majority, if not all, have stories passed down through their ancestors of a massive flood.

You may want to jump on you tube and watch a few presentations from Kent Hovind. He has answers to alot of these questions and false claims.

(That's really the only reply that deserves.)

At least then you can consider this issue by looking at both sides of the debate, rather then blindly following writings of misleading men.

Why do so many insist that the natural world, similar to the things we make, was not also conceived by and executed by a great Mind, which we, at this time at least, do not have direct access to?

OK, I couldn't resist one last response: Because Paley thought of that argument over two hundred years ago, and it has been completely discredited many times since then. Again, I urge you to refer to the (vast) amount of populare science literature which is widely available on this subject. A good place to start would be "The Blind Watchmaker" by Richard Dawkins, which will show you precisely why that argument is flawed at its most basic level.

Or this site.

But if you buy any book on how to think logically, then you should be able to spot the flaw for yourself in time.

The myth that there are no atheists in foxholes is very untrue. Atheists are perhaps more likely to survive in a war, as they don't waste time praying when they should be shooting and keeping their mind on the job.

Cheers now!

You might find this page interesting:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/paluxy/tsite.html

Sample:

"Since the above article was published in early 1986 most creationists have largely abandoned the "man track" claims regarding the Taylor Site and most other Paluxy sites. However, in 1987 Carl Baugh and Don Patton began making claims that the Taylor Tracks were dinosaur tracks with human tracks within them. Such claims have been found to be as unsupported by the evidence as the original "man track" claims, and are reviewed in my article 'Retracking Those Incredible Man Tracks.'"