Slashdot Mirror

That is an assumption that is very likely false. For everyone with good eyes and basic concepts of geometry it always was obvious that earth is anything but flat.

Nooooooooooo. Nice try, but for centuries pretty much everyone believed the Earth to be flat. The bible even makes the claim:

Isaiah 40:22: "He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, and its people are like grasshoppers. He stretches out the heavens like a canopy, and spreads them out like a tent to live in.

Except the Earth is NOT a circle, it's an oblate sphere. A circle is flat, a sphere is not.

‘Within its historical context, therefore, the conception of the “earth” in Gen 1 is most probably that of a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc. In addition the Hebrews were influenced via the patriarchs by Mesopotamian concepts and via Moses and their time in Egypt by Egyptian concepts. It is, therefore, all the more historically probable that the writer and first readers of Gen 1 thought of the earth as a single continent in the shape of a flat circular disc.’
https://www.trueorigin.org/fla...

-

That is a Christian thing. And the Islam took it over from Christianity. No idea how the Jews see it.

Then maybe you should educate yourself. There is no 'Hell' in the Jewish faith.

-

Most other religions don't really distinguish between Heaven or Hell, but have a common afterlife, that probably contain particular good spots (like Walhalla versus Hel - Hel, not hell). Plenty of religions believe in reincarnation or continued life in the memories of the offsprings/successors.

What's your point? So if a lot of people believe in something then it must be true? Are you seriously claiming that it must be true because lots of people believe in it? That's argumentum ad populum, a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it. That's a FAIL. The number of people that believe in something does not indicate whether or not it's true.

-

Do you actually have religion classes in your country? And what do you learn there?

Yes, my country is filled to the brim with all sorts of cranks and simple-minded folk who believe in magical fairy tales, especially the bible. The bible is riddled with errors, so I don't know why anyone would put any stock in it, but people will believe any kind of crazy shit for all sorts of reasons (usually ignorance).

Then there are the people who care very much about worldly "facts" or perhaps "axioms" are the word since they exist without proof only by Holy Scripture, like that the world is 6000 years old, all men come from Adam shaped of mud and Eve shaped from a rib, the earth is the center of the universe and so on. They are hostile to science because science is dangerous to their religion, every time evidence builds that these facts are wrong it threatens their religion as a whole. To them the Bible or Qur'an can't be wrong, where science and religion clash science must yield.

Yes, the Bible is authoritative. But it does not conflict with science, except the science that insists that naturalism is required.

It is claimed that the world is more than 6000 years old. It is essential for the naturalistic world-view that it be older, because if the world is young there is no time for evolution and there must have been a divine creation.

It is claimed that the evidence proves that the world is old. There is a difference between evidence and data. Data is neutral; evidence is data interpreted according to a set of beliefs.

A few years back, someone found unfossilised soft tissues in tyrannosaur bones. Rather than accept that this demonstrated that the bones were not very old, she insisted that somehow the soft tissue must have survived 60 million years. The age of the bones was not allowed to be questioned.

It has been demonstrated that the amount of helium remaining in zircons is consistent with a recent creation and incompatible with an old universe. The same project showed that inconsistencies between different methods of radiometric dating could be accounted for by one or two periods of accelerated radioactive decay which affected alpha and beta emitters differently. (Look up the RATE project.)

People like to say that creationists hate science! In fact, all modern science is founded on the work of creationists; what creationists hate is the "science" that tells stories about what it cannot observe and claims the stories to be scientific proof!

There is so much evidence for a young earth. I can only imagine that the people who speak pejoratively about AiG etc do not actually read the sites, or don't allow themselves to think about what they read.

To a creationist, faith in the bible is founded on the demonstrated faithfulness of God. The resurrection of Jesus proves his claims to be the Son of God and he verifies the scripture as true to the letter. Therefore we can safely trust what the scripture says. It is the atheist/naturalist who has blind faith: that by some unknown means the universe created itself; that the unimaginable complexity of living cells was somehow developed by chance; that the unobserved and unobservable must inevitably have happened.

Try some links:
Evidence for a young earth
Creation-Evolution Headlines
True.Origin Archive
Biblical Geology
RATE project

Too often science is taken at face value simply because many people (who really should know better) think that when a scientist says something, they are saying it through some kind of pure lens of objectivity, so it must be true. Unfortunately as you point out, anthropogenic global warming is yet another example of the tendency of scientists to use unproven science to push an agenda. Another great example which people seem to have forgotten is evolution. This "theory" has immeasurable holes in it, and the scientists who use it to push left wing agendas for things like teaching unquestioned secularism in schools. Unfortunately it seems that the scientists are learning from their previous success with evoltuion and are turning global warming into yet another unfalsifiable tautalogy. In simple terms, ask any scientist who believes in the myth of either evolution or global warming to tell you what evidence would be needed to prove the theory wrong (this is the very basis of science). The resulting blank look on their face will be all you need to know.

Wow. I'm impressed you took the time to rip apart my post line for line. That's good. We need more dissections of errant posts around here.

MODERATORS: Please mod the parent poster down as a troll or offtopic. And mod me down as flamebait or offtopic. I've wasted enough of my own time writing a response. Don't let any more readers waste their time reading any of this garbage.

I certainly hope nobody does that. This kind of discussion is exactly what is needed.

Would you care, shovas, user number 1605685 (my that IS a shiny new user account, isn't it!) to wager a guess as to what I think the real reason was for you posting that meandering soliloquy?

I've made two or three posts now and I've already got someone questioning my user ID. Awesome. I suppose it doesn't count for anything I've been reading here since the 90s? Why join now? I didn't think it was worth it before. I enjoy the site. I read a lot of the discussion. I saw a lot of misinformation on my hot button topics I thought I'd like to weigh into, though, so I thought I'd join after hearing my buddy join up recently too.

And, yes, I'd love to know what you think the real reason is.

Oh really. Do you have any reputable source to back that up? How about even one verifiable, specific number? A single believable example? Surely if you did, as a "staunch supporter of using scientific method", you would have mentioned it.

You know, mostly, I just assume if people wanted info on creation they'd google for "creation", maybe "creation science" if they think nothing of creation relating to science is out there. That's honestly why I didn't link to anything. I guess I'm seeing that most people just don't know about the creation "scene". I call it a scene, I know, but really there is a whole area of people and of study out there surrounding origins. There is so much serious research and data out there.

Without further adieu, Answers in Genesis (quite solid, I think), True.Origin (quite impressive the history between them and Talk.Origins), Institute for Creation Research (can't vouch for them but they've been around), Creation Research, and, I wish I had this in front of me, but a few weeks ago I was reading this dense, dense study on the atmosphere, it's composition, and relating it to young earth concepts.

This is just an example of what I thought most people would do: Google for "creation". Those are the items of interest which I particularly respect or that have a history. There is a whole world of creation science out there just a google away.

Do you have even a basic appreciation for how much information we carry around in our DNA [go.com]?

You are amusingly abrasive. That's ok, I can take it. I have a fuller apprecation than you know, although I'm always willing to learn more. The linked article is interesting and something, as I've read the news over years, I've already thought about (ie. "junk dna" is just our name for something whose purpose we haven't figured out yet).

To answer the first question: it was brought about by one or more mutations. Either you didn't read the article, or you don't understand basic biology ... or both. Your second question is invalid owing to the fact that you didn't know the answer to your first question.

Perhaps you want to read up on genetic mutation. My layman terms for pedant terms aren't really that confusing.

Did a mutation occur in which the genetic material acquired new information? My suggestion is that the mutation we're seeing is a re-expression of existing information.

Oh yeah, I'm stunned alright. Who the Hell invite

I'm with you on that. Evolution has more than one input or constraint. Even in the non-speaking animal world, communication occurs regularly. I find it difficult to surmise that because there is no record, it probably didn't happen. The development of many varied languages does not wholly support a sudden explosion of language, but a long history of developing communication methods. If it had started and caught on like some meme, it would look more or less alike all over the world despite local variations. It just doesn't seem to make sense that language could have arrived any other way than slowly with local variations vastly different from one another.. such as we see in the many languages spoken on the planet now. We see this even in the written word.

When the world was much larger (so to speak) assimilation of other cultures did not happen often or on the scales we see now, creating pockets of population that developed on their own-ish. This causes different needs for communication, and eventually different languages.

From http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

By age four, most humans have developed an ability to communicate through oral language. By age six or seven, most humans can comprehend, as well as express, written thoughts.

In one short sentence, if the ability to speak/hear is innate in the human brain, then to say language only began abruptly 50,000 years ago is to say that the modern human brain really only developed abruptly 50,000 years ago. Forget the 10,000 year barrier some believe. Evolution is capable of many things, but I believe that the modern human brain was basically intact as we know it today before 50,000 years ago.

The paper at ftp://ftp.princeton.edu/pub/harnad/BBS/.WWW/bbs.donald.html also suggests that it's possible that what we think we know may not be true as there seems no direct evidence to support explosive changes in hominids at that 45,000-50,000 point, only fossil evidence of physical changes. It's a good guess, but still a guess. Communication happened from day one, when spoken language we might recognize as such began is nothing but a guess without some evidence of the actual brain structure or perhaps a nice wall painting of someone giving a speech?

Do creationists believe that the National Academy of Scientists is a scam? I'll never understand why evidence, evidence, and more evidence is never enough to prove evolution, the same way the evidence we have supports the theory of gravitation. I guess they are unhappy with the small blocks in it (that they are filling every month with new found physical, visible evidence). At the same time, creationists aren't finding any evidence. They are just trying to morph evidence and quotes in order to disprove evidence for evolution. Gotta love it. Let me know when you find out via science how a world flood can happen, then i'll pay attention. In the meantime, i'll wait until you correct your debunked claims that are on http://www.talkorigins.org/ and actually come up with decent debunking claims on your own supposed true origins site.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-flood.html

http://www.trueorigin.org/arkdefen.asp

You know what made me decide? The lack of imperial evidence for a bunch of parts that the pro-flood people use. They think that all animals were herbivores back then. That's why the animals peacefully reproduced. No evidence needed. They simply make these "fit" statements and it's looked at as fact to some people. craziness. That's just one out of the many reasons why it's not believed as much, thanks to science. I don't even understand why christians get in an argument over this stuff, because with a supernatural god, empirical scientific evidence is no longer needed. Am I right with that one?

And out of the blue, here's a link to an organized debate on the richarddawkins.net forum; the creationist using everything that arminw just stated, and shown that it is all old theories, quick assumptions, and unlinkable evidence.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=10675
An interesting read to say the least. :)

Truly critical analysis of evolution requires a thorough understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, and mathematics at the graduate level or above. There is absolutely no point in saying "some scientists believe organisms evolve over time, and some scientists don't" because it imparts absolutely nothing to a child's education. They have no way to grasp the arguments on both sides, and simply have to trust one side or the other without evidence of which can present the stronger argument.

This perfectly illustrates my viewpoint. Evolution, as it is widely taught in schools, is simply taught to students as fact. Unfortunately, as you stated, the students do not have the graduate level understanding of biology, physics, chemistry, paleontology, or mathematics. They are unable to discern for themselves and, as you stated, simply have to trust one side or the other. Where I disagree with you is that there is "no point in saying 'some scientists believe organisms evolve over time, and some scientists don't'" Because the students can not yet rigorously discern for themselves, they should at least know that it is not fact, and that some scientists disagree.

It would be akin to teaching history by saying "here, read all these personal diaries, anecdotes, pamphlets, and advertisements from a long time ago and try to figure out what was really going on. By the way, we're not going to tell you what the majority of historians think actually happened."

I am not saying that we cannot say what the "majority of historians think actually happened", but on an issue as controversial as evolution, I think that teachers should be allowed to say that there is another viewpoint. That evolution is not certain -- and it isn't! I think that teachers should be allowed to point out that there are many important questions concerning evolution that are unanswered and possibly unanswerable. The thing is, evolution has more holes and unexplained mechanisms than any other field of science that is taught in high school or below (which is what we are talking about here). I know people are going to hate me saying that, so let me give some examples:

(1) The mechanisms necessary for evolution to occur as it is claimed have never been demonstrated. I'm not talking about natural selection or speciation. Those are perfectly good science. They are observable, testable, and repeatable, with predictive power. But we have never observed large changes. We have never observed something like ape to human evolution. And neither is this in the scope of observational science. These alleged changes take millions of years. The claim that speciation and natural selection can be responsible for changes of this magnitude is simply not testable. The fossil record fails to be convincing here as well; see articles here and here. While it is a nice theory, it is simply not supported by data. The problem lies in presuppositions. When an evolution-believing scientist finds a fossil, he asks the question: "How can this be explained in light of evolution?" But this may be the wrong question to ask. I submit that he should instead ask "How can the past be explained in light of this fossil?". The first question tries to make sense of data given a theory, and the second question tries to make sense of a theory given data.
(2) This is related to (1). I fail to see by what mechanism the ordering and increasing of information occurs. This has not been observed. See this paper. It's a bit long, but I would recommend skimming through it.
(3) Evolution as it is taught in schools is almost always coupled with abiogenesis. At the very least, I would request that this be removed from schools. This has never been observed, and any ideas about how it could have happened are

I've taken time to read your post, and I'd appreciate if you'd return the favor by reading an argument to only a small portion of one of your points: the famous moths.

Why is it that the truth is only the truth if it makes someone money. Just because you can't make money by believing what is so obvious to true scientists does not make it false. The world's formation by God and the transformation via the Flood are easily seen if you use a truly open SCIENTIFIC mind. That is, consider all the options and see what the evidence BEST fits. You will quickly see that it is not uniformitarianism and evolution.

You might also check out Answers in Genesis (http://www.answersingenesis.org/), the Institute for Creation Research (http://www.icr.org/), the Creation Research Society (http://www.creationresearch.org/), and True.Origins (http://www.trueorigin.org/). All of these organizations provide resources from scientists credentialed in their fields of study showing how the Bible explains the creation of the world better than uniforitarianism.

David

You believe in macroevolution? Here's 29+ cases against it. http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

Hey thanks for the link I'll take a read

Here's one for you http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp

"Furthermore, if you assume that God has always existed and wasn't himself created, I can equally assume that something, but not a being of any kind, always existed which caused the universe as we know it to come into being."

I agree Out of Nothing comes Nothing. Something had to always have existed out side of the dimension of time and space. What you call it depends on your worldview.

Thanks for the link. Here's a refutation from the Answers In Genesis group: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chap ter5.asp One thing the article points out is that the diagram showing the transition from a land mammal to the first sea-based one fails to show an important point: the two species are RADICALLY different in size. I'll let you read the article, but I will say that in regard to the aforementioned transition, I think it's a bit of a stretch to go from what appears to be a fully functional land animal to a fully functional sea animal! I don't buy it! Why don't these transitional animals die off due to poor ambulatory ability, poor digestion ability, etc., which would be the result if the one were really changing into the other; evolutionists can't answer that one! Here's a much more technical refutation, but I'll admit: I only skimmed it since it goes over my head! http://www.trueorigin.org/whales.asp I believe God created ALL of these transitional forms in order to "fill in" different parts of our ecology, that is, the food chain. We don't know what role each of these animals played, but they all had a purpose. I'd also like to point out that radio-carbon dating is far from perfect. It was used (back in the '50s I believe) to date some lava flows (or some such) to 800 million years old, but it was later discovered from records that they were in fact only decades old. (I think the process relies too heavily on assumptions of the underlying material, where it was found, etc.)

Not that all scientists would label themselves explicitly materialist, but note that it is essentially the view that we can actually make observations and that the explanations of observable phenomena are humanly achievable that lies at the heart of it.

Without trying to repeat myself too much, a materialistic world view isn't necessary for the scientific method to work. In other words, if you have a christian world view for example, the scientific method works because you believe in a sensible order to the universe and to the way things work (which by the way was the original reason why people thought they could understand the universe at all).

Really? The implications of evolution are controversial? Pharmaceutical research and testing, botany, genetic research? These are hardly groundless, unscientific endevours. Or did you mean controversial in some politcal sense?

None of these require the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for how we came to be. They do require an understanding of genetics, chemistry, and other sciences that are completely compatible with the theory of ID. One of the reasons most people don't understand this is because before evolution, scientists thought that fixity of species was law, and other such unproven nonsense. Darwin also thought that the cell was nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, so we move past all that and look at the current theories to judge them, not the past blunders. What I mean by saying that Evolution's implications are controversial is that the Theory of Evolution lends itself to an atheistic world view, because if you can explain how we got here through natural processes, you don't need to invoke a creator except to explain the 'first cause'. ID doesn't attempt to explain the universe supernaturally after that 'first cause' either, it uses the scientific method.

The fact that homologous structures are neither totally different or exactly the same is in fact evidence for natural selection.

Are you sure? Going back to my previous example with cars, most cars have different sized wheels, yet they all have the same purpose. You wouldn't put a human hand on a small lizard, nor would you put a monster truck tire on a bicycle, but you would match the parts with the whole. I don't pretend that this is a perfect analogy, but it should be enough for you to see where I'm coming from.

I have read the article "29 evidences for Macroevolution" already. See This link for a critique of the paper you mentioned above. It clarifies the ID position, because at the heart of the argument, I believe, is a misunderstanding of the difference between evolution as an observable change (the word evolution means change and i have nothing against the word itself) and the Theory of Evolution which accounts for all life being the result of either tiny changes or punctuated equilibrium.

As for speciation, that doesn't pose a problem for ID because of this difference: In ID, there isn't a problem if a bird with existing genetic information and another identical bird go to different regions, their genes become isolated, and their populations become different species as we define species today. However, if we postulate that based on this fact, a bird can add genetic information to the point that it can become, say, a squirrel (through multiple tiny changes over long periods of time), there is just no evidence for this. We have seen mutations occur, where genetic material is added or changed, but not to the point that it is beneficial, and the rate of mutation is always wrong in some way (in bacteria it is too fast, in humans it is too small in studies i've read, yes, i'm generalizing here.)

Here is a good article that explains it better than I did. You can do a search for "speciation".

Note that *no* valid scientific theory is provable

Yeah, I know, I was in a rush

Not that all scientists would label themselves explicitly materialist, but note that it is essentially the view that we can actually make observations and that the explanations of observable phenomena are humanly achievable that lies at the heart of it.

Without trying to repeat myself too much, a materialistic world view isn't necessary for the scientific method to work. In other words, if you have a christian world view for example, the scientific method works because you believe in a sensible order to the universe and to the way things work (which by the way was the original reason why people thought they could understand the universe at all).

Really? The implications of evolution are controversial? Pharmaceutical research and testing, botany, genetic research? These are hardly groundless, unscientific endevours. Or did you mean controversial in some politcal sense?

None of these require the Theory of Evolution as an explanation for how we came to be. They do require an understanding of genetics, chemistry, and other sciences that are completely compatible with the theory of ID. One of the reasons most people don't understand this is because before evolution, scientists thought that fixity of species was law, and other such unproven nonsense. Darwin also thought that the cell was nothing more than a blob of protoplasm, so we move past all that and look at the current theories to judge them, not the past blunders. What I mean by saying that Evolution's implications are controversial is that the Theory of Evolution lends itself to an atheistic world view, because if you can explain how we got here through natural processes, you don't need to invoke a creator except to explain the 'first cause'. ID doesn't attempt to explain the universe supernaturally after that 'first cause' either, it uses the scientific method.

The fact that homologous structures are neither totally different or exactly the same is in fact evidence for natural selection.

Are you sure? Going back to my previous example with cars, most cars have different sized wheels, yet they all have the same purpose. You wouldn't put a human hand on a small lizard, nor would you put a monster truck tire on a bicycle, but you would match the parts with the whole. I don't pretend that this is a perfect analogy, but it should be enough for you to see where I'm coming from.

I have read the article "29 evidences for Macroevolution" already. See This link for a critique of the paper you mentioned above. It clarifies the ID position, because at the heart of the argument, I believe, is a misunderstanding of the difference between evolution as an observable change (the word evolution means change and i have nothing against the word itself) and the Theory of Evolution which accounts for all life being the result of either tiny changes or punctuated equilibrium.

As for speciation, that doesn't pose a problem for ID because of this difference: In ID, there isn't a problem if a bird with existing genetic information and another identical bird go to different regions, their genes become isolated, and their populations become different species as we define species today. However, if we postulate that based on this fact, a bird can add genetic information to the point that it can become, say, a squirrel (through multiple tiny changes over long periods of time), there is just no evidence for this. We have seen mutations occur, where genetic material is added or changed, but not to the point that it is beneficial, and the rate of mutation is always wrong in some way (in bacteria it is too fast, in humans it is too small in studies i've read, yes, i'm generalizing here.)

Here is a good article that explains it better than I did. You can do a search for "speciation".

Note that *no* valid scientific theory is provable

Yeah, I know, I was in a rush

This is itself a religious statement. You make a moral statement ("should not") that is founded on atheistic humanism. You are using your atheistic worldview to condemn my Christian one. You can hardly expect me to be impressed by such double standards.

In reality, there is no legitimate (i.e. testable, repeatable and falsafiable) evidence supporting the existence of god or creationism and the very fact it is impossible to prove (or disprove) god's existence shows that creationism is not science and can't be treated as such.

There is no testable, repeatable evidence of macro-evolution. (Micro-evolution -- that is variation within a kind -- and natural selection are not in dispute.) All you have are many inferences which are needed to support your atheistic worldview and in turn depend upon it. There is no way to test them, because no one has the length of life necessary. There is certainly no way to repeat macro-evolution.

As for falsifiability, one would have thought that the insane violence done to probability by the evolutionary hypotheses would be sufficient, but since evolution is actually a religious dogma, that turns out not to be the case.

On the other hand, ID is founded on the practice of many branches of science, such as archaeology, cryptography, information theory, criminology, and inded the SETI project. All of these assert that it is possible to distinguish the action of intelligence from random events. Why should biology and cosmology be exceptions?

If you don't agree I encourage you try to come up with an verifiable and repeatable experiment which could prove (or disprove) either the existence of god...

The existence of God is the first axiom of the Christian worldview. You do not prove your axioms. By that token, I should require you to prove the truth of atheism. However I can offer a sure way of verifying God's existence. Rethink your life and surrender to him; put your trust in Jesus and you will know him and receive the Holy Spirit from him. That will be all the verification you could desire.

...or the biblical account of creation.

There can be no repeatable experiment to prove an historical event. The debate between creation and evolution is between two historical accounts. All that one can do is to examine the visible evidence in the light of each and see which better fits the data. Our contention is that the data matches the creation account much better than it does the evolutionary one.

There is no debate! There is no scientific evidence for creationism and no legitimate scientists treats creationism as science.

Since you define science to exclude the possibility of creation, that is true -- on your terms. However, that is a stupid way to define science, since it means that one half of the possibilities are excluded from your enquiry. If the right answer lies in the half you have excluded, you will never find it.

One needs only to look at the parent post to notice that the only sources of "evidence" for creation cited are Answers in Genesis and True Origins which are political preasure groups founded with the express purpose of trying to get creationism into public schools and funded by religious groups and are not legitimate or scientific institutions.

True Origins is a personal website. This is explicitly stated in the FAQ, so I must presume you are speaking out of ignorant prejudice or actual malice here. AiG is an avowedly Christian organisation. However, AiG has a strong staff of scientists, qualified in a number of different fields and therefore able to provide informed criticsm of the suppos

Unfortunately, in speaking of the design of the human eye you don't actually understand how it works, any nore than the people you got this idea from. It is indeed true that the nerves go across the front of the retina, and the blood vessels are behind. If it were reversed, the huge blood supply needed to keep the eye operating at peak efficiency would block light to the receptors, whereas the nerves are almost transparent. The blind spot is 15 degrees off the focal point, which means that it has no practical effect on our vision. All design is a compromise between different objectives, and the design of the eye is similarly constrained, but it is as close to perfection as can be achieved.

Here is an interviews with Dr George Marshall, Sir Jules Thorn Lecturer in Ophthalmic Science at the University of Strathclyde, demolishing this particular anti-design idea and here is another by a retired consultant opthalmologist. Both these, incidentally, demonstrate that there are top-class scientists who do not accept Darwinism. They also demonstrate that creationists tend to produce facts whereas evolutionists tend to produce rhetoric.

Arguments about the perfection of design are irrelevant to the Intelligent Design theory, which does not attempt to identify the designer. The fact that something is designed does not necessitate that the design is perfect. If you tried to do it, the result would be a lot worse, wouldn't it? Nevertheless, what you produced would still be designed.

For a Christian, the imperfections in the world are the result of the curse that is on the whole creation as a result of sin. So again, problems in nature are not evidence of bad design but of the curse.

As for vitamin C, we are designed to eat fruit (Gen 1:29) and our present omnivorous diet is a later change (Gen 9). Still, no one suffers scurvy unless for some reason they are deprived of greens, either by misfortune or by poor diet, which is usually the result of ignorance or oppression. So this problem is a result of the curse combined with human actions or misfortune.

Finally, there is a huge amount of supporting evidence for creationism. It is just the same data that evolutionists use to support evolution. However, since your world view excludes God you cannot interpret it correctly. There is no profitable argument between world views; all that can be done is to compare them fully and then decide which makes better sense. That is the reason for presenting both sides of the debate in school and elsewhere.

Do the maths, Broken Ladder, and you'll find that your own belief (that there is no supernatural) is irrational -- so far beyond impossible that even Hubble couldn't pick it out.

You believe crap like Inherit the Wind without checking the background facts, which at every scale from general to detail say the exact opposite to the movie. Your belief is not rational. Read the transcript, so-called skeptic.

You believe the postulates of the High Priest of so-called "science", Richard Dawkins, without troubling to investigate his claims. Every major claim he makes is wrong, and every one has been pounded to death with inconvenient observations time and time again. Your belief is irrational.

You cling blindly to the scale conventionally assigned to the geologic column, blipping over the steadily expanding, overlapping and reversing ranges of the index fossils as "problems which will one day be solved". How do you know? Haven't you just made a statement based on pure faith? Isn't that irrational?

First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.

Quote:
Evolutionist Quote of the Week

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.

For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:

Notice the credentials of the author:
Joseph W. Francis
Associate Professor of Biology
Cedarville College, Ohio

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm

I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.

Scientists speak about evolution:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1 .htm#top

More information about evolution the atheists don't want you to know:

http://evolution-facts.org/

More links:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/

One of my favorites: "The Origin of Language and Communication"
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.

BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.

Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or

First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.

Quote:
Evolutionist Quote of the Week

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.

For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:

Notice the credentials of the author:
Joseph W. Francis
Associate Professor of Biology
Cedarville College, Ohio

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm

I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.

Scientists speak about evolution:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1 .htm#top

More information about evolution the atheists don't want you to know:

http://evolution-facts.org/

More links:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/

One of my favorites: "The Origin of Language and Communication"
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.

BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.

Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or

First I would like to point out that ID is falsifiable just as Evolution is falsifiable; as a matter of fact they are opposites of each other, in other words, if you prove one you disprove the other, this has been stated by many atheists.

Quote:
Evolutionist Quote of the Week

"Christianity has fought, still fights, and will fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus' earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the son of god. Take away the meaning of his death. If Jesus was not the redeemer that died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing."

- G. Richard Bozarth, The Meaning of Evolution, American Atheist, p. 30, Sept. 20, 1979.

For all of you who have not taken the time to actually delve in to the finer points of irreducibly complex systems here is an article that might help:

Notice the credentials of the author:
Joseph W. Francis
Associate Professor of Biology
Cedarville College, Ohio

http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od201/peeringdbb20 1.htm

I believe this man is no different than you or I in that he is in all security doing the best job he can and following the facts as he sees them.

Scientists speak about evolution:

"As by this theory, innumerable transitional forms must have existed. Why do we not find them embedded in the crust of the earth? Why is not all nature in confusion [of halfway species] instead of being, as we see them, well-defined species?"--*Charles Darwin

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/01-evol1 .htm#top

More information about evolution the atheists don't want you to know:

http://evolution-facts.org/

More links:

http://www.icr.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_rh_03.asp
http://www.setterfield.org/simplified.html
http://www.origins.org/
http://www.trueorigin.org/

One of my favorites: "The Origin of Language and Communication"
http://www.trueorigin.org/language01.asp

I understand you will dismiss the authority of these scientists because the day they admit they are a Christian they all of a sudden become blabbering idiots. It reminds me of a friend of mine who teaches hand-to-hand combat to the special forces, he upset his teacher and his teacher demoted him from 7th degree black belt to white belt, like all of a sudden his knowledge was sucked out of him by magic, he is still one of the toughest guys I know, LOL.

BTW - Having a formal education in physics, and three engineering disciplines I was very skeptical when I came across this information. The problem was, as a scientist, I was curious and the more I studied the more I realized these other scientists weren't a bunch of crackpots. These scientists felt so strongly about what they had learned they sacrificed their careers in order to pursue alternate scientific postulations of the given data.

Given limited resources, they have driven discoveries in the field of science that the current university system has totally ignored because of the atheistic agenda. This is the very system that puts boundaries on scientific study based on personal beliefs and the ACLUs control by amending our constitution with Thomas Jefferson's unofficial letters to justify their atheistic position.

I think it is a sad state of affairs when an atheistic or

Janitha,

I am glade you got a good laugh, I deserve it for posting the wrong article, I was in a hurry and posted the wrong one.

Here is the one I ment to post: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp

Hey Paridise Pete you are going to have a field day with this, I posted the wrong article, here is the article: http://www.trueorigin.org/steiger.asp/

check out the early genetic study of fruit flies. Random mutation is clearly documented in these early experiments...

The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. For example, there are no known cases in which antibiotic resistance is the result of new genetic information. An information loss can confer resistance in several ways. New (even helpful, adaptive) traits can come from loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).

Yes, Homeobox mutations in e.g. fruit flies can cause growth of an extra pair of wings, but those wings hindered flying due to a lack of muscles, and would have been eliminated by natural selection. And in any case, that was not a case of new genetic information being generated, but a loss of information.

Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information-- these mechanisms create nothing new. For macro evolution to occur, new genes (e.g. for making feathers on reptiles) would be needed.

Remember, this is not just about C14 decay. This is about the myriad different isotopes used. ...and the fact that they come up with the same answer given the relative half-lifes.

But according to this and other sources, the primary dating method used in dating the fossil bearing geologic column is K-Ar. One method agreeing with itself is nothing exciting. I'd be interested in a demonstration of widespread agreement between all methods within the geologic column.

here's a good reason why from the Creationist point of view things must be "static"

the bible says NOTHING that a wiseman goat-herder would/could have known 2,000 years ago

nothing about biology, germs

maybe you haven't noticed, but the account of creation in the bible LITERALLY/UNEQUIVOCALLY does NOT expound on any long time-scale,

Single organisms aren't of ultimate importance to evolution.

That's why we give up half of our DNA when we mate. The group surviving trumps any single organism within the group surviving.

• The Lottery Principle (don't bet on 1 horse)
  
• Muller's Ratchet (deleterious mutations)
  
• Fisher-Muller Hypothesis (? forgot)
  
• Tangled Bank (Be prepared)
  
• Red Queen (arms race with pathogenes)
  
• The DNA Repair Hypothesis (be fresh)
  

Creationism (or 'intelligent design', if you prefer) is unfalsifiable in part because it relies on an omnipotent creator who is used to explain every scientific question.

Why can't creationists be honest and say, "Evolution is the best scientific theory of how life evolved, but I believe in creation because I believe in God, something science takes no stand on"?

The Center for the Understanding of Origins is an interdisciplinary Center at Kansas State University. The center aims to foster bold and scholarly interdisciplinary research addressing issues of origins, especially the origin of the physical Universe, of the Earth, of Life, of intelligence, and of language.

The Center comprises permanent faculty from the departments of Biology, English, Entomology, History, Geology, Philosophy, and Physics. The Center's faculty are involved in developing general education courses and honors seminars for undergraduates, and a graduate certificate program in the study of origins. The Center sponsors both academic and public speakers, with the aim of transforming the discussion of important origins subjects such as evolution from one of hostile arguments between "experts" and "special interests" to informed debate among citizens.

There's a misconception that the earth is very old, and also that other creatures that existed at the same time as dinosaurs were 'prehistoric' (less developed, bigger, hairier, whatever). Why couldn't a shih-tzu appear the same now as it did 6000 years ago? The fossil record proves this out: the fossil record shows dinosaurs alongside the same creatures that we have today, with no or very little change. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter8.asp - very interesting http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/po lly.asp

A friend of mine who works for ADRA was relaying first-hand reports to me from there. 100% of what you donate to them goes to the front lines, no matter what your religion, or the religion(s) of the disaster victims.

I don't know of any Atheistic organisation which can come close to that. Christian donors just seem to be more generous. Moderate Islam ain't so bad, either, but tends to fatalism.

Madalyn and her grand-daughter (nice girl, used to chat with her on FIDO and our last conversation went unfinished because of that) were murdered by their manager over a matter of a few tens of thousands of $. If that's the leaders, even the "television evilangelists" aren't so bad. I guess it helps to have a future focus.

As an Atheist, you're either responsible for just yourself, or for everybody depending upon your viewpoint. I'm very glad to hear that you're shooting for "everybody" because in practice very few do.

The only logical ground I can see for being an Atheist, as I once was, was if evolution actually worked. But it doesn't and it can't. Reknowned ex-Atheist Antony Flew hasn't quite gone so far as top profess anything resembling Christianity, but to his credit he is following observations to their logical conclusion.

OK, I guess we can let the flamewar rage, now. It's been months since I was modded anything but up anyway. (-:

...the science of a guy who can't even get footy scores right? Tough call.

IPOF, creationists are quite happy to have dinosaurs exist, the YEC variety say roughly 6-10,000 years not 3,000 and it took six days. Go and read their own stuff if you don't believe me.

You'd look like a bit of an ignoramus coming at them with so many misquotes.

This argument is pretty old, and not very impressive. Refer to http://www.trueorigin.org/retina.asp for details. Use some critical thinking. It's really helpful! (this goes for both evolutionists and creationists)

...of those rebuttals, there's quite a few here. Sad, really, that such an old (seldom-updated) site can still so effectively rebut much of t.o's intricate web of self-deception.

You have *got* to be shitting me. You're claiming this article debunks the talk.origins one? It doesn't even cover a tenth of the evidence against a global flood. And what it does cover is all done with hand-waving arguments with little to no cited material for independent study. "Well, Woodmorappe covered that in his book too, but I guess Isaak didn't want to mention it so nya nya nya."

You get an "A" for zealotry, but an "F" for accuracy.

Yes, but the thesits are not trying to prove anything to anyone

Oh really? Then what's this?

Maybe YOU aren't trying to prove it to anyone, but I've had plenty of theists (christians)attempt to prove it to me. Just because you aren't pushing your religion, doesn't mean nobody else is.

Fundamentalists do not adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of Genesis, as they claim.

The Biblical record of the Flood is not treated as 100% literal, even by Creationists. Since a completely literal interpretation is not possible, we must understand the account of the Flood from the view point of Noah, who lived around 5000 BC and had a more limited conception of the Earth than modern Science.

"Were lucky in the sense that were seeing Phobos while its still around," he said.

As opposed to, potentially, other moons that once existed and now have died out?

Our own moon also defies all explanations of science too, including this marvel:

One of the most fascinating sights in the sky is a total eclipse of the sun. This is possible because the moon is almost exactly the same angular size (half a degree) in the sky as the sun--it is both 400 times smaller and 400 times closer than the sun. This looks like design. If the moon had really been receding for billions of years, and man had been around for a tiny fraction of that time, the chances of mankind living at a time so he could observe this precise size matchup would be remote.

from here

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Or would you rather stop link posting, and we look at one example in detail ourselves, rather than hoping on the most recent rebuttal of others?

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

First of all, though the strict theory of evolution is biological only, it also relies on a number of assumptions in other fields without which it would be impossible. For example, we cannot discuss the creation of a palace on a mountain if the mountain itself does not exist. You cannot avoid that - so the questions of geology and other fields in relation to evolution are vitally important.

Secondly, there are a number of creation biologists. But I know your response - this list is small. I know a Christian biologist who has never even thought about creationism. He just accepted evolution because that is what he was taught. I am betting that most biologists today are evolutionists purely because that is what they have been told - and I'm betting that most of them have never considered creation or looked into it. So to me, the numbers of biologists is largely irrelevant. The fact is, there are some creation biologists, and that is significant.

Doing what is right? Give me a break! I would say refuting creationist lies and falsehoods is doing right.

Call a spade a spade. I'm happy for you to refute creationist lies and falsehoods. But I doubt that you are informed enough to recognise them. Do you want to look at any specific area in detail with me and find out who is right? I asked you a question: have you bothered to look past the propaganda of talkorigins and mainstream media to consider whether creationism is right? Or have you always approached it from the angle of "these poor misguided religious zealots, why can't they see the truth?" - or whatever stance it is you take.

And as far as bullying goes, I would say that some creationists attitudes that Christians who accept that the theory of evolution is correct are not real Christians and will burn in hell is far worse than anything that the T.O regulars have done.

We are the Church of God, Creator of the Heavens and the Earth. He has saved us, and called us to judge each other. You as an outsider cannot tell us how we should run our affairs. We listen to Him alone, and He requires us to guard carefully that which He gave us. I personally do not condemn evolutionist christians as unsaved. I do chastise Christians who believe evolution - I give them the benefit of the doubt, that they have not considered what they believe. But once having understood what is truly at stake in the creation evolution controversy, they must ultimately make a choice.

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

Be careful what you assume. This is *exactly* the problem I'm talking about. You talk about how Austin acted deceitfully, or unethically, but you don't even know why they can't date less than 2Ma!! And the answer to that question demonstrates beyond doubt that Austin acted with integrity, and his point was affirmed and strengthened. Do you care why? In fact, this experiment is one of the simplest demonstrations of the complete bankruptcy of evolution, yet so many fail to see. I wonder if thats because one needs a blind attitude in orde

And when you get tired of reading the propaganda on talkorigins (which has some amazingly sloppy writing passed off as scientific), you can also try here instead.

The difference is that when Science learns that it's wrong, it admits it and moves on to try to learn more about the universe.

Which is why it took over fifty years to recognize Piltdown was a fraud? Or why an extinct pig's tooth was ballooned into an entire human population before exposed as wrong? Or why DuBois hid the skulls that exposed his "Java man" to be bogus for decades beneath the floorboards in his house? Science is no more honorable than the individuals in it, and there are shysters and hucksters in all branches of humanity. Sadly, that means there are frauds in science, and will be for as long as there are people in the field.

When the Bible is shown to be wrong, people hold to it doggedly, making excuse after excuse until they're left in exile on the lunatic fringe defending the utterly laughable (Fundamentalists), or they must dilute the "facts" in the Bible so much that what they're left with is practically useless as a religious text describing an almighty Creator(Catholics).

I thank you for making a distinction between Christians and Roman Catholics, that discernment is rare. However you are incorrect that fundamentalists are on the lunatic fringe. There are many respected scientists in the mainstream who are fundamentalists. Many have to hide that however due to persecution and other attitudes of closed-minded individuals.

The rest of your claims are just plain wrong:

No, a rabbit does not chew its cud.

Rabbits do chew their cud, in that they eat again what has passed through their system, by practicing refection. They do eat their food again. Note the claim was not that they have multichambered stomachs, merely that they eat again what they have already eaten. I don't know about you, but a caprophagic animal is a pretty good definition of an unclean animal that I would certainly not find appealing to consume.

Jesus lies quite egregiously to try to save his own skin in the Bible when questioned by the Pharisies.

Accusations such as this without detail are not worth answering. Provide detail and you will be answered.

The Earth is not flat with four corners.

Who said it was flat with four corners? That's your misinterpretation, ignoring literary constructions. The phrase "to the corners of the earth" is still in use today as an expression.

No evidence exists for a worldwide flood between 4,000 and 6,000 years ago, and even less evidence exists that we and all land/air animals came from creatures that rode an ark during that time

Mitochondrial Eve has been shown in secular literature (ever heard of the magazine "Science") to have lived ~6000 years ago. Evidence of the flood here.

The Egyptians, who were meticulous record keepers, made no mention of massive Jewish slave use that was ripped away from them by the coming of Moses. Further, if the Nile had been turned to blood, it would have caused untold destruction upon the entire region that depended upon it for their very survival. We would have learned about it by now, most likely.

Of course the Egyptians removed records of the slave Hebrew population, they are well documented revisionists. Note they don't mention losing battles either; no wonder they wiped out references to the crushing defeat they were handed. Same with the Nile, that large a defeat they would wipe out. And it was not blood for ages as you seem to imply.

Jesus describes his "kingdom" in some detail then goes on to say how not even all of his Apostles would be dead by the time he returned to his glory for all to see... I think it's safe to say that prophecy was full of crap.

If you've been trying to obtain more than a "frown" from scientists on questioning evolution then you'll know about some of the slightly better than normal critiques, like that made by creationist Timothy Wallace countering a representative article written by evolutionist Mark Isaak on the talk.origins website.

Those criticisms were then countered in turn by (open-minded evolutionist) Wayne Duck, and throughout his response you can see his open-minded scientific position quite clearly. Where Wallace makes a point using clear logic, he accepts it, rather than simply rubbishing the criticisms with more rhetoric. Note in particular the final page, in which Duck could not be more clear as to the status of evolution as a scientific theory: ultimately, while the huge weight of supporting evidence for evolution is still entire universes away from being a complete picture, it is believed by scientists to be reliable only because there is currently no other theory that comes anywhere even remotely near to providing as scientifically complete a model with substantiating evidence as does evolution. But, as he says, that could change tomorrow. It's unlikely.

Way to exhort a population by referring to your audience as fools. I applaud your rhetorical skills. A couple of articles you may find enlightening yourself, assuming your mind hasn't already been made up to the point where you might be confused by the facts ...

An email correspondance between Dr. Edward Max and Dr. Lee Spetner.

A couple of newsgroup articles about him as well, the 2nd of which has a number of other links if you're still interested. You'll also notice that Dr. Spetner is comfortable in posting articles on that bastion of scientific credibility, trueorigin.org.

Barry is an Australian scientist as well. He's a long-time supporter of CDK (C decay).

But of course, when an Atheist thinks the matter through instead of simply reporting what he finds, anything which tends to support CDK is quickly binned. CDK offers a neat, simple solution to speed-of-light objections to a recent six-day creation of the world on one hand, and hard limits to the age of the universe on the other.

`Close to infinity' describes the mental oscillations needed to remain an Atheist in the face of a mounting stack of observations indicating the impossibility of your position.

Saying that the existence of Reality confirms the existence of God is a specious argument that bites it's own tail.

I haven't seen anything on Yellowstones forests - but I can well imagine a mechanism that would explain it (like repeated volcanic eruptions that flattened and covered the forests).

one reason is that while he is (supposedly) omniescent, Nature has rules and limitations. The reality I observe follows those rules, not Gods Ten Commandments.

show me a burning bush and I'll look for evidence of matches and starter fluid

Saying that the existence of Reality confirms the existence of God is a specious argument that bites it's own tail.

I haven't seen anything on Yellowstones forests - but I can well imagine a mechanism that would explain it (like repeated volcanic eruptions that flattened and covered the forests).

one reason is that while he is (supposedly) omniescent, Nature has rules and limitations. The reality I observe follows those rules, not Gods Ten Commandments.

show me a burning bush and I'll look for evidence of matches and starter fluid

I have seen no empirical evidence whatsoever, published in an accredited, peer-reviewed scientific journal, which supports any detail of the 'creation of the world' as described in the bible.

On May 19, 1992 Humphreys submitted his article *"Compton scattering and the cosmic microwave background bumps" to the Scientific Correspondence section of the British journal Nature. The editorial staff knew Humphreys was a creationist and didn't want to publish it (even though the article did not contain any glaring creationist implications). The editorial staff didn't even want to send it through official peer review. Six months later Nature published an article by someone else on the same topic, having the same conclusions. Thus, most creationist researchers realize it is simply a waste of time to send journal editors openly creationist articles. To say that a "slight bias" exists on the part of journal editors would be an understatement.

there's a good FAQ on this here A bit heavy on anti-creationist polemic, but it still contains a readable introduction to modern abiogenesis theory.

Try this essay for balance. If you enjoy sarcasm, this one is amusing as well.

I can't resist my own separate dig at this page, it's just asking for it:

Even at 1 chance in 4.29 x 10[E]40, a self-replicator could have turned up surprisingly early. [...] So, if on our prebiotic earth we have a billion peptides growing simultaneously, that reduces the time taken to generate our replicator significantly.

As a GSV I get to choose my own name