Here in Australia, if you walk into a public hospital needing treatment, you will not be turned away. If you walk into a private hospital they will tell you to pay up or fuck off.
The only cost is a bit more tax than there would be otherwise, which I'm happy to pay if it means people are not dying from preventable medical conditions.
Where's the cost to freedom? Would we be more free if the only option for the poor was private health care which they cannot afford?
If we're speaking of the 1980's, how much of these stories of mass murder and millions of people detained in gulags were US government cold-war propaganda?
If you ignore the > 1.5 million US citizens detained in the corporate-run gulags, mass murder of foreign citizens by the military, extreme racial inequality and millions who cannot afford to buy food, maybe US-style capitalism really isn't that bad...
"There are some legitimate scientific objections to macroevolutionary theory"
There is no "macro-evolutionary theory", just the plain standard Theory of Evolution.
That aside though, would you care to name one of these legitimate scientific objections? A link to just one peer-reviewed paper which states these objections would be great. Thanks in advance.
There was an Amiga virus which could survive in RAM for a few minutes with power off. I forget what it was called, but on power on it would laugh at you and refuse to let you boot anything else:)
Even if your standard RAM didn't have any chance of storing recoverable data, I'd bet any spooks worth their salt would do it anyway. There always the chance someone could have substituted in some flash-ram backed 'custom' jobbies.
I've heard that on some makes of car, anti-lock brakes and traction control use identical hardware, just different software, but they still offer them as separate options with big price tags.
I wonder how many people have been seriously injured or killed for lack of either feature when having a bit flipped in the firmware could have saved them.
I am using the term 'darwinism' to be a catch all phrase for, among other things: 1. All life shares a common ancestor 2. Slow, gradual change rather than punctuated equilibrium (therefore a rejection of Gould's 'Hopeful Monster') 3. Naturalism (as opposed to scientific theories that are not naturalistic)
Possibly other things I'm forgetting.
So, you can see fundamental flaws in all that then? If you have devised this concept, it's your problem then isn't it?
I'm currently writing a response to this article, but there are so many mistakes that it is getting quite long. I want to know - if I'm responding, are you interested enough to read my response?
Yes, I will, but I'd much rather hear what argument from the book you find most convincing.
To go back to your original "question", my point has been that while you may be assume readers will mentally insert "(if such problems exist)" on the end of your question, it really should have been stated that way. That's why I can't say yes or no. Given that 'darwinism' is something you have defined on your own, I'll have to say "I don't know, are there any problems? and what is darwinism anyway?"
The AC's have covered the definitions of evolution and the theory of evolution pretty well, nothing I can add to that really. As they said, the theory of evolution is *not* "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", that's the definition of evolution and an observed fact.
So? So, that means that every person on this planet has a reason to be biased about this topic. That's what.
Please explain! Every person? Why?
And just exactly how would any of these discoveries cause Dawkins or Gould to throw up their hands and say "all these years we were wrong, all living things do not share a common ancestor after all!
As the AC said, if you can show evidence of a creature with no common ancestor with all other life on Earth, then the statement "all life on earth shares a common ancestor" is false.
Unfortunately Gould passed away last year. Why are you worried about the hypothetical reaction of Dawkins on the matter? Does the opinion of an authority outweigh the facts?
Funny you should mention that. I know a biologist Christian who is exactly like I just said.
Perhaps he should read this article "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." I'm not saying I agree with all of that by the way, but I'm not here to argue about religion.
Yeah, it might be good, but a really thin coating on fairly thick sheet metal wouldn't make much difference. I think the usual 4 screws into the ATX power supply is as much earthing as you'll ever need too.
I am against Darwinism (see below) whether or not I ascribe to creationism.
So you are using the term 'darwinist' to describe someone who feels that the theory of evolution provides an adequate explanation for the history of life on earth, right?
It may not surprise you to hear that I've already seen that critique.
Have you read it though? There are many others if you don't like that one.
Have you read Johnson's book? The point of his book is that darwinism, by and large, simply isn't about science. Therefore comments on him being a lawyer are entirely irrelevant.
I'm not wasting good money on obviously bogus arguments and dishonest misrepresentations. I have seen enough examples of his illogical arguments and quote mining tactics to see what he is about. How is a lawyer qualified to judge what is and isn't science?
Have you seen this? What does that say about Johnsons motives and impartiality?
If you genuinely want to know what they are, then you can research - but I can't summarise many books worth of information into a small slashdot debate.
I only ask for a short description of one of these fundamental problems, surely that can't be too hard? Or is it completely unreasonable to ask you to outline (one of) the fundamental problems with 'darwinism'?
Both of your questions - if appropriately addressed - warrant a yes or no answer. You did not answer my initial question, but instead changed what it was asking and addressed that. In both instances I addressed your question at hand.
OK then, maybe you will see the problem with this one:
"Should I buy "Darwin on Trial", the Intelligent Designologist manifesto, even though its author is blatantly dishonest and each and every argument he has presented has been totally refuted?"
Yes or no?
According to the scientific definition of evolution I would consider myself an evolutionist.
Great, but what makes you think it has not applied in the past?
What do you consider to be the scientific theory of evolution?
It's a collection of statements about the mechanisms and processes like natural selection by which organisms evolve.
That all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor is just a plain simple fact, not part of the theory.
It has something to say on the fundamentals of life: How we got here, what is the meaning of life, what is right and wrong, etc.
Yes, maybe it does. So?
darwinism is a theory that explains everything but predicts nothing.
There is no theory of darwinism. There is just the cold hard fact that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Not a theory, well supported fact.
Any conceivable data can be made to fit into the theory, so one cannot predict anything with it (except that changes will occur).
No, you are very wrong on that count.
Transitional forms can be predicted, and have been, and there are many ways that common descent can be falsified. Try finding a Permian bird fossil for instance, or a flying horse fossil. Or look for a yet undiscovered species which has a completely unique DNA sequence. Find some land-starfish.
Scientists therefore never really study evolution. They are told its essential points, take it to heart, and then go about doing real science without needing to refer to it much at all.
He doesn't expect they will listen, because there's more than just evidence involved in the person's conversion.
When it comes to science though, evidence is the *only* thing which matters. If you have some valid evidence and don't think they will listen, I'd be more than happy to hand it in for you, a Nobel prize would be way cool.
Would you say that you have more than "just evidence" involved in your 'conversion' to creationism?
"Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson.
Johnson is a lawyer, and argues like one. Science is not a courtroom, and even if it was, he still has no "Exhibit A" to submit to the jury, nor even an expert witness.
Please take the time to read this critique of "Darwin on Trial".
What in the world is your point?
Surely you can see that I was demonstrating the problem with your original question?
"Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"
Wah...? Where did this come from?
1. There is no "darwinist model". 2. Assuming you mean the Theory of Evolution, there are no known fundamental problems. 3. If you are claiming to have some knowledge of one or more fundamental problems, I'd like to know what they are.
See, it's not a yes or no answer now is it?
Also, so that when darwinist posts are made, people realise that there are actually others, within the geek community, that have objections.
I'm not a Darwinist by the way. The term seems to imply a person dedicated to some cause, but the fact is just I happen to agree with current scientific thinking on the origins of life on earth, on the basis that they have actual evidence for it.
Implying that thousands of scientists are incompetent or part of a huge conspiracy to suppress evidence and stamp out opposing views is a far cry from just letting it be known that you disagree with a viewpoint.
Yes, it creates the impression that the way science operates is just as dogmatic and arbitrary as your average religion.
It's the FUD spreading aspect of those sort of statements that annoys me most though. There are many claims of problems with the theory or contradictory evidence being ignored, but ask for details and you get silence, or at best a link to "The Institute for Creation Research".
I'll let the ICR president speak about their impartiality and commitment to science:
Our world, our church, our schools, our society, need the truth of creation more than ever. We see the wrong thinking of evolution having produced devastating results in every realm. Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position, and see creation recognized as a strength by the body of Christ; supporting Scripture, answering questions, satisfying doubts and removing road blocks to the Gospel. The Institute for Creation research Graduate School exists to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith. We are delighted that you are considering honing your skills in creation thinking, and trust that God will lead you. We look forward to hearing from you.
John D. Morris, Ph.D., President Institute for Creation Research
So you have credible evidence then? Why aren't you rushing off to your nearest university biology department?
Your statement: "Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"
I want to hear your claims because you are implying that there actually are fundamental problems.
Should I get modded down for pointing out the many serious problems with Linux?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Come on, yes or no answers please!
You could have outlined one of these fundamental problems in the time it took to write this. If you don't think this is a good medium for discussion, why did you raise the subject? Thanks for responding this time though.
"And what of those religious folks who have genuine scientific objections, and who also would not accept darwinism even if they lost their faith? Are they to be ignored too?"
Anyone who has credible evidence will not be ignored, no matter which cult they do or don't belong to. If they don't have credible evidence to back up their claims, they will be ignored (or laughed at). It's as simple as that.
"Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"
Please go right ahead, I'd really like to hear it.
Actually, given a statement like that, I insist that you back up your claims.
He could just be saying that perhaps evolution could have done a better job for us than it actually has. We've been at it for 3 billion years, and not got a lot to show for it really.
"It doesn't help evolution's status as a scientific theory that every time someone mentions its problems and/or shortcomings, they are subjected to intense social pressure to stop talking about it and conform."
Bullshit. Science doesn't care a bit about the ramblings of a bunch of whacko creationists, or how others like myself respond to it, it's not a bloody democracy you know.
If there is any pressure on you, it's basically a case of "stop talking shit". You can believe whatever weird shit you like, but if you want to try forcing it into public schools or rant about it in a public forum, people will call you on it, and demand evidence for your claims.
Ignoring the current anomolies and counter-examples of evolutionary theory does not help to resolve them, and only tends to make evolution appear to be a bad, or at least sub-par and questionable, field of science.
Would you care to name some of these anomalies and counter examples then? That claim is your stock standard creationist dogma, who's conforming now hey?
We have to share the airwaves just like we have to share roads. As we've found out all through history, you need rules when people have to share something or some assholes will abuse it. Hence, regulations on the airwaves.
Sure, but their problem with the current regulations is that exclusive use of the 'major roads' has been sold to the highest bidder.
You're thinking about what they call 'stupid radio' though. The analogy with the highways illustrates the difference between doling out big chunks of spectrum to various parties, and what can be done with smart (spread spectrum channel hopping etc) radio. They *are* saying that the public should have access to current military and police frequencies, but not in the way you think.
I can tell you exactly why all of those points are not just wrong, but ludicrous.
Don't take my word for it, take a look here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/do nt _use.asp
The people running the icr site are well aware that their claims have been refuted, but they still leave those pages on their site. Is there not something about bearing false witness which they should be aware of? I'm concerned that organisations like that are blatantly misrepresenting facts to so many people.
If you would like to learn more about why all that is wrong, I'll be happy to point you to sites with real information, or groups where you can discuss the issues with experts.
*blush* Now I'm scared to answer. So I'll ask you a question: Have you personally looked into the evidence for an old earth yourself, or are you just parroting the usual darwinist sources?
I don't know of any 'darwinists'. There are plenty of biologists who study evolution, but a geologist would be the proper source to parrot on the age of the earth.
Yes, I have looked for myself. If you're interested, grab a geology textbook from a 2nd hand bookshop, and see some of the evidence for yourself. If you lived anywhere near Sydney Australia I'd be happy to show you some interesting sites so you could literally see some evidence.
Luckily for me, the problems with darwinism are far from just being the problem with evidences for old earth.
If there really was evidence which conflicted with the theory of evolution, it would be modified to suit the evidence, or else abandoned for a different theory which better suited the evidence. That's the way science works.
"And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor."
Care to some of these 'many things' that point to a young earth?
Are you also saying that every piece of evidence for an old earth, has many problems? Have you looked at this evidence yourself, or are you just parroting the usual creationist sources?
"As far as our world goes though - there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is old. And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor."
I think you'll find that if you go to a library and pick up a book on geology or biology, it will describe a great deal of evidence. You can choose to ignore it if you like, but claiming it doesn't exist is flat-out lying.
What about the new species of bacteria which only lives in beer-mats, the mosquito species unique to subways, or the wallabies in Hawaii thought to be a distinct species?
How do you explain the twin nested hierarchy without evolution? What about the many instances of identical viral DNA sequences found in the genomes of different species?
Slashdot Mirror
Here in Australia, if you walk into a public hospital needing treatment, you will not be turned away. If you walk into a private hospital they will tell you to pay up or fuck off.
The only cost is a bit more tax than there would be otherwise, which I'm happy to pay if it means people are not dying from preventable medical conditions.
Where's the cost to freedom? Would we be more free if the only option for the poor was private health care which they cannot afford?
If we're speaking of the 1980's, how much of these stories of mass murder and millions of people detained in gulags were US government cold-war propaganda?
If you ignore the > 1.5 million US citizens detained in the corporate-run gulags, mass murder of foreign citizens by the military, extreme racial inequality and millions who cannot afford to buy food, maybe US-style capitalism really isn't that bad...
If proto-giraffes never tried to feed from tall-ish trees, would they have evolved long necks?
If human ancestors never ever walked upright would they have evolved full-time bipedalism?
Darwin did not propose a 'mutant super-power' type explanation for the appearance of new features, and Lamarck was not 100% wrong.
IMHO Darwin doesn't need a win, the match is over but for the whining and referee bashing from one of the more popular losing teams.
"There are some legitimate scientific objections to macroevolutionary theory"
There is no "macro-evolutionary theory", just the plain standard Theory of Evolution.
That aside though, would you care to name one of these legitimate scientific objections? A link to just one peer-reviewed paper which states these objections would be great. Thanks in advance.
There was an Amiga virus which could survive in RAM for a few minutes with power off. I forget what it was called, but on power on it would laugh at you and refuse to let you boot anything else :)
Even if your standard RAM didn't have any chance of storing recoverable data, I'd bet any spooks worth their salt would do it anyway. There always the chance someone could have substituted in some flash-ram backed 'custom' jobbies.
It would be a good story, except that it happened ~5 million years ago. That event defines the Miocene/Pliocene boundary.
I've heard that on some makes of car, anti-lock brakes and traction control use identical hardware, just different software, but they still offer them as separate options with big price tags.
I wonder how many people have been seriously injured or killed for lack of either feature when having a bit flipped in the firmware could have saved them.
sent 2 seconds ago.
I am using the term 'darwinism' to be a catch all phrase for, among other things:
1. All life shares a common ancestor
2. Slow, gradual change rather than punctuated equilibrium (therefore a rejection of Gould's 'Hopeful Monster')
3. Naturalism (as opposed to scientific theories that are not naturalistic)
Possibly other things I'm forgetting.
So, you can see fundamental flaws in all that then? If you have devised this concept, it's your problem then isn't it?
I'm currently writing a response to this article, but there are so many mistakes that it is getting quite long. I want to know - if I'm responding, are you interested enough to read my response?
Yes, I will, but I'd much rather hear what argument from the book you find most convincing.
To go back to your original "question", my point has been that while you may be assume readers will mentally insert "(if such problems exist)" on the end of your question, it really should have been stated that way. That's why I can't say yes or no. Given that 'darwinism' is something you have defined on your own, I'll have to say "I don't know, are there any problems? and what is darwinism anyway?"
The AC's have covered the definitions of evolution and the theory of evolution pretty well, nothing I can add to that really. As they said, the theory of evolution is *not* "change in allele frequencies in a population over time", that's the definition of evolution and an observed fact.
So? So, that means that every person on this planet has a reason to be biased about this topic. That's what.
Please explain! Every person? Why?
And just exactly how would any of these discoveries cause Dawkins or Gould to throw up their hands and say "all these years we were wrong, all living things do not share a common ancestor after all!
As the AC said, if you can show evidence of a creature with no common ancestor with all other life on Earth, then the statement "all life on earth shares a common ancestor" is false.
Unfortunately Gould passed away last year. Why are you worried about the hypothetical reaction of Dawkins on the matter? Does the opinion of an authority outweigh the facts?
Funny you should mention that. I know a biologist Christian who is exactly like I just said.
Perhaps he should read this article "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution." I'm not saying I agree with all of that by the way, but I'm not here to argue about religion.
Yeah, it might be good, but a really thin coating on fairly thick sheet metal wouldn't make much difference. I think the usual 4 screws into the ATX power supply is as much earthing as you'll ever need too.
I didn't get that really, I mean the case was metal already or it wouldn't plate right?
I am against Darwinism (see below) whether or not I ascribe to creationism.
So you are using the term 'darwinist' to describe someone who feels that the theory of evolution provides an adequate explanation for the history of life on earth, right?
It may not surprise you to hear that I've already seen that critique.
Have you read it though? There are many others if you don't like that one.
Have you read Johnson's book? The point of his book is that darwinism, by and large, simply isn't about science. Therefore comments on him being a lawyer are entirely irrelevant.
I'm not wasting good money on obviously bogus arguments and dishonest misrepresentations. I have seen enough examples of his illogical arguments and quote mining tactics to see what he is about. How is a lawyer qualified to judge what is and isn't science?
Have you seen this? What does that say about Johnsons motives and impartiality?
If you genuinely want to know what they are, then you can research - but I can't summarise many books worth of information into a small slashdot debate.
I only ask for a short description of one of these fundamental problems, surely that can't be too hard? Or is it completely unreasonable to ask you to outline (one of) the fundamental problems with 'darwinism'?
Both of your questions - if appropriately addressed - warrant a yes or no answer. You did not answer my initial question, but instead changed what it was asking and addressed that. In both instances I addressed your question at hand.
OK then, maybe you will see the problem with this one:
"Should I buy "Darwin on Trial", the Intelligent Designologist manifesto, even though its author is blatantly dishonest and each and every argument he has presented has been totally refuted?"
Yes or no?
According to the scientific definition of evolution I would consider myself an evolutionist.
Great, but what makes you think it has not applied in the past?
What do you consider to be the scientific theory of evolution?
It's a collection of statements about the mechanisms and processes like natural selection by which organisms evolve.
That all life on earth evolved from a common ancestor is just a plain simple fact, not part of the theory.
It has something to say on the fundamentals of life: How we got here, what is the meaning of life, what is right and wrong, etc.
Yes, maybe it does. So?
darwinism is a theory that explains everything but predicts nothing.
There is no theory of darwinism. There is just the cold hard fact that life on earth evolved from a common ancestor. Not a theory, well supported fact.
Any conceivable data can be made to fit into the theory, so one cannot predict anything with it (except that changes will occur).
No, you are very wrong on that count.
Transitional forms can be predicted, and have been, and there are many ways that common descent can be falsified. Try finding a Permian bird fossil for instance, or a flying horse fossil. Or look for a yet undiscovered species which has a completely unique DNA sequence. Find some land-starfish.
Scientists therefore never really study evolution. They are told its essential points, take it to heart, and then go about doing real science without needing to refer to it much at all.
Not if your scientist is a biologist.
He doesn't expect they will listen, because there's more than just evidence involved in the person's conversion.
When it comes to science though, evidence is the *only* thing which matters. If you have some valid evidence and don't think they will listen, I'd be more than happy to hand it in for you, a Nobel prize would be way cool.
Would you say that you have more than "just evidence" involved in your 'conversion' to creationism?
"Darwin on Trial" by Phillip E. Johnson.
Johnson is a lawyer, and argues like one. Science is not a courtroom, and even if it was, he still has no "Exhibit A" to submit to the jury, nor even an expert witness.
Please take the time to read this critique of "Darwin on Trial".
What in the world is your point?
Surely you can see that I was demonstrating the problem with your original question?
"Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"
Wah...? Where did this come from?
1. There is no "darwinist model".
2. Assuming you mean the Theory of Evolution, there are no known fundamental problems.
3. If you are claiming to have some knowledge of one or more fundamental problems, I'd like to know what they are.
See, it's not a yes or no answer now is it?
Also, so that when darwinist posts are made, people realise that there are actually others, within the geek community, that have objections.
I'm not a Darwinist by the way. The term seems to imply a person dedicated to some cause, but the fact is just I happen to agree with current scientific thinking on the origins of life on earth, on the basis that they have actual evidence for it.
Implying that thousands of scientists are incompetent or part of a huge conspiracy to suppress evidence and stamp out opposing views is a far cry from just letting it be known that you disagree with a viewpoint.
Yes, it creates the impression that the way science operates is just as dogmatic and arbitrary as your average religion.
It's the FUD spreading aspect of those sort of statements that annoys me most though. There are many claims of problems with the theory or contradictory evidence being ignored, but ask for details and you get silence, or at best a link to "The Institute for Creation Research".
I'll let the ICR president speak about their impartiality and commitment to science:
Our world, our church, our schools, our society, need the truth of creation more than ever. We see the wrong thinking of evolution having produced devastating results in every realm. Our passion at the Institute for Creation Research is to see science return to its rightful God-glorifying position, and see creation recognized as a strength by the body of Christ; supporting Scripture, answering questions, satisfying doubts and removing road blocks to the Gospel. The Institute for Creation research Graduate School exists to train students in scientific research and teaching skills, preparing effective warriors for the faith. We are delighted that you are considering honing your skills in creation thinking, and trust that God will lead you. We look forward to hearing from you.
John D. Morris, Ph.D., President
Institute for Creation Research
So you have credible evidence then? Why aren't you rushing off to your nearest university biology department?
Your statement:
"Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"
I want to hear your claims because you are implying that there actually are fundamental problems.
Should I get modded down for pointing out the many serious problems with Linux?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
Come on, yes or no answers please!
You could have outlined one of these fundamental problems in the time it took to write this. If you don't think this is a good medium for discussion, why did you raise the subject? Thanks for responding this time though.
"And what of those religious folks who have genuine scientific objections, and who also would not accept darwinism even if they lost their faith? Are they to be ignored too?"
Anyone who has credible evidence will not be ignored, no matter which cult they do or don't belong to. If they don't have credible evidence to back up their claims, they will be ignored (or laughed at). It's as simple as that.
"Or is it completely unreasonable for one to outline the fundamental problems with the darwinist model?"
Please go right ahead, I'd really like to hear it.
Actually, given a statement like that, I insist that you back up your claims.
He could just be saying that perhaps evolution could have done a better job for us than it actually has. We've been at it for 3 billion years, and not got a lot to show for it really.
"It doesn't help evolution's status as a scientific theory that every time someone mentions its problems and/or shortcomings, they are subjected to intense social pressure to stop talking about it and conform."
Bullshit. Science doesn't care a bit about the ramblings of a bunch of whacko creationists, or how others like myself respond to it, it's not a bloody democracy you know.
If there is any pressure on you, it's basically a case of "stop talking shit". You can believe whatever weird shit you like, but if you want to try forcing it into public schools or rant about it in a public forum, people will call you on it, and demand evidence for your claims.
Ignoring the current anomolies and counter-examples of evolutionary theory does not help to resolve them, and only tends to make evolution appear to be a bad, or at least sub-par and questionable, field of science.
Would you care to name some of these anomalies and counter examples then? That claim is your stock standard creationist dogma, who's conforming now hey?
We have to share the airwaves just like we have to share roads. As we've found out all through history, you need rules when people have to share something or some assholes will abuse it. Hence, regulations on the airwaves.
Sure, but their problem with the current regulations is that exclusive use of the 'major roads' has been sold to the highest bidder.
You're thinking about what they call 'stupid radio' though. The analogy with the highways illustrates the difference between doling out big chunks of spectrum to various parties, and what can be done with smart (spread spectrum channel hopping etc) radio. They *are* saying that the public should have access to current military and police frequencies, but not in the way you think.
Excellent links, thank you.
o nt _use.asp
I can tell you exactly why all of those points are not just wrong, but ludicrous.
Don't take my word for it, take a look here:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/d
The people running the icr site are well aware that their claims have been refuted, but they still leave those pages on their site. Is there not something about bearing false witness which they should be aware of? I'm concerned that organisations like that are blatantly misrepresenting facts to so many people.
If you would like to learn more about why all that is wrong, I'll be happy to point you to sites with real information, or groups where you can discuss the issues with experts.
*blush* Now I'm scared to answer. So I'll ask you a question: Have you personally looked into the evidence for an old earth yourself, or are you just parroting the usual darwinist sources?
I don't know of any 'darwinists'. There are plenty of biologists who study evolution, but a geologist would be the proper source to parrot on the age of the earth.
Yes, I have looked for myself. If you're interested, grab a geology textbook from a 2nd hand bookshop, and see some of the evidence for yourself. If you lived anywhere near Sydney Australia I'd be happy to show you some interesting sites so you could literally see some evidence.
Luckily for me, the problems with darwinism are far from just being the problem with evidences for old earth.
If there really was evidence which conflicted with the theory of evolution, it would be modified to suit the evidence, or else abandoned for a different theory which better suited the evidence. That's the way science works.
"And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor."
Care to some of these 'many things' that point to a young earth?
Are you also saying that every piece of evidence for an old earth, has many problems? Have you looked at this evidence yourself, or are you just parroting the usual creationist sources?
"As far as our world goes though - there is no conclusive evidence that the earth is old. And there is, especially, no evidence that life evolved from a single common ancestor."
I think you'll find that if you go to a library and pick up a book on geology or biology, it will describe a great deal of evidence. You can choose to ignore it if you like, but claiming it doesn't exist is flat-out lying.
What about the new species of bacteria which only lives in beer-mats, the mosquito species unique to subways, or the wallabies in Hawaii thought to be a distinct species?
How do you explain the twin nested hierarchy without evolution? What about the many instances of identical viral DNA sequences found in the genomes of different species?
Really? Care to describe just one these holes then?
kthxbye