|From:||In Love With The Creator|
|Comment:||Dear talkorgins, Why do you make it seem as if CREATION is such a far-fetched Truth? Let me run something by you really quick. Can you HONESTLY believe that every human, every plant and animal all evolved from a ROCK. Im no scientist, but they sounds a bit crazy to me. But pleez, if you must deny the TRUTH, stop trying to bring down other people by trying to "UNCOVER THE TRUTH ABOUT CREATION". Trust me. Youre not helping yourself any. Youll be in my prayers.|
the biologist who claimed that any living thing evolved
from a rock.
This is known as a "strawman argument", if you didn't know. A strawman argument is a misrepresentation of someone's position. The misrepresentation is often a ludicrous misstatement of your opponent's argument. This, of course, is useful when your own position is not well supported. It means you can spend your energy demolishing a ridiculous argument that your debating opponent never proposed, instead of addressing the actual issue at hand.
And, in fact, not only does this argument misrepresent the position of evolution, it turns the creation argument on its head. According to the bible, didn't we come from dust, which, after all, is simply powdered rock?
|Comment:||All evolution arguments seem to be fine, but is the whole creation-evolution debate merely confined to the concept of a specific literalist interpretation of the Judeo-Christian scriputres? Have you any theologians or philosophers of the nigh-endless number of other faiths and belief systems that seem to fit evolution and a creator together, such as, that is how the grand architect of existence works? Do evolutionists respect scriptures at all, in the sense that maybe they contain truths that people back "in the day" would have had no real ability to comprehend in the form of symbols and myth? Can't help but feel that most evolutionary argument is more concerned about promoting an existentialist/psuedo-atheist-sophist viewpoint than it is about detailing a physical model of existence. Or is that just because of a defensive nature against reactionary fundamentalists? As well, has evolution been observed in primitive lifeforms, or is its proof confined to theoretical conclusions stemming from mutation and natural selection? Thank you, and peace.|
|Comment:||oops! Bishop Ussher actually said the earth was created at 8:15 AM on Thursday morning, October 15, 4004 BC. Yes Thursday, not Sunday.|
|Response:||There go all my party arrangements for later this year...|
|Response:||If I am
reading Genesis 1:1 - 13 correctly, the dry land was
separted and called "Earth" on the third day. If so, I
don't see the point of arguing for a Sun-day start because
the Sun didn't get created until the next day. So Sun-day
would be Fria's Day, and Thor's Day would be the Moon's
Day. Except that the Moon (the lesser light) was made the
same day as the Sun. Err, that is unless we confer with
Err. Never mind.
wonderful website full of facts! I love to read the
feedback it most certainly is a hoot. As I read through it,
it seems that there is a lot of comments that sound like
Kent Hovind and I wondered if you guys get flooded with
comments after his talks. I am an engineer with an
aerospace company and was shocked to hear a fellow worker
quote Hovinds work as factual and what was worse was when
presented with the facts about Hovinds lack of credentials
he chose to ignore them. There is most certainly a group
that will never accept the truth and I’ve come to see
these folks as being very weak in their faith or at least
feel that their faith is threatened by the truth.
Having the discussion with my coworker prompted me to visit Mr. Hovinds website and leave a few comments. I was surprised to see that he answered my email but would not discuss any thing that had to do with the debate in writing. He continuously requested that I call him. Eventually his secretary sent a note stating he was going to read my email on his radio show and I should feel honored. My reply was that I had complete faith that Mr. Hovind (at this point she tried to tell me he should be addressed as Dr.) would distort my words and dam me to hell or some other such nonsense. I asked that she tell Mr. Hovind (I noted that a fake degree does not require respect) that I could care less if he read my comments on his radio show.
Having jumped into this debate I am surprised at the lack of common sense people have in this. Here we have entered the 21st century and the faith of millions is threatened by something like evolution! In my humble opinion what we know about the age of the earth or facts that dispel the nonsense of evolution being anything other then the truth are only going to grow and the endless repeating of old outdated material does nothing for the creationist but make him or her look a bit stupid.
Religions around the world help humans live a good life by giving some foundations for being good. But they can also be so distorted by men that the religion becomes a reason to kill or hurt others in the name of “insert the being you want here”. By this reasoning religions can also cause weak-minded persons to regard anything but “the word” as false or untrue. It surprises me (although it should not) that these weak-minded folks use every bit of technology they can and still say that science is wrong about evolution or the creation/age of the earth. When I pointed this out to my neighbor (a fundamentalist creationist) he took the Kent Hovind (he did not know of him however) approach and told me that if I did not believe the bible as factual then I was dammed to a life in hell.
I’ll not ramble on any further but say that I enjoy your site and applaud the work that you guys do!
|Comment:||Thought you may get a kick out of this, it's a blog entry that imagines scientists behaving like political fundamentalists:|
|Comment:||Just a note
to thank you for your diligence in pulling all of this
information together into one place. I find myself trying
to defend my beliefs and point out hypocrisies with my
Christian/Creationist friends. Your site is incredibly
useful in that endeavor as well as serving to inform me
personally in a factual/unbiased way.
The whole argument reminds me of being taught in my unquestioning Christian childhood that certain kinds of music were evil. I've sense learned that these claims were based on mostly untrue evidence and it allowed me to form a scepticism of what the church told me. They only hurt themselves when they take positions that are based on Christian agendas.
I especially appreciate the non-judgemental, noninflamatory tone of your website. Eventually, creationists will find a way to incorporate science and common sense into their beliefs as they've done with other descrepencies over the last few thousand years. I believe these things happen naturally because of honest people like yourselves.
Keep fighting the good fight!
|Comment:||I am a high
school science teacher in the middle of revising my
evolution notes (which I do each year). I stumbled upon
your site a few hours ago looking to expand my evidence
list. I started reading, became engrossed, time flew, and
viola! its 3:00 AM and my notes haven't been touched in
hours. I'm not sure if I should thank you or curse you, so
I guess I'll go with what my momma taught me: Thanks!
Michael T. Dunleavy
of mine says she never has to throw away her exams from
semester to semester. She only has to throw away the answer
Glad you found us!
|Comment:||You all have these facts, but can you yourself proven what can't be proven? You were not there at the beginning of the first undertaking of evolution, so how can you yourselves say that your evedence is infallible?! If you belive that humans are infallible than think of the first airplanes, did they work at first, no. Even the Mars rover had mechanical difficults on mars. So can you truthfully say that all things made by man are infallible, for science can prove to be wrong also.|
satisfying some people.
No, no one claims science is infallible. But if you look at the history of science, you see example after example of science changing its worldview- sometimes dramatically- in the face of new information, or a new way of looking at the world. A favorite example of mine is continental drift: until the 1960's everyone was positive the continents were static. Now Alfred Wegener had proposed CD quite some time before that, but he was ignored, even though ever since accurate maps had been available, people commented on how well South America fit into Africa. People also wondered how the same fossil species were found on those two continents (and other examples abounded). Then, WHAM! A whole new way of looking at the world (literally!) swept through geology and paleontology. By the time I took geology (in the 1970's) it had completely won over the geological infrastructure (although many were still stunned at how quickly it had happened).
So, science IS fallible. But we try to correct our mistakes. Not all institutions can make the same claim, unfortunately.
|Comment:||Did the water from the "flood of noah" dissapear, I have reason to believe it is all around us at this moment. The glaciers and polar icecaps have large quantities of water in them, and what about underground rivers? If there is a God could he not of disperesed the water throughout the earth?|
have done anything. A miracle would handily account for the
appearance of the waters of the Noachian Deluge, the
disappearance of same, and the survival of a huge, leaking,
unpowered barge filled with sick, starving, dehydrated
animals. Another miracle is required to erase all evidence
of a global flood (since no evidence for such has ever been
found) and to arrange all the paleontological and
geological evidence as though a flood had never happened-
since that is how it appears. No one can argue with
However, there is not enough water in all the oceans, all the ice caps, all the underground lakes and aquifers, to cover every speck of land to the depth specified in Genesis.
As a miracle, it is fine. As science, however, it is unsupportable.
you might find interesting about how evolution is taught in
The Standard (St. Catharines) Saturday, April 3, 2004 Page: A1 / FRONT Section: News Byline: Grant LaFleche Source: The Standard
Glaring back at her from where it was scrawled across the page, the words of God struck with the sting of an open-handed slap to the face.
"I couldn't believe it. I was just stunned," Miriam Richards says. "It was totally unexpected."
Richards, an evolutionary biologist at Brock University, asked her third-year students to explain the origins of life on Earth as part of a written exam.
For five students, the answer began with the words, "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth."
"I was so surprised. Here I am teaching a third-year course on *evolution*, and these students were quoting Genesis. It really threw me," she says. "I suppose I should have asked them for the scientific explanations for the origins of life."
That students would use the Bible to answer a question during a science exam was a reminder the argument over the theory of *evolution* is far from over.
Richards isn't the only Brock professor answering questions from students who smell brimstone in the pages of evolutionary textbooks.
"They rarely challenge me in class, but they are out there," says professor Fiona Hunter, who teaches first-year courses on *evolution*. "They e-mail me or visit me after class. But they are challenging *evolution* with biblical arguments."
Still, Hunter is not particularly troubled by the questions and tries to provide answers without insulting a student's religion. What does concern her is the level of ignorance of evolutionary theory among first-year students in the biology program.
"They don't really know. They have a vague notion of a bloody struggle to survive. But that is not *evolution* at all."
Part of the problem, some teachers suggest, is the current high school curriculum that tucks *evolution* in a single Grade 12 course most students will never take.
"I was horrified when I found out how *evolution* was dealt with in the curriculum," Richards says. "Most students will never learn about the theory that is the absolute foundation of everything else in biology."
The virtual absence of *evolution* has prompted Joe Engemann, a Brock University education professor, to launch a provincewide study.
"My question is: Is *evolution* being taught?" says Engemann, a former high school science teacher. "I firmly believe knowledge is power and *evolution* is a key part of our knowledge of how the world works."
Having recently received approval for the study from Brock's ethics council, Engemann hopes to visit Ontario teachers and students when school resumes in September.
"This hasn't been done before. We don't actually know what the situation is yet."
Two years ago, the high school science curriculum was rolled out after the then-ruling Conservatives at Queen's Park had consulted with parent and teacher groups over a period of years.
It is a busy curriculum, and while teachers' groups such as the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation were consulted by the Ministry of Education, many have serious issues with it.
"That there is too much there, too many expectations, so that teachers have to just rush through it, is a common complaint about the curriculum, " says Peter Lipman, director of educational services for OSSTF.
Others, such as Ridley College biology teacher Bob Malyk, question the curriculum's very content.
"I hate the current curriculum," says Malyk. "Things are left out of the biology curriculum that just drive me crazy. I sometimes wonder if they ever consulted a biologist."
While students are introduced to concepts related to *evolution* in parts of the science curriculum -- such as the Big Bang theory or genetics -- it is only taught as a complete subject in one unit in an advanced biology course for students who will take biology in university.
In that respect, the curriculum changed very little from its previous incarnation when high school included Grade 13. Under the old system, *evolution* was only taught in a single course.
"I don't see why the ideas couldn't be introduced earlier, even as far back as in elementary school," says Kerry Farrell, a biology teacher at Holy Cross Secondary School in north St. Catharines. "But right now, the curriculum is so full that it is really hard to see where you could add something."
Malyk says it's a challenge, but it can be done to some degree.
"I cannot avoid *evolution*. In biology, *evolution* is everywhere," Malyk says. "So I slip it in wherever I can. Not as a discussion of the complete theory, but to get the students really thinking about it before they get to the Grade 12 course."
When the government revised the science programs and *evolution* remained isolated to a single unit, there were media reports suggesting the curriculum was designed to avoid trouble.
"Most Ontario students will go all through elementary and high school without being taught about *evolution* because of a new curriculum designed to avoid controversy," says an article from the Ottawa Citizen published in October 2000, shortly after the new curriculum was written.
Queen's Park declined to discuss the issue at the time and the current minister of education, Gerard Kennedy, did not answer repeated requests for an interview from The Standard.
Since the 1859 publication of The Origin of Species, *evolution* has been sparking intense and often highly emotional debates.
Darwin knew it would happen and sat on the idea for years. He might never have published had another naturalist not hit upon the same notion. Faced with the possibility someone else might publish first, Darwin went public. Every copy of The Origin of Species sold out during its first day of sale and a battle between science and religion began that has yet to end.
Part of the reason for the longevity of the debate, says Richards, is that an idea Darwin knew to be dangerous did exactly what its religious detractors said it did -- it created a universe where God wasn't necessary.
"I believe there is no other explanation that is as good as *evolution*, but I don't know that *evolution* is especially comforting," Richards says.
"Survival of the fittest" is the axiom often used to sum up *evolution*, but as Darwin conceived it, the process was more about survival of the best-adapted.
At the genetic level, every individual organism within a species is born slightly different from the rest. Some of these differences, say a resistance to a particular disease, allow some of them to thrive while others do not.
These survivors pass their genes onto the next generation. The process is called "natural selection" and it acts as the engine that drives the evolutionary process, Richards says.
After these small changes build up over millions of years, says Richards, an organism is no longer what it started out as. Enough successive adaptations lead to the emergence of a new species.
Species may look totally different, but their genetics can show common roots, says Malyk, who points to similarities between humans and chimpanzees.
"People get upset because they think Darwin said man came from monkeys and if God created man in his own image, does that mean God is a monkey?" says Malyk. "What Darwin said is that man and apes came from a common ancestor."
Some 98 per cent of genetic material is shared between humans and chimps.
"Over the last 12 months, there has been a move to reclassify chimpanzees and put them in the genus 'homo,' " the same classification that applies to humans, Malyk says.
For Malyk, Darwin provides the explanation for how life works. But it's not a universally shared feeling.
"What Darwin did was to make atheism fashionable," says Richard Fangrad, chief executive officer of Answers in Genesis, a Waterloo-based faith group that provides churches with material to defend the faith against evolutionary theory. "If you don't want anything to do with God, you still have to explain the world around you. Darwinism lets the atheist do that."
For Fangrad, the Bible provides all the explanation he'll ever need.
Fangrad accepts animals change over time. During the creation, some 6,000 years ago, according to Fangrad, God placed biological templates on Earth that have since developed.
"He put a dog on the earth and over time from those first dogs we get all the different types of dogs we see today," he says. "But a dog is a dog. It will never change into something else."
Evolutionary theory, he says, is based on guesswork that cannot hold water in light of the Bible, which is "the only accurate record of the past we have."
This kind of interpretation of scripture led to fierce debates over *evolution* in America. In 1999, for example, *evolution* was stripped from Kansas high schools. A court ruling brought it back.
Skip Evans, project director of the Oakland-based National Center for Science Education, a grassroots organization that defends the teaching of *evolution*, says creationism was unable to hold its ground in American schools.
"The debate has shifted. First they tried to ban it, but that didn't work. Then they wanted equal time given to creationism in science classes and that didn't work either," Evans says.
Recent challenges in American schools have not come from creationists per se, says Evans, but from a related school of thought called "intelligent design."
This idea says life is so complex it must have a guiding intelligence behind it. The Discovery Institute, a Seattle-based public policy think-tank, and the Ottawa-based Centre of Cultural Renewal, insist the theory is scientifically valid.
In 2001, the Centre for Cultural Renewal, a group dedicated to promoting religion in society, held a symposium to discuss the introduction of intelligent design into Canadian classrooms.
Both groups say God is the guiding intelligence, but the Bible is not an active part of the idea.
The Discovery Institute, a vocal proponent of intelligent design, says the theory is not quite ready for classrooms.
"But there is a growing number of scientists who are questioning Darwinism and we want to see that in the classroom. Teach the evidence for and against *evolution*," says Robert Crowther, the institute's director of communications.
Richards, who regards intelligent design as repackaged creationism, says there has always been debate over evolutionary circles. Darwin himself dedicated a chapter in The Origin of Species to difficulties with his idea.
"Some of them are so serious that to this day I can hardly reflect on them without being in some degree staggered," Darwin wrote. "But to the best of my judgment, the greater number are only apparent, and those that are real are not, I think, fatal to the theory."
Richards says the hot debate among biologists is how the mechanisms of *evolution* work. "Physicists argue over how gravitation works, but no one has provided an alternate theory that can replace gravity," she says. "I can come up with three hypotheses when studying the *evolution* of something, and they might even be contradictory ideas. But it is absolutely clear that *evolution* is at work."
Compared to the U.S., where opponents to *evolution* are well funded and organized, the debate in Canada is almost non-existent. So it puzzles some teachers why *evolution* is treated the way it is in Ontario's curriculum.
At Holy Cross, Farrell says the basic layout of the curriculum that introduces the basics of genetics before discussing the theory of *evolution*, isn't that bad.
"When I talk about *evolution*, I have to discuss genes and the role they play in heredity. So they need to learn about that first," Farrell says.
But unless students take the Grade 12 biology course, they won't be exposed to the theory of *evolution* in school.
*Evolution* shouldn't just be for students who will take biology in university, says Richards. Today's students will be tomorrow's decision-makers.
"There are those that believe *evolution* has ended, that we are not impacted by it anymore. But that isn't the case," she says.
Diseases such as AIDS adapt and change at astonishing rates. Industry is changing the environment and genetic engineering provides powerful tools to manipulate the building blocks of life.
"All of these things could have an evolutionary effect. We are reaching the point where we might be impacting our own *evolution*," she says. "You cannot make decisions if you don't understand the theory." Idnumber: 200404030121 Edition: Final Story Type: News Length: 2029 words Illustration Type: Black & White Photo COLOUR PHOTO Illustration: Photo: Grant LaFleche, The Standard / Ridley College biology teacher Bob Malyk holds the skull of Australopithecus, an early hominid. Photo: Hunter Colour Photo: Denis Cahill, The Standard / Brock University professor Miriam Richards feels high school students should receive more exposure to the theory of *evolution*.
defined as "variation within a species," is as documented
as gravity. Evolution, defined as "one species becoming
another species," is dogmatic tripe. The only people who
believe that species ARISE from naturalistic means are
either indoctrinated dupes or overeducated accomplices to
the piracy of scientific discovery.
There are those who justified slavery from the authority of the Bible. In the same way, there are those who defend spontaneous generation with the smokescreen of unimaginable epochs of time and the authority of science.
If you start from an irrational premise, that is, the universe is a happy accident, you cannot help but arrive at an irrational conclusion: that life itself is a happy accident.
One's hatred for God is not disguised by a "scientific" facade. Why would an honest scientist have no interest in the most fascinating Being in the universe?
Please take a look at the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ before accusing us of dogmatism. Personally, I don't understand how anyone can be so certain speciation is impossible--it's not as if species are firmly defined biologically.
This is not a site that can be characterized as having any "hatred for God". A rather large number of our contributors are theists. Even those few of us who are atheists (like myself) think it silly to be accused of hating god; we simply don't believe that gods exist.
Even as an atheist, though, I do agree with one thing you say: God would be a fascinating object of study, if there were any evidence for him or any way to observe him or his actions. Since we can't, that makes him extremely uninteresting.
|Comment:||Hi, I am a big creationist I'm only is 7th grade and i can give you and your evolution buddies a talk about creation and how your whole evolution theory is dumb. If you really wanted to know you would have to keep asking yourself where everything came from. So have a good day, and remember how dunb evolution is!!!!!|
|From:||Dr. S. Smith|
|Comment:||I am going
to pray with all of my might that you silly evolutionists
see the light and realize that God exists, and you must
believe that everything on Earth was created by Him. The
Bible only has one interpretation. Genesis 1:1 states that
"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."
This only means one thing. God created everything! I guess
the only way you'll be able to see that is when you begin
falling away from the Lord on judgement day. You can't be a
Christian and yet believe in evolution. If you do you are
unfaithful to God. Evolution is a way for Satan to lead
people away from the God that he hates so much. I know that
you probably won't post this on your website, but you
really need to. My wish is for everyone on Earth to have
eternal life with the Lord, and the only way that they can
acchieve that is if they turn away from evolution and
realize that God is our only true Creator. Bless you.
P.S. The only way to start off your Christian life the right way is to go to church!
been part of the debate between evolution and creationism
for about three and a half years, and the Talk.Origins
archive has proven to be an invaluable resource to me on
numerous occasions. However, there are several topics that
I consider important to evolution about which I think it
would be beneficial for your site to provide more
One of them is whether or not mutations are able to create new genetic information. It is a common argument among creationists that they cannot, but there is no definition of “information” by which this claim is true. Someone who posts at Christian Forums by the name of caravelair posted an excellent explanation of the problems with creationists’ argument about this at http://www.christianforums.com/t110746 .
Another topic that I think deserves to be covered here is endogenous retroviruses. You have a few articles that mention them in passing, but they provide such strong evidence for common ancestry that I think they deserve to be covered in much greater detail. There is a nice article about this at Christian Forums by WinAce at http://www.christianforums.com/t96639 .
A third topic is the ancestry of birds. There is a brief description of the similarities in their forelimbs at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section3.html#morphological_parahomology , and your archive has a great deal of information about Archaeopteryx, but the transitional animals between dinosaurs and birds other than Archaeopteryx are not described in much detail. Some of these fossils demonstrate the stages through which feathers evolved before reaching their current form, as well as how the avian wing-stroke and lung system evolved. I find it rather disappointing that at the moment True.Origin has a more thorough description of these animals than your site does.
I am aware of the many mistakes made in the article about this at True.Origin, and I know enough about this topic that I may submit something to you about it at some point in the future. What I am not sure is whether or not I will have time for this—I am currently a full-time college student, and I may be occupied with other things during the summer.
The last topic is not specifically about science, but it is still very significant to evolution. I think it would benefit your site to have some information about Benjamin Breckinridge Warfield, who was both a zoologist and supporter of the theory of evolution, and possibly the most widely-respected Christian theologian of the past 200 years.
This is significant for two reasons. One is that it provides the strongest evidence I know of against the false dichotomy presented by some creationists between evolution and religion. The other is that there is no reason for someone like this to accept evolution except on the basis of the evidence to support it. Certainly it could not have been an alternative to Christianity or a way of attacking it for him, since the majority of his life was devoted to defending the divine authority of the Bible. I provided some more information about him at Christian Forums in this thread: http://www.christianforums.com/t93608 .
I know a fair amount about B. B. Warfield, but I don’t think I know quite enough to write an article for your site about him—the only area for which I think I may be qualified to do that is the origin of birds. I have tried to persuade my father to write something for you about him, since he is fascinated by Warfield and has been studying him for several years, but he has the same limitations on his time that I do.
I hope my suggestions are useful to you. I or my father may submit an article to you at some point about one of these topics if either of us has time for it, but it is my hope that your archive could provide some more information about them even if we don’t. Thank you your informative website, and keep up the good work.
|Comment:||Hey there, I
just found this website and I was wondering if there's any
links / info about scientifically verified correlations
between the Bible and science... any verifiable
need to read the following books:
Dever, William 2001 What Did the Biblical Writers Know & When Did They Know IT?: What Archaeology can tell us about the reality of ancient Israel Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company
Finkelstein, Israel, Neil Silberman 2001 The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology’s New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts New York: The Free Press
I assume that you will want to understand those books, so you will need to read these books first:
Mazar, Amihai 1992 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible: 10,000-586 B.C.E. The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday
Stern, Ephraim 2001 Archaeology of the Land of the Bible, Vol. II: The Asserian, Babylonian and Persian Periods (732-332 B.C.E.) The Anchor Bible Reference Library New York: ABRL/Doubleday
I personally find Dever irritating, but you need to suffer just like I did.
There are dozens of stupid, ill informed and out-right false books published with titles along the lines of 'Bible Confirmed by Science' and 'By Archaeology His Truth Revealed' or 'More Proof of the Bible." You can skip them and save time and money. (Don't worry, none of these are real titles, but you get the idea).
|Comment:||is there anyone here that believea that man wAS CREATED BY GOD BUT knowleged by a higher being|
site has been debunked, your pushing outdated, sloppy
science. This website commits SO MANY fallacies it's sad to
see how blind such intellectual people can be. Your website
and most of the "mainstream" makes me sick, science is
great, but the philosophical dogma you push masquerading it
as science, is filth 150 years of filth and vanity.
Although at the same time it is humorous to watch the
naturalists in their futile struggle to explain and provide
exclusive concrete support for the faith they hold.
Talk.origin is a lot of deception (willingly?) ommitting
important facts that would make all the difference. Your
site is almost as bad as John Stear's Naig
"The Talk.Origins Archive is a collection of articles and essays that explore the creationism/evolution controversy from a mainstream scientific perspective."
And what exactly IS the "mainstream"? Gee, let me guess, those that accept the evolutionary theory.
What a crapsite.
Hmmm. So many assertions, so few facts or examples. Perhaps you could clarify or expand on some of these claims, mention a few specific fallacies, explain what is outdated?
I'm a little confused, too. You say "science is great", but then you complain that you find the sight of "naturalists" struggling to explain to be amusing. Do you know what science is? It is a process of struggling to explain the natural world. This process is documented in the scientific literature where we try to uphold certain standards for evidence, logic, and rigor, and engage in practices such as peer review; that is what we mean by "mainstream". We do not support creationism here because it has glaring deficiences in all of those criteria. I find it hard to reconcile your appreciation of science with your ignorance of what it is.
John Stear's No Answers in Genesis site is well done. We'll aspire to catch up with it.
|Comment:||First timer here (Please, sit down). I am responding to the article by Daniel Harpur called "Was there a war of 1812" I am a Biblical Creationist and believe in explaining where evolution proponents went wrong can be demostrated by the acedeminc pursuits of history and science. In the common man's mind and indeed in the literature of science itself Science equals proven by and after much testing. History equals quantity of data that perhaps brings a persuasive conclusion. Evolutionary biology, geology, cosmology etc are not science but instead history. Intellectual, prestigious, indeed a greater challenge to come to the truth but they still can not claim the authority and prestige of Science. That is why evolution can be challenged by the most intelligent people in the world, Americans with sober confidence. The claims of evolution, right or wrong, will never prevail by saying they are of the Science that heals and entertains us. Even if in a vague way , still the average person understands evolution is not proven and "just a theory". I don't see where I've gone wrong in my reasoning on this point.|
|Comment:||Why in your
article against Dempski do you act so haughtily? He is
trying to undergo logical argumentation, and whether he is
failing or not, you owe him you respect. You do not have
the right to act all proud and puffed up when he
misinterprets your arguments, no matter how often he does.
Just because you can riducule him in front of the many
people who vidit this site doesn't mean you have the right
to ridicule him! When you do this, it just makes you look
like an arrogant Evolutionist. Every Evolutionist I have
met is this way, and it is truly revolting! If you are
trying to convince people your theory holds more weight,
then this is not the way to do it. You may criticize me for
this email, but I frankly don't care. Mr. dempski deserves
your respect, whether he believes what you believe or not.
Please respond if possible. Thanks.
opinion is noted. I will now try to show why the reader's
opinion is not an informed opinion.
Richard Wein's critique of William A. Dembski's "No Free Lunch" includes the folowing text:
One may determine by reference to a very recent post by Dembski ( )that Wein's analysis of the situation is accurate. Criticism is treated in a psycho-socio-political analysis.
In the absence of other evidence, credentials alone can give a presumption that respect should be extended. However, in the case of William Dembski we have a surfeit of evidence concerning the degree of respect that he is willing to extend to others, and especially that which he extends to critics. It will be my contention that critics need not be held to a higher standard than Dr. Dembski has established for his own conduct. That this is demonstrably a low bar is beyond reasonable doubt. Consider just the class of invidious comparisons documented in Dembski's writings and interviews. Consider the abuse of Richard Wein by Dr. Dembski quoted above.
The reader also seems not to distinguish between sharp criticism of arguments and ideas and sharp personal criticism. Wein has a better record in this regard than does Dr. Dembski.
|Comment:||All the talk about Kent Hovind's offer not being valid... sue him and make a public statement! ...Such a lawsuit would make world stage, feasibly make you wealthier, and put down "backward creationists" once and for all ...go ahead the media will sound bite in your favor all the way...Ah nuts, no evidence, that's becoming more clear by the day- with the discovery of DNA complexity and all. ON the other hand consider your eternity, it's a loooooong time (pssssst, by the way, about your mother-she's Not an animal, God made her).|
Errm, what do we sue him for? The fact that Hovind is ignorant and dishonest doesn't really give us grounds for a lawsuit, unless we were to find that he is damaging us.
I am always a little bit annoyed by the creationists who chant "no evidence"...there is plenty of evidence, as you can find well documented on this website. When a creationist says there is no evidence, what he is really doing is declaring that he is uninformed and/or dogmatic.
My mother is an animal, as am I, as are you. I have a very clear idea how she was made, and no deities were necessary in her construction; gastrulation is an impressive process, but no angels are involved.
How does "God made her" support your claim that she is not an animal? Are you trying to imply that animals are not made by God? What are the divine differences between the development of a chimpanzee and a human being, for instance?
|Comment:||Can you tell me something about the claims of Creationist biologist Walter Veith? On a message board, there is a Creationist who is citing his name as an authority, but he won't tell us anything about his specific claims.|
discussed recently on another website:
Basically, Walter Veith was a zoology professor in South Africa. His creationist leanings were not well known until he retired last year. His presentation of biology is better than the average creationist, but when it comes to the cutting edge, he rejects data for biblical "evidenecs."
Oh well, been there, done that. Nothing new to see.
|Comment:||What an absolutely superb site. At present I am embroiled in a Biology degree. The arguments for and against evolution certainly put a smile on this primates face. Chaos and evolution must go hand in hand? Luck and chance also have a part to play in the great scheme of things. I wonder if H.P Lovecraft was a creationist.|
|Comment:||On your article critinism versus evilution, you seem to not want to accept the Christian explanation. Are the cosmos not beautiful? Are supernovae not beautiful? Destructive yes.The stars, they do light the earth, as do the galaxies. The sun is beautiful at rise, noon, and setting. The very fact is that the sun is set up so we get just enough light to be varied, yet not too little or too much. I personally belive the problem you have is, that if God exists than you can live for yourselves, nor can you do what you used to.|
all around. One minor detail:
In the Index of Creationist Claims (one of my favorite resources), item CA111 - Scientists Reject Evolution? makes refernce to Edwards v. Aguillard, the Supreme Court decision striking down the Louisiana Creation Education Act. The case was heard and decided in 1987, not 1986.
|Author of:||Isochron Dating|
findlaw.com, the case was argued December 10, 1986, and
decided June 19, 1987.
However, CA111 references the amicus curiae legal brief of 72 Nobel Laureates (and other organizations) filed on behalf of the appellees, which is dated August 18, 1986. It seems reasonable to reference the amicus brief with a 1986 date, because that is the year it was written and submitted to the Court.
I would suggest that the reference in CA111 probably should not say "Supreme Court Decision," as I don't believe that the amicus brief was released as part of the decision. A reference to the decision should be formatted as the proper legal reference to the case: "Edwards v. Aguillard, 482 U.S. 578 (1987)."
prompted to respond to Philip Calcott's remarks about Tyre
in the February Feedback. Though this might seem to have
little to do with evolution, he provided the opening and
what he said needs to be refuted.
The city of Tyre consisted of two settlements: a settlement on an island just offshore and a settlement on the part of the mainland facing the island. The island part of the city overshadowed the mainland settlement in importance because of its harbors and because it was easily defendable. Moreover, the word translated as Tyre means “rock” in Phoenician, for the city derived its name from the geological nature of the island.
As Ezekiel 26:2 indicates, Ezekiel took umbrage at comments that the inhabitants of Tyre had made about the destruction of Jerusalem, and the thrust of his prophecy was to wish a similar fate upon their city. The remainder of Ezekiel's "prophecy" indicates that Tyre was to be conquered and laid waste by the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar. Nevertheless, it turned out that Ezekiel’s prophecy was false. Nebuchadrezzer’s army failed to conquer Tyre and to lay it to waste. After a thirteen-year siege, a compromise was reached, and Tyre agreed to become a vassal of Babylon. Even Ezekiel himself conceded (in Ezekiel 29:17-18) that his “prophecy” concerning Tyre had failed to be fulfilled.
Two and one-half centuries after Nebuchadrezzar’s failed siege of Tyre, Alexander the Great had his army besiege the city. After a seven-month siege, the city fell to Alexander’s forces. Antigonus, one of his generals, subsequently reduced it. Since, contrary to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the Babylonians under Nebuchadrezzer failed to conquer and sack Tyre, Bible promoters have tried say it was fulfilled by Alexander’s conquest of the island city and its subsequent reduction by Antigonus. However, that necessarily brings about a somewhat perverse conclusion: That is, though the inhabitants of Tyre in Ezekiel’s time brought the wrath of God upon their city for their having spoken ill of Jerusalem, they got off relatively easy, but those who lived in the city two and one-half centuries later were made to suffer for it.
Moreover, soon after the “reduction” of the island city by Antigonus, and contrary to the statements made by promoters of the Bible, both the island city and the mainland settlement were rebuilt. In later years, under Roman rule, Tyre was the capital of the province of Phoenicia and again became a rich commercial center. The island city of Tyre, in fact, has fared quite well despite Ezekiel’s “prophecy” that it would be made “like the top of a rock,” (aluding to the name of the island) and that it would be “built no more” and would “never be found again” after its “destruction” by Nebuchadrezzar. According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, Tyre (what was the original island city, not a supposed city down the coast) has a population of twenty-three thousand (as of 1982); in fact, Tyre is the fourth largest city in Lebanon. The present-day city covers most of the area covered by the original city on the island, though it is an island no longer, as the causeway that Alexander built to conquer the city has silted over to form a peninsula. (The book, "Tyre Through the Ages," by Nina Jidejian, has an aerial photo of Tyre showing the existing city quite well.) Moreover, even the mainland part of the city has had a resurrection of sorts. Contrary to Ezekiel’s prophecy, the remains of the city from the classic period have been “found again” and have been excavated to reveal its avenues and buildings.
There is some related material concerning Ezekiel as a “prophet” of God that the Bible promoters ignore. In the beginning of chapter 29 of his book, Ezekiel prophesied that, though Nebuchadrezzar had failed to make a spoil of Tyre, he would make a spoil of Egypt as a reward for his unfulfilled labor against Tyre, and that Egypt would be totally abandoned for forty years and its inhabitants would be scattered among the nations. Needless to say, this prophecy by Ezekiel was also an utter failure.
That was a very abbreviated refutation of the argument that Tyre proves the veracity of the Bible. It shows that Bible promoters can be just as dishonest in trying to prove the Bible true as they are in trying to prove evolution false.
Sirs: This web link on credentials lists "Don Patton". I have a book by Donald Wesley Patten, "The Biblical Flood and the Ice Epoch". Note the different spelling of his name if this is the same person. Inside jacket = b. Nov. 11, 1929. BA Geography, Univ of Wash. 1951, MA Geography 1962. Book is published by Pacific Meridian Pub. Co., 1966. (Seattle). If this is the same person, you have his name misspelled.
Patton referred to on the Some Questionable
Creationist Credentials page is Donald
R. Patton, not Donald
So no, the name is not misspelled, because they are indeed different people.
|Comment:||This site totally disregards the need of an origin, a beginning and a creator. Without a start their can be NO evolution because there is nothing to start it all rolling. The fact that evolution is a theory revoked by the man who wrote it is VERY significant - it is a theory so unbelievable and fallible that he couldn't believe it. There is no evidence of species changing into different species from the fossil record and because evolution supposedly takes time - how can the evolution of lungs and eyes be explained. It cannot!|
|Response:||Readers are invited to spot the fallacies, errors and mistakes in this comment which are dealt with on this very site. I count ten. Any advances?|
|Response:||With one spelling flame I can go to 12 errors. Our friend has repeated an error that might only count once. We need a referee.|
|Comment:||You ignorant sluts!!!!! Had any of you done any meaningful resarch on either side of the flood debate you would have come to the conclusion that Noah's flood was LOCAL, not world wide. The Hebrew word for earth is "erets". It is used almost 2000 times in the Old Testament to mean region, country or land. The flooding of the Black Sea region from the Medeterranian Sea around 5,000 B.C. could adequately explain the events surrounding the Biblical story of Noah's flood. The reason for varied flood accounts are probably related to the vantage point in which different peoples experienced the event. Those along the periphery would have experienced a different event as opposed to those who were at the center of the storm. CASE CLOSED!!!!!|
|Response:||This site is
not about bible study, but about presentation of the
details of conventional science, for use in the
Many Christians think that the flood account in the bible is describing a local flood, and many Christians, based on their view of the bible, consider it to describe a global flood. Many Christians, particularly academic biblical scholars, consider that the very notion of taking the account as history at all is incorrect.
The primary concern of this site is the erroneous notion that there is some empirical scientific basis for thinking that there was a global flood. This view is held by many creationists and widely promulgated in books, pamphlets and websites. In response to that, we point out the empirical reasons why there was no global flood. The aim is not to discredit the bible. The aim is to discredit erroneous distortions of empirical science; errors which you presumably recognize as well.
You also disagree with those who advocate a global flood, but your argument is based on biblical exegesis, which is not a subject on which this archive has any unified opinion; and for which many contributors have no interest at all.
I do have a personal interest in the bible, however, so I can comment further on my own behalf. What follows here is not an official talkorigins perspective. My own view is that the flood story is not history at all, and matching it up with events in history loses the primary point of the story.
There is a considerable difference between identifying a putative historical local flood from which the story developed, and discerning whether or not the story as told in the bible is intended to speak of a local flood. I think putative historical seeds have little to do with appropriate exegesis.
The meaning of the word "erets" (הָאָרֶץ) is not an adequate basis for resolving the matter. The word appears frequently in the bible, in many contexts and with many shades of meaning. For example, the same word is used in the very first verse of Genesis, where it is certainly intended as universal.
It appears in other contexts, where it is certainly intended as localized.
Proper exegesis must look at context.
The story of Noah actually has some strong parallels with the first chapter of Genesis, quite apart from the fact that both make frequent use of the common word erets. The flood reverses the events of creation to restore the universal chaotic waters. Many scholars recognize the flood as another creation story; in which the earth is re-created. Just as in the first creation, the land is revealed by the receding of water. The story has been taken as denoting a universal flood throughout history. It is only in comparatively recent times, with recognition that the story cannot be historical, that attempts have been made to project back onto the story the insights gained in modern times about events in the past.
However, in doing so the intent of the biblical story is undermined. An important aspect of the first chapter of Genesis, and also of the flood story, is response to polytheistic views of neighbouring cultures. Both stories deliberately present a distinct theology of one supreme God over all creation.
|Comment:||I'm so upset about the content of this web site I don't think I can stand it any more. First, Adam and Eve were not the first humans. They were, however the humans God chose to produce the Messiah. The Bibilal geneaologys of Adam, Noah, and Luke establish the link between the Biblical stories surrounding these geneaologys and the birth of Christ. Yes, the earth is 14 or 15 billion years old. Yes, all species evolve and adapt. Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans. The bible does NOT say that they did. There is signifigant serious scholarship related to the historical events in the Bible, but it doesn't come from the groups you people chose to debate. You need to find serious scholars and read their writings instead. I will NOT give you any clues, if you choose to seek serious scholarship you will do so on your own. I do believe that your intention is to mock and criticize a text that is far too sophisticated for your petty minds. Please respond.|
understand your objection. Most of what you say we would
agree with; except that when it comes to views on the bible
we are very diverse. We recognize that treating Genesis
simply as literally exact history is not credible in the
light of what we know by empirical observations; but beyond
that we have no unified position on how to understand
Genesis. The archive is primarily about science, and the
religious views of contributors are diverse.
We certainly agree with you that the bible does not say dinosaurs coexisted with humans; that is obvious. In refuting people who do claim that dinosaurs and humans coexisted, we are not criticising the bible.
I absolutely agree with you that the people we debate, the "scientific creationists", are not serious or credible scholars of the bible. But what is your point? We aren't here to debate the bible, but to explain conventional science.
Speaking for myself only, I personally do have an interest in serious biblical scholarship; but I don't pursue that interest here, and I don't consider discussion with creationists to have anything to do with serious biblical scholarship. Many contributors to the archive have no interest in biblical scholarship at all. There is nothing wrong with that; after all, people have different interests.
You are most emphatically wrong that out intent is to mock and criticise any text, and you are being rather rude in speaking of our petty minds. Our intent is to explain conventional mainstream science, particularly for people who are mislead on this subject by the material put out by creationists. Do you seriously have any problem with that?
|Comment:||i think that evolution is a load of junk and we should burn all of the documents. all of these things i have said are true and should all the poeple in america eat darwin.|
|Comment:||i have been without the internet for two weeks and im more convinced then ever that the feedback needs to be posted every week. i went almost 2 months without my flat-earth fix and when i get back to the feedback i actually see a reference to the'aquatic ape' theory. WHAT HAVE I MISSED? aquatic apes? isnt this a theory thats been debunked for 20 years? i havent finnished the march feedback but im looking forward to the hovind challenge , see ya|
|Comment:||THE PEOPLE WHO ARE AGAINST EVOLUTION ARE SIMPLY UNEDUCATED BARBARIANS WHO DO NOT UNDERSTAND SCIENCE AND WANT TO PROMOTE THE MYTH OF CREATIONISM. HOW IRONIC IS IT THAT THE CHRISTIANS WHO TAKE SUCH A STRONG STAND AGAINST EVOLUTION AND CALL IT EVIL DO NOT SEE THE TRUTH. THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS IT IS CHRISTIANITY THAT IS EVIL. FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS, REPRESENTED BY BY THE CRUSADES, INQUISTIONS THE DARK AGES - CHRISTIANS KILLED JEWS, THEMSELVES AND MUSLIMS. RESEARCH THE BIBLE AND REFERENCE THE EVIL BLOOD THIRSTY GOD DEPICTED THERE. SO BEFORE YOU CHRISTIANS START GIVING MORALITY LESSONS SEE ALL THE EVIL YOU HAVE DONE TO MANKIND.|
involved in talkorigins include both Christians and
unbelievers. The above rant fails to account for the fact
that most people in Europe at the time were Christians.
There are ample instances of similar evils by those who are
not Christians, including some very dramatic instances in
more recent history.
The problem of intolerance and dehumanizing stereotyping or stigmatising of those who do not share our particular beliefs is indeed a serious one, for all humanity. You undermine your own point by demonstrating that the problem is not confined to Christians.
|Comment:||Why did you not just name this website "Bunch of narrow minded idiots.org"? All that i have received from this website are you taking cracks at the truth because you're to scared to do something useful with your lives. If we all spontaneously came about, why waste your time making a website? Why not go out and party, do drugs, and have fun? Oh wait, anyone wasting their small amount of spontaneously generated time forcing their narrow minded views upon others without equal coverage for both sides HAS to be a loser. My bad. The makers of this website are probably a bunch of loser, outcast, liberal nerds that need to be smacked around. Next make some legit points for your meaningless cause, don't say to be creation vs. evolution either, and don't waste time bashing the truth like I bash your beloved faggot brethren. The truth is out there and will be found, but you are and will remain lost and die and go to eternal damnation. Thank You and have a nice day, faggots!|
|Response:||We get a lot of nasty responses from so-called Christians. This is one of the more extreme.|
|Comment:||I would like to begin by congratulating the author of the article regarding the $250,000 dollars made by Kent Hovind. I am not familiar with the so called “Hovind”, and I must say at first, it would appear to me that he is a fraud. However took the time to write that rebuttal statement is obviously a well educated and well versed person, as I hope this brief remarks show. On the other hand, I do not believe in anything I can not see, and therefore I have to say that before I can choose to believe in the creation theory, or the evolution theory, I would have to see each one demonstrated. That being said, why don’t both sides of the argument, just go out and prove their point scientifically and in public, without any speculations, assumptions, guessing, or anything that would give the other side any room to talk or even say anything. Personally, I believe in the alien theory, and in fact we are nothing but the descendents of aliens who visited the planed some 10,000 years ago, however, that is what I believe, but I can not prove the half of it, because of the lack of empirical (fancy word) evidence. So at the end it is just a belief! If Mr. Hovind believes in the events of the bible, then have him proof them without the shadow of doubt, and for you guys who believe in the evolution theory, then prove them without the shadow of doubt. I do not believe that attacking the other side character is any way to prove one’s theory, don’t you? Cheers! Just my two cents here!|
|Author of:||Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution|
be busy with other things just now. It seems the
IRS thinks he is a fraud, too.
As for proving evolution scientifically and in public, well, I don't know about the public part. The scientific proof exists, but it is cunningly hidden in libraries around the world, on the World Wide Web, at international scientific conferences, and of course in the natural world itself. I probably shouldn't reveal too much of the consp-, um, never mind, but you can get an inkling of the evidence in Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. (Please don't let anyone know I told you.)
|Comment:||I am very angry at you page on Evolution. it contained many grammical errors, but this stood out. "Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world." Please make sure you do not use doulbe negatives.|
In regards to your "turning around the question" I feel it is necessary to point out to you that the story of the prodigal son is a parable, that means it didn't happen. So your turning around the question needs a better example. This parable was written to teach to the people that were listening with "ears to hear" that God was and is willing to accept anyone willing to turn around his or her wrong ways. I hope this message shows you that your skeptical and manipulative and dodging-the-answer ways are morally wrong. God did create the world exactly as the Bible says He did.
extract is from the God and
The point of the answer given to the question is that the bible contains more forms of literature than literal history. The author of the FAQ is a Christian, and he considers that the creation account is not history. You may disagree of course, if you choose. The point is that one cannot reasonably describe an argument on proper exegesis as arguing that the bible is wrong.
|Comment:||I would like
to know who authored your articles, specifically the
FAQ-misconceptions section. Half of the arguments you
present are flawed, senseless, and inaccurate. For example,
Generally speaking, scientific theories differ from scientific laws only in that laws can be expressed more tersely.
A scientific theory has yet to be proven in all trials. A law has passed all tests and will forseeably pass all future tests with flying colors. You say here that a law is simply shorter.
The worst part is that evolution had evidence for a while; but now there are scores and scores and scores of qualified books and scientific evidence to say otherwise.
|Author of:||Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution|
|Response:||I stand by
what I said. Many laws are known not to pass all tests.
Steno's laws about formation and relative ages of
sedimentary layers, for example, are known to have
exceptions. Moore's law, about exponential growth in
computing power, was never expected to apply even as long
as it has. In contrast, the theory of quantum
mechanics has been proved in all trials and, in fact, has
produced some of the most accurate predictions in all of
The scientific evidence against evolution that you refer to simply does not exist. If it did, qualified evolutionary biologists would be presenting it, because overturning evolution would guarantee a scientist fame and fortune. Instead, most evolutionary biologists probably wouldn't know of any of the "scores and scores and scores" of books you talk about. I suspect you are talking about Behe's irrelevancy and Wells' trash. They don't qualify as qualified.
|Comment:||Let me start
by saying that I agree with some of what the creationists
say, if it is true.
I just listened to D. James Kennedy rail against evolution, saying that many atrocities of history have occurred because of a belief in his version of evolution by such people as Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin, and many other evil people.
The way I agree with this statement is that, if that his estimate of this historical evidence is indeed true, then his version of evolution should indeed not be taught. Any science teacher who teaches that because evolution is true life is meaningless or that it's ok to use evolution as permission to hurt anyone should be fired on the spot.
My question, therefore, is this: Do you know of any instance where a science teacher has taught evoution as such?
Also, I wonder if Kennedy would be so quick to point out that evil people have used the Bible, and so called "divine revelation" as permission to hurt people?
Any thing can be molded for good, or twisted for evil. I can use a hammer to build a bird house, or to crack skulls. Does that mean that we should stop teaching shop in our schools?
|Comment:||Did Darwin have a real degree? The answer is NO! Did you know that? He never FININISHED college. That is a fact. Now, are you going to dispose of his credibility because he only had honorary degrees???Of course you're not. When you read his biography they mention his medical and theological studies, but never mentioned he NEVER earned a degree!. I know he took a reading, but don't you think it's quite a jump to call him a Naturalist, to give folks the impression when HE WASN'T???????? There is nothing that he has received, that he earned as a credible scientist! Absolutely NOTHING! You know what? You know it. The augument you jacklegs use to discredit creationist/scientist are the exact same problems Darwin has! Now, boys, want to talk about Stephen Jay Gould's actually documented statements??? How about the former president of Harvard? Fool's folly is harvested by you characters! Hoyle? Newton? Or how about almost every branch of science/founders? Most all were creationist! Like I said, challenge me on evidence! You can be parrots, but you're no eagles! The disciples of evolution are blinded by ignorance and folly! Gould DID NOT have any faith and became disillusioned on the ridiculous theory. Hoyl said, it was NOT credible to be considered a theory! You're creationist. You have got to be. Why? You are the spitting image of your God, Darwin! JB|
mistaken; Darwin graduated with a BA degree from Christ
College, at the University of Cambridge in 1831.
Like other naturalists of his generation, Darwin did not have or require a degree in science. There were no degrees in science at the time; and his studies in medicine and then for the BA gave him an outstanding scientific education by the standards of the day, under some of Britain's most prestigious scientists.
His reports and samples from the voyage of the Beagle gave him, on return to England, a well deserved reputation as a significant researcher and naturalist. He continued to build on that with his subsequent scientific researches and publication. In his own lifetime he was recognized internationally as a great scientist, and received many prizes, medals and awards from the leading scientific bodies throughout Europe.
None of this is the reason for his credibility. They are a consequence of his credibility and stature. The reason Darwin is respected both then and now is his scientific work.
You are also mistaken on Gould. Gould was never disillusioned on evolution, and shortly before his death published the massive The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Quote miners have often sought to misrepresent Gould's view with out of context and misleading quotations; since Gould was very good at recognizing valid problems and issues. If you are going to quote Gould, then one quote should definitely be considered as a caution.
You may like to read the whole essay. The essay is classic Gould, and a good introduction to Gould's approach to these issues throughout his life.
|Comment:||Does evolution bring to mind that there is a higher power with a propose for life? Is life so important to the solar system that it will evolve instead of becoming extinct? Is it what we don’t understand about our own important to the solar system that points to life after death? Do you believe that something that lives forever in space, fell to the earth and evolved and continue to evolve for no reason?|
|Author of:||Evolution and Philosophy|
I think you are confusing science with religious opinion.
|Comment:||Is science believable? First helium had to pool together to make a star for no reason something had to act on it. Physics says that is improbable without God and it happens billions of times. To make planets asteroids had to collide to make heat to make the round shape, given the vastness of space it is improbable and it happens many times. Then a comet had too, of hit the earth to make water but I think they think its make of water because it makes their plan work. Then some substances that when you add water becomes alive, and then it would have to make every kind of plants and animals. Next it would have to survive in an alien environment with no food for no purpose then why is there knowledge. For life to survive they need knowledge so unknown physics for knowledge had too existed which show a purpose for life and not an accident. Evolution if it was true, it would mean that life has a higher purpose that point to life after death not that there is no God. If plants and animals can evolve rather then become extinct which would have happened if it had no purpose. Then that is the proof that life is needed for the solar system to work. But who to say that these human like animals are not their own species that died in the great flood. When you put all these things together it could never happen and some people are gullible enough to believe it because we are here. Without God their plan doesn’t work, or make sense. Why don’t scientists make the links to God because they lose their job there is a separation of church and state so are they free to tell the beginning of the universe? Space bends so that mean it is something nonphysical. So if nonphysical things exist that means that thing like God, souls also exist.|
|Comment:||Sends this a
second time since it was rejected the first due to erronous
Hi! Darwin in his "Origin of species..." complained about the lack of transitional forms in the geological records.
Mr Gould and mr Eldridge do the same (1972)
Why do they claim this to be the fact if it is not?
a number of geological and biological reasons why we should expect
transitional forms to be rare, right after raising the
Drs. Gould and Eldredge in 1972 described two sets of transitional fossils that showed transformations in the mode of "punctuated equilibria". See pages 98-108 of that chapter. Their 1977 paper discussed further examples of transitionals in the PE mode, and also validated a case of phyletic gradualism.
may I speak to someone who will answer my questions? I
would like to talk to someone about Evolution and it's
process. I want to talk to an open minded Evolutionist who
is not biased. I am a Christian, I want to tell you that
right from the beginning. However, I don't want to debate
our different 'views' but rather talk on the facts. If you
could lead me in the right direction I would appreciate it!
God bless you; have a great night. :)
|Response:||For debate, you should go to the talk.origins newsgroup. But before you wade in and start posting, you should read the talk.origins Welcome FAQ, as well as the talk.origins Rules of Engagement.|