Sagan, an avowed and famous evolutionist, once calculated
the probability of man evolving (via
macroevolutiuon/abiogenesis) at 1 chance in 10 to the 2
billionth power. Likewise, Muncaster (1997) calculated the
probability of an evolutionary start of mankind by
calculating the probability of randomly producing a single
living cell at 1 chance in 10 to the 100 billionth power.
Since Borel's Single Law of Chance states that beyond 1
chance in 10 to the 50th power events never occur, I'd say
that both Sagan and Muncaster proved the chance of life via
evolution to be zero. The only thing that seems to keep
evolving is some different definition of the word
PLAY THE EVOLUTIONIST CIRCULAR REASONING GAME: The rules are simple. Start with an original assumption, liberally add more assumptions, introduce an evolutionary psuedo-scientific opinion, add a flawed "scientific dating system" and end the game (a winner every time) concluding that the original assumption is now a "scientific fact"!!
|Author of:||Isochron Dating|
paragraph was already addressed in the March '98 feeback.
(In fact, it is almost word-for-word identical to the
paragraph entered above. I wonder what source these two
folks were copying from.) The fallacy of the argument is
exposed by the following example: the odds against any
particular ordering of a deck of cards are one in 52
factorial (about 1068).
Since shuffling the deck is required to produce one of
those orderings, and since the probability of any given
ordering is less than one in 1050... do you argue that it is not
possible to shuffle a deck of cards?
However, my main reason for replying is to discuss the second paragraph. It is unfortunate that the writer chose to only make vague allegations about "flawed scientific dating systems." It would be nice if someone would actually bother to show where they are sufficiently flawed to dismiss all of their results. Unfortunately, the only attempts that we ever see here (e.g., the first letter in the April '97 feedback) are easily demonstrated to be entirely false.
|Comment:||I was interested to see in the "serial plagiarism" refutation about Darwin that you don't mention John Langdon-Brooks' ideas on which of Darwin or Wallace came up with the tree simile and diagram for lineage patterns, and the section of Darwin's Principle of Divergence that deals with Extinction of intermediate forms. Does anyone out there find Langdon-Brooks' thesis convincing? Or is everyone lulled back into a sense of security by reading Darwin's 1842 sketch and 1844 essay? Does it matter anyway?|
|Author of:||Darwin's precursors and influences|
entirely unfamiliar with Langdon-Brooks or his thesis - can
you provide more information?
Robert J Richards argues, I think convincingly, that the divergent tree simile that Darwin uses was derived from Karl von Baer, in translation, giving a good reference to Darwin's notebooks and a diagram used by one of von Baer's interpreters.
Does it matter? Yes and no. Darwin was influenced by many people in the development of his theoretical views, which is to be expected. For example, he often cites Alphonse de Candolle who is influential in uncited views on the nature of species and classification. So it is interesting to see what the etiology of Darwin's views are as a matter of historical research, just as it is to find possible influences on Jesus from the Essenes or the Pharisees. Does it affect the value of Darwin's theory? Not in itself.
Once Darwin and Wallace were in contact in the open about evolution, they mutually influenced each other, sometimes for the better, sometimes not. Wallace's rejection of sexual selection was, in my opinion, a mistake. Wallace's contributions over mimesis were great advances. But why those views now prevail have nothing to do with who originated them (which I am sure you are not suggesting anyway).
Darwin clearly understood the importance of extinction long before Wallace put pen to paper, and what the impact that had on the reality and fixity of species. At least, that is my opinion.
|Comment:||Did you know
that "evilutionist" Ybloc Sirhc is a member of the Science
Cancer Cult, headed by Drab J. Nella. Scientists created
cancer when they invented chemicals. That's why you never
heard of anyone dying of cancer until after Scientists came
along. SCC reportedly has the cure for cancer, an
all-natural herb recipe, which was stolen from a well-known
Creationist when he was wrongly jailed for his alleged role
in a scandal involving a former US President. SCC members
will cure themselves after they eliminate everyone else.
Nella's manifesto can be found in the April 22,1996 issue
of "Chemical and Engineering News."
Seriously, this is an excellent site. I am a PhD Chemist who has been fascinated with all areas of science for as long as I can remember (40+ years), and with evolution for most of that time. I am just now learning the language of evolution, and I am not ashamed to admit that I am learning a lot. The theories explaining evolution, speciation and abiogenesis simply "make sense." Never have they interfered with my religious beliefs, and in fact they reinforce them. Thanks for adding to that.
|Comment:||I have just
read Laurence Moran's page on Evolution as a Fact and a
Theory, and I must confess to being a little confused.
In the first place, Mr. Moran seems to be arguing that evolution (which is never actually defined) is true because the majority of biologists agree that it is true. So, the justification for evolution is a majority vote? Interesting, but not surprising. A few years ago, Sir Peter Medewar, Nobel Prize winning immunologist, once wrote an explanation of the proof for evolution that went something like this: "I feel sorry for lay people who must feel very confused when they discover that there are no proofs for evolution in the normal sense. All of the evidence which has been offered as proof of evolution is actually either circumstantial or open to alternative interpretation." So far, so good. I don't think anyone would argue with that statement. But then we come to the punch line: "The proof of evolution is that it must be true because we have no better explanation."
('Course Christians think they have a perfectly good explanation, but that don't count because only people who already believe in evolution are considered "worthy" of being taken seriously. How's that for self-justification!)
Now Sir Peter was no looney. I've put this point to a number of university-based evolutionists and they all agree that this is essentially correct. Indeed, if you read the end of Kenneth Fair's response to the request for a definition of evolution in the April '98 archive you'll find he says much the same thing (please do correct me if I've misinterpreted you, Kenneth).
Actually evolutionists have moved the goalposts so far on this one that it is now impossible to argue against evolution as a fact. That is to say, and I quote a member of the University of Colorado: any change in the alleles in a gene pool of a given population is evolution. On that basis, even a negative, destructive mutation becomes an evolutionary step. Amazing!
Course this means that the definition of evolution is now so trivial that it can't explain anything beyond the species level.
You got to give it to these guys, when they shoot themselves in the foot at least they use a bazooka to make sure they don't miss!
By the way, would the people who answer the feedback like to include their some indication of their scientific credentials. I know Kenneth is studying law, so he's obviously way, way qualified to deal with these questions. How about the rest of you?
Just to get the ball rolling, my degree is in social psychology, and did include two semesters - or terms as we call them in the UK - on evolution and genetics.
post of this nature is perhaps best discussed in the talk.origins newsgroup, I'll
take a stab at your comments, though I'll invite Larry
Moran to correct me or put in his own two cents as he sees
It is true that evolution is not defined in the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ. It is, however, defined in the What is Evolution? FAQ, also by Mr. Moran. It is defined by biologists as any change in the frequency of alleles in a population over time. As we observe genetic change taking place, it is hard to classify it as anything but a fact.
To explain why allele frequencies change, we have theories of evolution. Those theories include mutation and natural selection. They also include common descent, genetic drift, gene flow, and other theories. What you are objecting to, I suspect, is the theory of common descent, the idea that all current life on Earth originates from common ancestry. This is a part of evolution, and an important part, but only a part.
You provide no indication why defining evolution in this manner makes it unable to "explain anything beyond the species level." Indeed, I see no reason for such an assumption. We know that speciation takes place, as we have observed it. Higher taxonomic classifications are man-made conveniences, artificially imposed by us humans. We know that small changes can add up to large changes. No one has yet to propose a reasonable barrier to diversification. I'm not sure what else is required.
I can't judge the quotation you provide, not knowing its context. However, I suspect that Medewar was trying to explain that in science, nothing is 100% proven. In mathematics or logic, statements can be proven true or false given a particular set of initial assumptions and rules for deriving new statements. But in science, proof means much the same thing as it does in law. Evidence is amassed to support or contradict a proposition, and the proposition is "proven" or "disproven" once the weight of the evidence falls one way or the other. Even the most tested and solid theories in science could be wrong, just as the man found holding the smoking pistol over the dead body could be innocent, but at some point we have to say there is enough evidence to accept it as true. (Actually, confirming a major theory in science requires much more evidence than we use to convict people of crimes.) By this meaning of "proof," the theory of evolution, including the theory of common descent, has been proven for over a century.
I'm not sure why you think that the goalposts have been moved. This understanding of evolution has been present since at least the 1930s and 1940s, when Mendelian genetics was fused into evolution during the period of the "Modern Synthesis." If you had the idea that evolution meant something else, okay, but that doesn't mean anyone moved any goalposts.
I'm also not sure who you think should decide whether the theory of evolution is scientifically accurate. If not biologists, then who? Architects? Taxi drivers? Your local greengrocer? Who knows more about genetics, a plumber or a geneticist?
And it's not simply a "majority vote" of biologists. It is peer-reviewed papers containing observations and experimental data. It is the process of cross-checking and rechecking results. It is skepticism applied to new hypotheses. It is an arduous process of investigation. It is not just a group of biologists sitting around saying, "Yep, sounds good to me."
As for what Christians believe, I'm sure the large number of biologists who are devout and practising Christians would be insulted by the implication that they must abandon their faith to accept evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth. This would seem to imply that they must be stupid, gullible, or hypocrites; I'm not sure which is worse.
Mutations in and of themselves are not destructive, beneficial, or neutral. The effect of mutations depends on the remainder of the genome and the environment that the creature bearing that genome is in. A mutation which is harmful in one context may be beneficial in another.
Finally, with regards to qualifications: As I have stated before and as is plain from my postings to talk.origins, I am (currently, though not for much longer) a law student at the University of Chicago. I did at one time, however, study space physics and mathematics at Rice University. I have been posting to talk.origins for several years now, and was asked to help with feedback to this Archive by its maintainer, Brett Vickers. As far as I know, I have just as much (if not more) scientific background as law professor Phillip Johnson does, yet he is considered "qualified" by many creationists to speak about evolution. I only ask for equal consideration.
Most of the FAQs on the Archive were authored by regular contributors to talk.origins. Almost all of them are either graduate students or professors in the field that their FAQ covers. If you are interested in the qualifications of a particular author or feedback respondent, please contact that person using the email address attached to their name on the FAQ or feedback page.
|Comment:||I have run
across many statements to the effect that creationism is
not scientific because no predictions can be made from the
theory. This is total bunk. Therefore I put together a long
post about it then decided instead to make a website page
I have submitted the link to the link site. Feel free to read it and comment. For once, however, try to have an open mind.
It is titled "Science and Creation".
your submission! The Talk.Origins Archive is always looking
for new web links; if anyone else wishes to submit one,
please use the form on the bottom of the Other Links
page. If you would like to discuss or debate the issues you
discuss on your site, please join the discussion in the talk.origins newsgroup.
The "Science and Creation" page should appear in our list of other links shortly. As always, the Archive encourages its readers to check our information against that presented by other web sites and most importantly, against the primary scientific literature and books referenced in most of the FAQs and in our extensive bibliography.
would like to know where can I find more about the
experiment pointed in the FAQ about transitional fossils.
There we find:
"[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.] "
It is not the first time I read about it, but I have been unable to locate the info.
If you can help me, I will be eternally grateful.
|Response:||Check the first reference at Teeth in the Bibliography.|
posted two feedbacks. This is the first feedback post - JW]
I notice you're very fond of criticising negative feedback for not being specific - so here's some VERY specific criticism. It relates to the item "Darwin's Precursors and Influences 4. Natural Selection".
1. Reference 6 commences "As de Beer says..." but refers to a comment by Ernst Mayr.
2. the "D" in De Beer is a capital, not lower case. Sir Gavin De Beer was English, not French.
3. The reference to Mayr's criticism of Eiseley's defence of Edward Blyth is a total crock. Your writer refers to Mayr's criticism of a single paper published in 1859, just 64 pages long. Obviously neither Mayr nor your writer are aware that Eiseley subsequently expanded his comments to book length - Darwin and the Mysterious Mr X, E.P. Dutton, 1979 and 1981 - in which Eiseley set out a very detailed description of his case, quoting not just one term but similarities in language, examples, etc., etc.
4. It also seems that neither Mayr nor your writer know that it isn't just "likely" that Darwin read Blyth's work (all four papers) - it's a racing certainty. Because Cambridge University have Darwin's own copies of the journals in question - with Darwin's written comments in the margins.
Maybe Mr Wilkins should be a little more careful with his research. And if this is wrong - but I only spotted it by chance, how much more of your supposedly expert material is equally flawed?
Surely, as the good book says: Pride commeth before a fall!
[second post - JW]
With regard to John Wilkins' report on Mayr's comments on Eiseley, I think I forgot to mention that Wilkins totally misrepresented Mayr's comments. All Mayr actually says is that people had been talking about natural selection since the time of Empedocles, but had always seen it as a process of elimination. Darwin, Mayr argued, wasn't beholden to Blyth because he (Darwin) was the first person to recognise natural selection as a process that *preserved* favourable variations. There is NOTHING about Darwin reading Blyth *after* he'd started using the term "natural selection" or *after* he "had clearly developed some of the focal planks of his theory (sic)" formulated his own concept (hardly possible since Darwin read all of Blyth's articles BEFORE he opened his first notebook on the species question).
What really beats me is how you came to sacrifice the credibility of your website so easily! I guess you'll just NOT publish these comments. Before you take that route you might want to check my own website at
I'll be circulating the address to everyone who writes in to you!
|Author of:||Darwin's precursors and influences|
bother. I'll include a link to your site when I revise the
FAQ. It may be that I have misrepresented Mayr (although
from memory I did not, but I may have mis-cited him). If
so, I'll recant the claim [Upon rereading that paragraph, I
do not think that I have either misread or misrepresented
Mayr but it clearly is not the reference to the claim I
made in the FAQ. I will endeavour to track down the correct
reference.]. However, you seem to think that the
possibility of error discredits all the claims made about
Darwin (at least that's what the rest of your site seems to
say) and so somehow discredits Darwinian evolutionary
theory. And you seem to rest entirely on Eiseley's books.
Since I rested strongly on Mayr's history when I wrote the
FAQ (it was convenient), I cannot criticise you on that
score but I have read more since and not found reason to
change the major claims of the FAQ: that Darwin was
original only in the overall shape of his theory, and not
in the specific details. I still think that Darwin was not
influenced either by Matthew or Blyth on natural selection.
If he was influenced by anyone, it was Malthus, Smith and
perhaps even Hume.
And it is true that I had not read the later book by Eiseley at that time. I will now read it and incorporate responses to it in the revision (I may even agree with him - we'll see). However, it is too easy in historical research to (i) miss material unless one is a bona fide expert in the field, and I am not nor have ever claimed to be a Darwin scholar at the level of, say, Sulloway, Ghiselin, Hull or the like; and (ii) to seek material that confirms one's prejudices. I would have liked to find that Darwin was a de novo genius original in all matters, but that is not what the material suggests. You seem to want to denigrate him before you even begin, and that is not what the material licenses either.
Note that there is a tradition of claiming that Darwin was a plagiarist that dates from the late nineteenth century. A recent version is the otherwise excellent book Song of the Dodo by David Quammen, who wants to claim that Darwin gypped Wallace by withholding his letter. Then there's those who claim priority for Kant, Goethe, Erasmus Darwin, and a host of others (including, if memory serves, Schopenhauer). Why this is so is hard to fathom. If the theory of evolution had been developed by any one of those people, then it would still be the theory of evolution (and some would no doubt attack the credibility of that originator). Perhaps it has more to do with the discomfort some feel for the theory (or rather, as I claim in the FAQ, theories) itself (themselves) than for the person of Charles Darwin or any other individual.
And finally, if we are to criticise capitalisation, then the book of Proverbs in the KJV spells it "cometh"... de Beer's name is correctly capitalised according to all the works of his I have and all the references to him in other works.
|Comment:||I have read most of Henry M. Morris books and a number of other pieces pro and con. I remember one reading about an internation conference of scientist in at which a number of papers were presented regarding origins. A Russian scientist was quoted as saying that we must face the fact that however far back science may think it has pushed the frontiers of its knowlege of origins, it is at a certain point up against an impenetrable wall. Though a mere layman, I believe that there is much speculation mixed with what today is presented as fact regarding the development of various species on the planet. I conclude by asking why so many make so much effort to try to unravel the past when it can make no difference now, except possibly philosophically?|
is all speculation, but if so, it is just as speculative as
your assumption that you were alive yesterday and that you
weren't just created fully formed with memories implanted
in your head of the previous days of your life. Yet I'd be
willing to be that you don't sit around worrying about
whether you did actually exist or not.
However, it is not speculation in the everyday sense of the word. What we know about the past isn't just a guess; it is confirmed by existing evidence. That is what science is all about: piecing together existing evidence, coming up with new ideas, and then finding additional evidence that supports or rejects those ideas. If you think what scientists say about the origins of the world, life, and humanity are mere speculation, then perhaps you aren't familiar enough with the evidence. (To be fair, not many of us are.)
And why does it make a difference to learn about the past? Because the past tells us about the present and the future. I leave you with three quotations:
|Comment:||I enjoyed reading your article on Dinosaur Tracks in Coal. Although I am not a geologist, it seems reasonable to accept that the dinosaur footprints in the Utah coal as described by Balsley were made during a localized flood. However, this does not disprove the possibility of the world-wide flood theory held by creationists. While most creationists believe in a single global flood, I have not heard any claims that it was the very first flood. I am not aware of any evidence against the possibility of localized floods during the antediluvian period. What are your thoughts?|
|Response:||Perhaps you should check out our Flood Geology FAQs, especially the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ. While localized floods are common and expected, there is no coherent geological evidence to suggest a global flood took place. On the contrary, there is a great deal of evidence against such a possibility.|
|Comment:||I have a question. Just yesterday I was listening to the news relating to El Nino and discovered that scientists have stated that the earth slowed down by 60 millionths of a second (I believe) due to the El Nino effect. Later in the report it said that the La Nina effect which follows will speed the earth back up again. Since evolutionists postulate the earth with billions and billions of years in the making, evidently the earth through that time has been slowing down and speeding up through the millenia. My question is: According to the laws of physics, wouldn't the earth be overall slowing down? If so, billions of years ago when life first started, wouldn't the earth be spinning too fast to produce life? Lastly, if the earth slows down and speeds up, should not there be some external force acting upon the earth to keep its speed constant enough to support life as we know it?|
|Author of:||Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field|
earth is overall slowing down. About 900,000,000 years ago
the length of day would be about 18.9 hours, and by about
620,000,000 years ago, the day was about 21.9 hours [1,2].
But what constitute's "spinning too fast to produce life"?
Even if the length of day, at the proposed epoch of
abiogenesis, was as short as 8 hours, or 5 hours, is that
"too fast to produce life"? How would one decide?
The earth slows down overall bacause of tidal drag produced by the moon. If the moon were not there, the earth would be spinning much faster now than it is. The external force is not required to "keep the earth spinning", which it would do quite well by itself. The external force (lunar tides) is what serves to slow the earth down. One might argue that because of the moon, the earth spins slow enough to support life, rather than fast enough. But I doubt that anyone can actually quantify what is "slow enough" or "fast enough" anyway.
The small scale slowing such as you see with El-Nino is common and typical. The earth's rotation rate (expressed as a precise length of day) varies at the millisecond level on a daily basis, and also varies strongly (at the several millisecond level) with season as the earth exchanges momentum with trade winds in the atmosphere.
 "Neoproterozoic Earth-Moon Dynamics - Rework of the 900 MA Big Cottonwood Canyon Tidal Laminae" C.P. Sonett & M.A. Chan Geophysical Research Letters 25(4): 539-542 (1998 Feb 15)
 "Precambrian Length of Day and the Validity of Tidal Rhythmite Paleotidal Values" G.E. Williams Geophysical Research Letters 24(4): 421-424 (1997 Feb 15)
Also see the classical textbook by Kurt Lambeck, "The Earth's Variable Rotation: Its Geophysical Causes and Consequences", Cambridge University Press, 1980 (especially chapter 11, "Paleorotation").
the articles on Michael Behe.
I have been in combat with Creationists, and they
constantly throw up Behe in my face as the one true
scientist that exists today. If you know where I could get
more I would appreciate it very much. Also, can you point
me in the direction of critical comments about Phillip
Johnson's "work"? He seems to have taken on the mantle of
the cause to recuse God from those wicked and evil
scientists who support that evil concept of Evolution.
Again, thanks and keep 'em comin'.
|Response:||A critique of the works of Phillip Johnson, including reviews of Darwin on Trial and links to his homepage, can be found in Critiques of Anti-Evolutionist Phillip Johnson's Views.|
from time to time, people claim that a certain action is
bad, or harmful, or otherwise wrong because it violates
natural selection. I've also heard people praising nature
for an evolutionary process that makes the world "better".
Isn't it misguided to draw a view of morality based on just
the way things are? As a case in point, remember in
Jurassic Park where John Hammond defends their work by
using the example of condors (being endangered), and Ian
Malcolm says it's different because dinosaurs were selected
against whereas condors are endangered due to humanity's
actions? If an asteroid came tomorrow and wiped out all
life on Earth, well, that's evolution, isn't it? It must be
for the better!
What are your thoughts on this?
|Response:||Yes, it is
very misguided to draw a view of morality based on the
assumption that "is" or "does" means "should."
The argument that an asteroid hitting Earth must be a "good" thing because it's natural, or "that's evolution," is a non sequitur. Just because something will happen without intervention from mankind does not make it inherently good (or bad).
Valid evaluations of "right" and "wrong" are unlikely to come from science (or at least not from science alone). They are much more likely to come from elsewhere, such as philosophy and theology.
Robison's article about Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" is a
weak article. It's too nit-picky and it avoids Behe's
It starts with Behe's mousetrap example. Robison cleverly points out that a mousetrap without a base can be made functional. Okay. Maybe a mousetrap isn't irreducably complex, but Behe's real point with the example is that a mousetrap couldn't have evolved, and Robinson doesn't address this. (From my layman's perspective it appears the mousetrap is an acceptable example.)
Next, Robison addresses pseudogenes. He blockquotes Behe, who seems to be dismissing the pseudogene argument against intelligent design of life. Behe's dismissal is clearly inadequate. He tries to turn Miller's critique aside by bringing up what he sees as a(nother) failure of conventional science: its (perceived) failure to explain the process of DNA replication. This rhetorical trick deserves to be waylaid, and after that, an explanation of evolutionary takes on the development of DNA is in order. Instead, Robison focuses on one sentence out of the paragraph and describes the introduction of tandem duplication.
The sections on cascades and antibodies are good, and the section concerning the Krebs cycle is educational, too. But in all, Robison's patronizing attitude is not justified by the strength of his arguments.
theory of Punctuated Equillibrium unfalsifiable and thus
/Fredrik Bendz, Uppsala, Sweden
|Response:||I don't believe so. Evidence of patterns in the paleontological record are often conjectural because information is lost over time and preservation is at best patchy, but there are documented cases of morphology remaining static for long periods and if one picks well-preserved features like the number of eyes on trilobites (which was Eldredge's case study) then you can validate or invalidate punctuated equilibrium like any hypothesis. Global hypotheses are hard to test, but not impossible.|
|Comment:||I have a question that is giving me a little trouble, but perhaps someone else may be able to help me out with it. Of course, you are probably familiar with the epiglottis, the flap of cartilage that covers the windpipe when a person swallows food. My question is this: if humans evolved, and the tissues and organs or structures inside them evolved, what did the first humans or "humanoids" do before this structure evolved in them? It seems to me that they would all have died off because of 1.) Choking due to the food entering the windpipe/lungs, or 2.) Inability to ingest nutrients because of #1. I would welcome some ans- wers. Thank you.|
|Author of:||The Age of the Earth|
Coyne states that, "Behe's theory of biochemical complexity
is not scientific because it is untestable: there is no
observation or experiment that could conceivably refute
That is also true of the opposite of Dr. Behe's views at this time. The absolute most anyone can do at present is infer that evolution of living matter from non-living matter occurred.
Why the bitter hostility from either side, then? Some evolutionists on this site call creationist views "screed"; some creationists pour contempt on evolutionists as blind Godless fools. The truth of the matter is that both sides use evidence (of vastly differing types/quality sometimes), and the gaps are filled in with faith.
that neither common descent nor "intelligent design theory"
is falsifiable is only half correct. The reason that
intelligent design theory is unfalsifiable is because an
omnipotent, intelligent designer can choose to build
something in any manner it deems appropriate. For instance,
it could choose to design plants and animals with similar
DNA sequences. Or it could just as easily choose to do the
exact opposite: create plants and animals with completely
unique DNA sequences. That's the problem with an omnipotent
designer -- any fact imaginable can be called evidence for
Evolution, on the other hand, is not so easily concluded. The hierarchy of organisms determined by examining the genes of living things, in conjuction with persuasive evidence from other fields like paleontology and comparative anatomy, is conclusive evidence that all living things descended from a common ancestor. Evolution would be falsified if there were no similarities in the genetic makeups of living organisms. Can the same be said for "intelligent design"?
believe that the attempts by "scientists" to discredit
Cutting edge researchers such as Graham Hancock, Robert
Buval, and the Flem-aths will eventually fail.
Establishment "science" has become a psuedo-science.
Hancock and company have burst the bubble of the
comfortable little theories that keep you all warm at
night. Too bad. Your science has become a "religion" in
itself, unable to change its worn out paradigms. Galileo
was treated this way by the Church "scientiists" of his
day. I challenge all of you to actually "read" Fingerprints
of the Gods, by Graham Hancock. It is an incredible book,
thoroughly researched. After reading it, I think you will
conclude the our establishment science has failed us
|Comment:||I must say,
for a site alledgedly trying to bring both sides of the
origins debate, it is amazingly lopsided. Not in evidence
but in the snide comments of the keepers of this site. I
was looking around and went to the debate section and found
that the debate discriptions never put the evolutionist in
a bad light but did, on many occasions, put the creationist
in a bad light. Why is this? Maybe because this is actually
an evolutionist site? No problem. Please state that and
stop lieing to the public. Then everyone coming in will
know what to expect.
To be specific, take a look at the conferences, read the discriptions. It is very obvious you are laughing at the creationists but not at the evolutionists.
visiting the archive's home page, where it
very clearly states that "the primary reason for this
archive's existence is to provide mainstream
scientific responses to the many frequently asked questions
(FAQs) and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in
talk.origins." If that's not clear enough, perhaps you
should also visit the
archive's welcome page, where readers are told:
|Comment:||Can I get
permission to translate and put an article from this
archive on another BBS? I would like to put some articles
on this archive on the hitel Korean BBS, so here I ask
And thanks for the fine work of all the authors on this archive.
|Response:||You came to
the feedback page from the Age of the Earth FAQs
section so I assume that you wished to translate one or
more of those FAQs.
Here are the relevant authors and their contact addresses:
Hope that helps.
|Comment:||I just got
done reading the "
rebuttal" article to your Attributing False
Attributes to Thermodynamics article on the
talk.science (?) web page, and it sounds a lot more
scientific than yours, so to the uneducated lay person I
believe it would sound that you are losing the argument
[The talk.science site Mr. Streeter mentions no longer exists. True.Origins has another rebuttal to this Archive's thermodynamics materials.]
I myself am not a physicist or chemist (I don't know if you are), but I had a few college level physics and chemistry courses on the way to my Computer Science degree (I even majored in biology for a short time), so can I make a few suggestions as to how you can present your point more effectively?
|Comment:||I was wondering how it can be believed that the age of the universe in ten thousand years old when we have seen galaxies ten billion light years away? Light travels at a fixed speed, so that light would be ten billion years old. How could the universe be ten thousand years old?|
|Response:||Some creationists have responded to this argument by saying that God created all of the photons of light just far enough away so that the light is just now reaching us. This certainly could be the case; there's no way to tell if we are observing objects that are ten million light years away or if all of our observations are a stupendous hoax created by a Trickster God just to fool us. I personally refuse to accept that God would go to such lengths to deceive us; I leave it to the reader to decide whether he or she wishes to accept such a deity.|
I am a student at the University of Texas at Austin studying biochemistry. I also have an odd problem - there is a fundamentalist preacher who comes to the campus, sets up his table and waits for people to talk to him.
In any case, this man makes the following assertions about evolution:
Furthermore, this preacher challenges me to show him where he is wrong and to show where it is written down. I would appreciate any help you could give me in this matter.
arguements for the origin of man are very deceiving and
weak at best. The findings of "ape-men" fossils contradict
themselves so much its not funny. All you guys do as
evolutionists is circular reasoning. You never answer any
questions with sound answers, just speculation. The entrie
evolutionary mindset is "theory" not fact, and evidence
supports creation way more than evolution. I will pray that
you will find to be true as well.
Read Genesis chapter 1 for all the answers of where you came from
Approximately 5½ years ago a "young-earth creation-science preacher" came to my local church and put on his show. He was Bert Thompson, a Ph.D. who has a publishing company called Apologetics Press out of Montgomerty, Alabama. Various errors were put over on me and the congregation. In testing the criticism of the movement for being uninformed and undisciplined, I have been trying since then to get simple admissions and corrections. Chief, and simplest, was the promotion of the Matthew Maury myth (how he was sick one day and someone read him Psalm 8, and so he went out and discovered the seas had currents). Bert Thompson even claimed there was a statue at the Naval Academy depicting Mr. Maury with a bible in one outstretched hand. It doesn't exist. Bert Thompson has refused to meet his public responsibilities in this regard. He even had one of his subordinates publish a coverup in the Creation Research Society Quarterly (June 1996 I believe). That accomplice in the cover up is Trevor Major. While pointing out the errors of others and trying to claim credit for setting the record straight, Trevor Major failed to mention his superior, Bert Thompson, has been one of the biggest promoters of the myth in modern times. As a result, the myth continues its popularity. Much more might be said regarding the failure of Bert Thompson, Ph.D. and his cronies to meet their public obligations to insure their errors are identified and corrected. Maybe this medium will help shed a little light on this dark side of the Bert Thompson, Ph.D. ministry. The public needs an appropriate warning.
|Comment:||The 32 page "must read" portion is the best I have ever seen! I am so glad that someone finally posted the real concepts of evolution, Genetic Recombination, and Natural Selection. I am a Biology Major at the University of North Texas, and this is exactly what we learn. I just wish that people would learn what these concepts are before they argue them and make us all look bad. "I we would only listen instead of critisize, we would gain more knowledge, and with more knowledge, the Universe becomes a much bigger place." Marcie Kozura|
|Comment:||HELP! I'm doing a report on Social Darwinism and I would like any comments or views that anyone has on this subject. Also, any views on Evolution and Its Influence: The Herbert Spencer Lectures, 1986, edited by Alan Grafen, which "reviews the impact of Darwinism on art, philosophy, sociology, psychology, and other fields."|
|Response:||I'd suggest you take a look at John Wilkins's Evolution and Philosophy FAQ, in particular the section on Social Darwinism. Also, see E.T. Babinski's essay on Social Darwinism in Cretinism or Evilution?. Then look at Wilkins's Evolution and Metaphysics FAQ and his responses in the December 1997 feedback and January 1997 feedback. You might also want to read Herbert Spencer's book Social Statics and learn more about the 1905 U.S. Supreme Court case Lochner v. New York, 198 U.S. 45, in which Justice Holmes dissents, stating, "The 14th Amendment does not enact Mr. Herbert Spencer's Social Statics."|