The talk.origins FAQ: Down the drain
Post of the Month: September 1996
alk.origins FAQ Archive wrote:
> [The talk.origins FAQ Archive Announcement, Part 1 of 2] > > SUMMARY > > WWW: http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/ > FTP: ftp://ftp.ics.uci.edu/pub/origins > EMAIL: mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org > > > MOTIVATION > > Perhaps no other Usenet newsgroup generates more Frequently Asked > Questions (FAQs) -- or Frequently Rebutted Claims -- than > talk.origins. It is for this reason that talk.origins has come to > have a very large number of highly detailed FAQ files. In the past, > retrieving these FAQs was difficult due to the large number and > diverse locations of the authors. To solve this problem, the > talk.origins FAQ archive was established.
To indoctrinate the public and tell a fable to all.
> FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS > > The following is a list of questions that appear frequently in > talk.origins. Brief answers follow each question along with a World > Wide Web URL pointing to one or more relevant FAQs that answer the > question in more detail. > > > [Q.] What is the purpose of talk.origins? > [A.] The purpose of talk.origins is to provide a forum for discussion of > issues related to biological and physical origins. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-welcome.html > > > [Q.] I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact? > [A.] Evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population > over time. That this happens is a fact. The theory of evolution > describes the mechanisms that cause these genetic changes, thereby > accounting for the diversity of life on Earth. So evolution is both > a fact and a theory. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/evolution-fact.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#proof
Truth: The definition of evolution differs according who is using the term. The extremely broad definition of evolution simply means "change." Under that definition even creationists agree that evolution is true. However, evolutionists often use this flexibility in the definition of evolution to say that "evolution is both a fact and a theory." Creationists agree that "genetic characteristics of a population change in a population over time" and this change, however, is limited. Dogs will always remain dogs, monkeys-monkeys, man-man. When creationists say that evolution is false, they mean macro-evolution. Macro-evolution means the change of one kind (ape-forexample) to another kind (man). Since there is no paleontological proof of macro-evolution, it is not a fact and doesn't qualify to become "theory" status, much less the "hypothesis" status.
> [Q.] Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution? > [A.] No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as > the scientific explanation for biodiversity. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-god.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/interpretations.html
All creationists believe in "evolution" as broadly defined, but as I said above, most creationists reject macro-evolution.
> [Q.] If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil > record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils? > [A.] Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation > occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of > time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. > Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-transitional.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/fossil-hominids.html
This is misleading. At every point of so called "transitional" proof, scientists disagree. So who is correct?
> [Q.] No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you > know it's true? > [A.] Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#observe
Under the loose definition of evolution, evolution has been "observed, both directly and indirectly." For example, Darwin did observe diversity in finches. There is a diversity in humans. But no one has documented a finch becoming anyhing other than a finch, and a human becoming anything but a human, or a ape becoming anything but an ape. There is a a variety of information in the gene pool, and evolution is limited to the information in the gene pool. See the works of Mendel. Mendel proved evolution to be false. Mendel showed that you can cross a white flower with a red one and produce pink ones. Thus the "new" change - pink in this instance - is limited to the colors in the genes. In other words, if the information to produce brown flowers is not in the genes of both flowers, you will never get brown offspring. Genetics, in other words, is a conservative process. It works well within defined limits, and that goes for the finches as well.
> [Q.] Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear? > [A.] Speciation has been observed both in the laboratory and in nature. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-speciation.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/speciation.html
Not true. Will be elaborated on in future post.
> [Q.] Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation? > [A.] No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal > characteristics. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/jury-rigged.html
The human body is perfect according to it's purpose. The humanistic evolutionists who wrote this FAQ is deceiving. Suboptimal is a subjective judgement. For example, if you defined man's inability to run 100 miles an hour as being "suboptimal" then man is suboptimal. If you defined the Panda's inability to fly, or use chopsticks as suboptimal, then it becomes "suboptimal." Secondly, creationism states that the second law of entropy has made humans "suboptimal." Thus, when the creationists define humans as being perfect, they mean relatively speaking. Compared to a camera, the human eye is extremely complex, and will, in many cases, outlast a camera.
> [Q.] According to evolution, life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't > that make evolution wildly improbable? > [A.] Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result > of non-random selection. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/chance-metaphysics.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#chance
Althought this is stated as fact, evolutionists still haven't been able to produce life in the laboratory, thus to say that life is a result of "non-random selection," begs the question. If life is the result of "non-random selective processes, then one could, therefore, watch the chemicals use these so called mythical processes work to create life. Who wrote this faq anyway?
> [Q.] Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, > order cannot come from disorder. > [A.] Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order > emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and > embryos develop, etc. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/thermo.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html#thermo
Snow flakes are not complex enough, trees grow from seeds that are already complex. We are talking about the origin of life here, and this faq evades the question.
> [Q.] Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed? > [A.] The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. > A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is > supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. > [U.] http://www.ediacara.org/hope.html
Whether or not he did or not is irrelevant. Darwin died at a time when their was a lack in scientific knowledge. Thus, Darwin believed evolution according to the LITTLE known facts that were evident at the time. That is faith - the abscence of facts.
> [Q.] Where can I learn more about evolution? > [A.] You might start with the talk.origins FAQs. If, however, you want a > better understanding of evolution, a library would be a more appropriate > place to look. The FAQs listed below provide some good references. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/reading-list.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/evolution-definition.html
contact me after reading all this garbage and I can supply you with additional refutation.
> [Q.] How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's > young. > [A.] According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known > to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments > rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and > often erroneous data points. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-youngearth.html
Actually, the reverse is true. Evolutionists rely on the methods that guarantee and old earth and carefully ignore the evidence to suggest that it is young. Evolutionists also make assumptions in their estimates. For example they assume that: 1. In various dating methods that the daughter product were not in the rock from the beginning, and it could have been the case. 2. That uranium decay rates do not vary. There is evidence to suggest that it could have. 3. That decay rates exist in closed systems. Actually, heat, leaching and other factors can and do skew the results big time.
> [Q.] But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non- > contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions > are wrong? > [A.] Isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred, > while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical > observations support the notion that decay rates are constant. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/isochron-dating.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html
In otherwords, if you can't rely on radiometric dating, rely on other techniques that rely on assumptions to verify other assumptions. This is the typical circular argument.
> [Q.] I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light > from galaxies billions of light years away might not be billions of > years old. Is this true? > [A.] Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decaying speed of light was based > on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which > were taken hundreds of years ago. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/c-decay.html
At any rate, evolutionists ASSUME that the speed of light has been constant.
> [Q.] If the Earth is so old, doesn't that mean the Earth's decaying magnetic > field would have been unacceptably high at one time? > [A.] No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity > and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/magfields.html
NO. There is much in the assumptions made regarding "polarity reversals." What mechanism would cause the reversals? Evolutions haven't come up with a sufficient explanation yet.
> [Q.] Isn't the fossil record a result of the global flood described in the > Book of Genesis? > [A.] No. A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed > in the geological record. This was recognized even prior to the > proposal of evolutionary theory. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html
Yes it does. The sorting is explained by the diffrent environs of which the plants and animals had lived. Evolutionists, here, ignore contridictions in the fossil record. The Matterhorn, for example, is old strata on top of young strata.
> [Q.] What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers? > [A.] They have natural explanations: tree-roots that grew into soft, > underlying layers of clay, and fossils found in inclined strata. They > can also be observed forming in modern environments. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/polystrate.html
Close, but no cigar. Fact. Many of these so-called trees don't have roots. Evidence shows that they were ripped out of joint and deposited. Evidence shows that trees, when dislodged, will stand vertically in the water due to various factors, and will be deposited upright. Ripped roots are evidence of this removal. Now, fossils found out of place in the fossil record are always assumed to have been caused by "natural explanations." In other words by ASSUMPTIONS. In other words, evolution can never be proved wrong because secondary explanations will always be invented to explain the contridictions.
> [Q.] What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur > footprints? > [A.] The "man-tracks" of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas were not > man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and others > were human carvings. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/paluxy.html
> [Q.] Didn't they find Noah's Ark? I saw something on TV about this. > [A.] The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible > Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have > not been substantiated. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/ark-hoax.html
Most creationists will say that the ark has not been found yet.
> [Q.] The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine > intervention are staggering. > [A.] And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being > through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from > more primitive precursors. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-abiogenesis.html
The key word here is "thought." That is faith. These primitive precursors are nothing but fiction and imagination. Evolution is proved, for there were "primitive precursors," that we "thought" up to be true.
> [Q.] Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be > wrong? > [A.] The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its > author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have > questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged > in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up > references. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/credentials.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/creationist-dishonesty.html
Like Duane Gish Phd in biochemistry? Evolutionists tend to attack the person rather than to attack the ideas. Nonetheless, here is more slander material from evolutionists.
> [Q.] What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didn't he show that the Earth has > experienced a lot of major catastrophes? > [A.] No, he simply claimed that certain written legends must have described > real events. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/faqs-catastrophism.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/faq-velikovsky
No creationist takes Velikovsky seriously. It is the typical evolutionist strawman.
> [Q.] Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution debate? > [A.] Contact the National Center for Science Education (email@example.com), or > see the talk.origins archive and its "Other links" page. > [U.] http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/reading-list.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/faqs/periodicals.html > http://earth.ics.uci.edu:8080/origins/other-links.html
In other words, consult a biased source for your information. Then spend your time losing debates on talk.origins using this material.
Article originally posted September 8, 1996
View selected responses:
Home Page | Browse | Search | Feedback | Links