Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Some creationist literature listed Louis Pasteur and Gregor Mendel as anti-evolutionists who put up a crusade against evolution. Is this claim supportable? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Not in Mendel's case - he was inspired by Carl von Nägeli's notion that evolution proceeded by hybridisation in his later investigations, which he would not have been if he had rejected it altogether. As to Pasteur, I do not know, but I doubt it. When 19th century scientists objected to Darwin, they tended to object to natural selection as the major cause of evolution, not evolution itself. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | You guys, explain the monkey to man thing, how dumb can it get! Those "skelotons" of monkey men are 99/100 made out of tar or something else. They took bones from humans and monkeys. How dumb can evolution get?? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Our best FAQ
for human evolution is the Fossil
Hominids FAQ.
I have no idea what you mean by tar or something else. That is simply bizarre. One famous hoax early last century was constructed from an orangutang jaw with a human skull. This is the Piltdown hoax, discussed at length in our FAQ on the subject. Do look through the Hominids FAQ for the large range of transitional fossil remains available. Not even the most lunatic of creationists has ever suggested that these are constructed by combining fossils of monkeys and humans. Until now, of course. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have recently been told by a creationist that the Y-chromosome study conducted by Michael Hammer and studies done by others such as Simon Whitfield and Peter Goodfellow refute the theory of evolution (particularly with regard to the evolution of humans) and also refutes the idea of common ancestry between humans and the great apes. I am having difficulty finding information with regard to the impact these studies are having in the scientific evolutionary community. Are you familiar with these studies and can you tell me how they do/do not relate to and impact the theories of human evolution? Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
Y-chromosome studies do no such thing; your friend is
mistaken. Here is some background to help you explore the
issue.
Hammer, Whitfield and Goodfellow are researchers who have examined the Y-chromosome to try and find the most recent common ancestor of all living humans by patrilineal descent. This is not the same as the first man, by the way. If the biblical stories are taken as a literal history, then Noah would be the most recent common ancestor by patrilineal descent; not Adam. Unfortunately, this error is fostered by catchy but misleading headlines about Y-chromosome Adam. Useful background to the notion of most recent common ancestor of all currently living humans by matrilineal descent, and by patrilineal descent, can be found in the archive, in the article What, if anything, is a Mitochondrial Eve? Hammer wrote an article in Nature, entitled A recent common ancestry for human Y chromosomes (Nature 1995 Nov 23;378(6555):376-8), in which he proposes a date for this individual as about 188,000 years ago. This is a very rough guess. He quotes a 95% confidence interval of 51,000 to 411,000 years. In the same issue, Whitfield, Sulston and Goodfellow, in an independent study entitled Sequence variation of the human Y chromosome (Nature 1995 Nov 23;378(6555):379-80), proposed a time of 31,000 to 49,000 years; which is significantly more recent. (Though still nowhere near the timelines associated with Noah.) A far more comprehensive study was completed recently, and published last year as African Origin of Modern Humans in East Asia: A Tale of 12,000 Y Chromosomes (Science, May 11 2001, Vol 292, pp1151-1152). This was based on a collaboration of by many scientists in Asia, the UK and the USA, and suggests a date to the most recent common patrilineal ancestor of 35,000 to 89,000 years (95% confidence limits). However, for scientists the actual date is very much a side issue. The real interest is to test two competing models for recent human evolution: the Out of Africa model and the multiregional model. Generally, the results of Y-chromosome studies have been taken as powerful support of the Out of Africa model. These results certainly present no problem whatsoever for common ancestry with apes; that is a gross failure of comprehension. I recommend this comprehensive set of links on Y-chromosome studies (off-site) for those who want to explore this subject further. [Link replaces a defunct john.hynes.net link.] And for a quick background report in the popular press, see Boost for 'Out of Africa' theory, courtesy of the BBC. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Well, the moon is getting farther away from the earth everyday, in fact it moves a couple of inches every year. If you brought it back 4.5 billion years, the pull of the moon n the waves would be very heavy. Thus causing the waves to be so big that they would flood the earth twice a day. I think your theories are all wet. And the bible has never changed, your stories have, the bible CLEARLY states that GOD created the Heavens and the Earth. And all that dwell there. Get the facts straight. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | If you back up the Earth-Moon system a few billion years, the true result is approximately "no big deal". Read my FAQ file, linked above. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Felicia O'Brien |
Comment: | How come you don't have any arguments against Evolution? You have only arguments against Creationism. You are supposed to explore both sides yet you explore only one side-evolution!!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Explorations
are not only conducted by those who are lost and do not
know which way to turn.
We aim to give the best guide possible for those wanting to explore the controversy, and we delve into as many arguments as we can find. We certainly do explore the creationist side, in as much detail as possible, and we show it to be riddled with errors. We continue to seek out and explore new aspects of the debate as they arise. If you want to explore on your own, help yourself to the links page. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Suzan Stier |
Comment: | Your site has very many errors. Darwin did renounce evolution on his deathbed. It is true. I have read it in very many books. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
The "Darwin recanted on his deathbed" story is very popular in antievolution circles. That does not make it true. Nor does mere repetition make the myth any less false. See our page on this issue, The Lady Hope Story: A Widespread Falsehood. Further, even antievolution sources have deprecated the spread of this myth. "Answers in Genesis" has a page, Did Darwin recant?, which concludes that Darwin did not recant. It appears that what the reader has discovered is that we identify a lot of errors in antievolution argumentation rather than that we make a lot of errors ourselves. Yes, this archive does identify "very many errors" in antievolution arguments; the reader is perfectly correct on that view. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I wanted to thank you for making a site such as yours. I always knew I was an atheist, even while attending church for 14 years. I knew something was wrong with religion. Your site as given me more information that I needed. I have already 'freed' two of my friends just by showing them the facts. Now that I'm 16, my parents think I'm rebelling. Very few will listen, many need to hear. Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Show facts by all means, and refute false claims about the earth and life upon it, but do not think that this necessarily means that something is wrong with religious belief in general (as opposed to the literalist, fundamentalist, forms of it) or that those who believe in a religion (but can accept the facts) are somehow irrational. They aren't. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Tell me this... if evolution is a fact, then why are we not evolving today? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We are. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi! I just
wanted to say how incredibly happy I am to have found your
page. I will defiantly be spending a lot of time here in
the future. Most all of the Christians I know think that if
you believe in evolution then you cannot be a Christian.
The few that I know who think that it might be alright
don’t really know anything about it. So
congratulations on the job that your doing, and thank you
for being so brave, for taking so much time to point people
like me towards the truth you have found in your own lives.
God bless. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I found your
article "Some Questionable
Creationist Credentials" to be rather misleading. You
cite cases where a few creationists admittedly made false
claims about their credentials. You omit the fact that
hundreds of creation scientists have perfectly valid
credentials in the relevant fields of study.
And, in your FAQ, you state that evolution is a "fact." You might want to read evolutionary scientist Gert Korthof's statements on this issue in the "Introduction" page to his fine (and pro-evolution) web site. Dr. Korthof, refreshingly, admits that evolution is NOT a fact. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I am
curious: did you even read the Some Questionable Creationist
Credentials article? The very point that you make is
found in its second paragraph:
What Korthof says on his website is something that is, I think, different from what you think he is saying. He says:
He is not saying that evolution didn't happen. What he is saying is that we will probably never know everything about its course on the planet Earth, given that information about its twists and turns has been lost through the passage of time. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory article for a more complete discussion. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | TIFFANY SMITH |
Comment: | I HATE YOU AND YOUR WEBSITE. CREATIONISM ROCKS. EVOLUTION SUCKS. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
There were eight messages like the above entered within a span of six minutes under as many different names. The reader may not like our site, and may think we are all idiots, but that does not mean that we won't notice abuses of the feedback system. I'd suggest that our reader try expressing these feelings over on the talk.origins newsgroup. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Your website
is very informative, and in most cases not that biased. But
I noticed a theme of only commenting on creationism as the
Bible records it. There are so many other creation myths
out there from all the other religions (Mayan Creation,
Taoist, Gaia, etc..). In the interest of being fair and
unbiased you should reseach and comment on these other
creation accounts. Otherwise it would appear that you have
an agenda, and no scientist wants to be biased.
Vince |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | We do have
an enormous FAQ on Flood
Stories from around the World, and it would be nice to
have one on creation myths as well.
However, other myths are not usually set up as alternatives to science, and so there is no particular controversy there analogous to the one associated with the biblical stories. The flood stories have more relevance, since if the biblical flood account is historical, we should expect a version to be preserved in all cultures. The examination of disparate myths is an aid to readers interesting in exploring this hypothesis. I would also like to comment on the matter of bias and agenda. Of course, we should all keep an open mind, but that is not the same as an empty mind. Science has reached some definite conclusions about the world. It is not the case that all ideas are equal, scientifically. Some are simply wrong, and a large part of the scientific method is about testing ideas to see which ones hold up in the face of evidence. Those which don't hold up are discarded. We have an agenda and a bias all right! This site is an educational resource for those wanting to explore the creationism/evolution controversy, which centers on the stories recorded in the bible. The exploration is not an unguided ramble by those who have no idea how to get out of the mire. It is a specific examination, in as much detail as we can manage, of the terrain from the perspective that we consider gives the truest insight into the lie of the land; and we consider that to be the perspective of mainstream science, unambiguously, and unapologetically. This is not merely a preconceived bias. It is a conclusion based on a fair examination of all sides. Note that fairness is not the same as never reaching a conclusion. |
From: | |
Response: | There are, however, creation myths at other sites. I found this to be pretty comprehensive: Creation Myths from around the World. Also see this page, or this page. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Is there a
place here that keeps track of the number of people that
seem to think you're all Flat Earthers?
Maybe there should be a big shiny button on that page for more efficient email. It could say: "Click Here to send us Email that the Earth is a Sphere." Maybe another to say: "Click here to tell us the Earth is a sphere AND call us morons." After that _I_ would like the disclaimer to flash on their screen until they pull out the motherboard, but I was never described as terribly tolerant. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I came
across talk origins while I was trying to find sources that
would help my argument with the senior staff of a school in
the UK (Emmanuel College, Gateshead) that's in thrall to
Biblical literalists.
Your site is a wonderful source of knowledgeable, well-reasoned and informed comment. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It's a shame that you have so much information on this site. But all you have achieved is to raise certain selected facts from the creationalist arguement and criticise them. This is a cowardly act and is quite hypocritical on your account. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This has to
be the one of the weirdest feedbacks I have ever seen....
Sure, we have a lot of information. Heaps of it. This is a big site, and we are still adding to it. The site gives a guide to the evolution/creationism controversy from the perspective of mainstream science, which we consider to be by far the most reliable guide for those wishing to explore the matter. We show exactly what is wrong with many creationist arguments. Which ones? As many as we can get! What happens, for the most part, is that individuals select those issues which match their area of expertise, and for which they see a need, and then put some time and effort into writing a FAQ to address them. The results are reviewed in the talk.origins newgroup, then revised to take account of constructive criticisms, and if of a suitable quality they are placed in the archive. There is at least one new FAQ in preparation as we speak. The site also has a Request for FAQs, listing areas for which we would like more FAQs, and with a pointer to submission guidelines. How you infer cowardice or hypocrisy is beyond me; but I'll take a wild guess that you do not similarly label creationist sites. If so, then you are being hypocritical. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Rebecca Winch |
Comment: | Your site is very wrong. There is no substantial evidence given in your website for evolution. In the future I know I will not use your website. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Five very similar posts in as many minutes, though with different names entered. It looks like the same disgruntled reader as before took a little time out to drop a few more comments on the feedback system. There does appear to be some improvement, though. The reader has apparently discovered the location and significance of the CAPS LOCK key. I think it will be pretty easy to tell if the reader really does move on to other parts of the Internet by whether such cascades of responses appear again in our feedback system. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Saw in your evidences the use of ice cores stating they prove at least 40,000 years of summer & winters. This inturpretation of ice rings was proven faulty-wrong. Have you not heard of the "lost squadron" in Greenland? In some 40 years before they were dug out of the ice they were incased in 256 layers of ice, proving it is simply warm cold periods within a single year which has laid down all of the layers of ice, laying to rest this claim of Evolutionary dating of ice layers |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition |
Response: | I believe
the Lost Squadron was under 256 feet of ice
(approximately), not 256 layers. To the best of my
knowledge, nobody has looked for annual layers in that ice.
The quantity of ice is not a problem for ice core dating
because the Lost Squadron landed near the coast of
Greenland, where snowfall is very much greater than in the
interior, where ice cores are collected. For more
information, see
Airplanes in the Ice.
The reliability of ice core dating is attested by the agreement of several different methods of determining ages from the ice cores, including checks with volcanic eruptions at known dates. See the Ice Core Dating FAQ for more details. (Incidentally, it presents data of an ice core covering 160,000 years.) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Follow the
link below to what, in my opinion, is really great news for
evolution. Thanks for your time and have a nice day!
Chad Bailey Ocala, FL. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | IF there
were a Talk UFOrigins Archive:
Feedback: This is an interesting site, but why don't you show that interview with the guy from the trailer park? Response: I am not sure which interview you mean. I suggest you link to our FAQ's for 1) trailer parks 2) unsubstantiated anecdotes 3) Tabloids: News or Variations on a Theme Feedback: I've been interested in UFO's since my mother's abduction several years ago. Can you tell me where I can leave my new address for her if she comes back? Response: This would be better addressed to one of the many sites claiming contact with LGM's or BEM's from UFO's. See our links page, under "They're Coming! No, for sure this time!" and pick one (or all 45). Good luck. Feedback: I can't understand why you don't realize the aliens are here and they want to help us. Haven't you seen Close Encounters? Response: Several times, and July 4th, and Alien, and My Favorite Martian. While I enjoy aliens described in popular media, I have yet to see any conclusive proof of their existence. Response: And further, even if they were here, there is no proof of their intent 'to help us.' A cheap power source would help in MANY ways. Feedback: HOW CAN U IDIOT SSAY THAT UFOS ARE FACT THEIR JUST BULLSHIT ALEENS ARENT FLYING AROUD IF THEY DID WHY DONT THEY LAD AT THE WHITEHOUSE? I HOPE OU CUT YOUR SELVES AND RIDE THE COMET BACK TO WHEREVER YOU CAME FRM. Response: We have always maintained a distinction between the FACT of UFO's and the THEORIES about their source. Anyone that has looked up in the sky and wondered 'What is that?' has seen an Unidentified Flying Object. That is the fact. The Theory that some intelligence is behind ANY of the UFO's is what has not been proven. That some UFO's exhibit behavior that cannot be explained by current science is agreed, but the conclusion that they must be flying saucers is not. Feedback: After reviewing this site and Little Green Man Autopsy with an open mind, I still have to say that all the photographs alone convince me that aliens have arrived. How do you address all the proof? Response: First off, of the 435 major airline accidents or inflight mechanical failures last year, 397 of them occured in major metropolitan areas, well populated by owners of cameras, and 85% of those were during daylight. Of these, only one was recorded on camera. Of the 227 alien sightings last year, 213 of them were presented with 'convincing' photographic evidence, most of which fails to stand up to objective analysis. Still, they are sent and resent around the internet, gathering more gullible followers with every loop. It is not a paucity of evidence I find damning, as much as the sheer overwhelming glut. Response: the LGM Autopsy video is RIFE with anachronisms. See the "What Year Was This?" FAQ (for example, the Oxygen Warning signs were designed 12 years after this video was supposed to take place, the General named died 3 years before). If you still have an open mind, maybe YOU should address the proof. Feedback: When I asked, 'How do you handle the Chuck Chick tract on the Hollow Earth UFOs?' your reply ('With thick gloves and lighter fluid') shows your bias against Alienology! Response: Is Alienology really a word? Anyway, that was the 1000th feedback sent to this site on that comic book. It has been addressed in 990 feedback responses (8 were just too garbled to post), and the FAQ 'Let's Chuck the Chickster' has addressed the logic and factual problems of each and every panel since 1987. Of course we're biased against it, it says so on the Welcome page. And what I actually said was, 'Every time I come across this booklet, my urge to handle it with thick gloves and douse it with lighter fluid almost overwhelms my powerful belief in the 1st Amendment. So, I just write 'for another take on this subject, see Talk UFOrigins.com' on the cover and leave it where I found it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | So, let us
pretend you are a defense attorney. You have a client
accused of Some Heinous Crime. You also have the proof that
he is innocent, but it is not Obvious proof to the legal
layman. The proof requires some careful study, but it is
valid. You are preparing your defense when the prosecutor
calls you.
"I have a special offer, just for you. If you can come down to the courthouse tomorrow, and PROVE your client is innocent, the State will drop all charges. No trial, no media circus, no impact on his life." This sounds too good to be true, but you agree. When you get to the courthouse, you find Dr. D.A. standing alone in the courtroom. You place your evidence on the table and ask 'Do I just prove it to you?' "No," says the prosecutor, whose job is defined by proving people guilty, "I'm just the first screener. Any evidence that I believe is valid will be forwarded to the jury. If they find it valid, the charges will be dropped." "Oh. Who picked the jury?" you ask. "I did." says the prosecutor, as he sifts through the evidence. "Well, then can I present the evidence to the jury? Some of it is kind of hard to follow, if you don't have a legal degree." "I'd rather you didn't meet the jury. But I promise they'll be impartial." swears your opponent, sorting the evidence into two piles. "But will they have legal degrees?" you press. "Well, I have a legal degree, so I can make sure your evidence is legally valid. It'll be up to them just to decide if it is absolute proof." "Absolute? I thought the legal threshold was 'reasonable doubt?'" you shout, voice cracking. "Well, if the proof was reasonable, he wouldn't be a suspect, now would he? All the circumstantial evidence says he's guilty, so it's up to you to provide absolute proof that he's innocent." "Where did YOU get your legal degree?" "I hardly think that's important. Many politicians write laws without having spent a day in Law School. Good day." With that, he sweeps all of your evidence into a folder marked 'NOTES FOR TRIAL ARGUMENTS' and leaves. Which way will you bet? 1. A jury of legal eagles will exonerate your client by the weekend, no trial. 2. A jury of law students will examine your evidence, postulate the validity of your argument, and aquit your client by the end of the month, at an abbreviated trial. 3. A jury of assistant District Attorneys will flay your evidence for weaknesses that will become major points of contention during the trial 6 months later. 4. As there is no jury, the next people to see your evidence will be the media, after it has been distorted to catchy Sound Bites and misrepresented quotes. Then, when you finally argue it in court, all the jury will hear is what their TV told them earlier. So, is this about right? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | In a nutshell, yes. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I don't believe that Darwin's theory is completely true, but, for those of you that are completely against it, how do you explain the evidence like fossils of genetic mutations leading to the mutation of species as stated in Darwin's hypothesis? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Darwin knew
nothing of genetics. There is no such thing as a fossil of
a mutation. Species do not mutate; mutation occurs for an
individual organism.
I would suggest you don't worry too much about people who are objecting to Darwin's theory for the moment, and focus on some background information. In the archive, we have an Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Another excellent off-site resource is Evolution, Science and Society, describing the field of evolutionary biology, its challenges and opportunities. You can read their Executive Summary, or the longer Executive Document. I have given links to pdf files, and there are also html versions available from the home page. All these introductions deal with evolution as a modern science, which has progressed considerably since the foundations laid by Charles Darwin. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Could you
help? There's a state school in the UK that's in the hands
of fundamentalist Christians and they're hosting a
creationist conference in March.
I've put some stuff up on the web about them and I have mailed Richard Dawkins, David Deutsch and Alec Jeffries (DNA fingerprinting, qt. famous here in the UK) and they've all provided me with quotes. I'm trying to ramp up my campaign a few notches and I need more people to get involved. Could you help, or suggest a next move for me? I'm linking to talk.orignins, by the way, from my pages at |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The best folks to contact regarding such issues would be the National Center for Science Education. Although they are based in California, they ought to be able to put you in touch with those who might be able to help in the United Kingdom. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | gods truth |
Comment: | I am very concerned a bout on of your articles in the responce to a feed back statment. Wesley R. Elsberry you said that christ decieds wether you are a christian or not. well, sir you are sadly mistaken I dont know if you miss understood the sermon on the hill but that is absolutly not what the bilble says. The bible clearly states in Romans 10:9 "That if you confess with your mouth,Jesus is Lord,and belive in your heart that God raised him from the dead,you will be saved." So you can choose whether you are a christian or not because no one else can! God bless |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
As for that "absolutely not what the bible says", please check and see if this passage is in your copy:
But it seems that whether I'm right or you are right, my orginal correspondent is still wrong. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Although I
am a devout Christian and creationist I certainly disagree
with so many of the arguments made by many young-Earthers.
However, someone referred me to
this link on the 'Answers in Genesis' site.
You are probably aware of this page on their site but your readers may find it interesting. I found the honesty here to be both surprising and refreshing. Can we expect more of this in the future? We can only hope. Maybe then we begin to engage in more constructive dialogue. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Credit where credit is due. This is a very good thing to put up, and it helps to reinstate some sense that creationists can be more honest than some of their number have been in the past. Of course, they still make a number of debunked arguments, about information, thermodynamics and the like, but the egregious errors and things that are factually wrong are addressed here. Perhaps they'll pull the bombadier beetle argument next? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | This challenge has been sent to your website 3 other times and you have so far not accepted it or even replied to it publicly by putting it into your feedback forum area. I would think that a group of so-called scientists who are so confident in their 'evidence' and beliefs would not hesitate to accept this challenge ASAP. I will keep sending this to your website and I will also do my best to make this challenge known to the overall public (specifically the science community in general) as possible. I simply desire to see a fair and public debate occur between natural evolutionists like yourselves and creationists(in general) since this is something that should have happened long ago. Dr. Walt Brown has made his challenge clear and very fair. He does not hide behind any of his claims and has clearly expressed his desire to arrange a fair and level debate between the ToE camp and Creationist Science. HE is open to any and all suggestions and makes it also very clear that he will work with EVERYONE involved in a fair and equal manner to see this debate come to fruition. This would be a debate SOLEY based on scientific evidence and nothing else! If your 'facts' concerning evolution are so iron-clad then I cannot see any logic in refusing a request such as his, what say you then? The Challenge; "Agreement for Written Debate" The Center for Scientific Creation has issued this challenge here: How Do Evolutionists Respond to What You Say? This remains an open challenge to any and all evolutionists who desire to accept. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Yawn. Walt Brown's "challenge" is old news, which likely explains why nobody has bothered with your prior messages. If you had used the search facility here, you would have seen relevant information in the May 1997 Feedback, the January 2001 Feedback, the September 1998 Feedback, and the November 1996 Feedback. The link to Dr. Brown's site and debate challenge have been given exposure here in the past. Other information on Walt Brown is at this archive as well, Lucy's Knee Joint Letter from Walter Brown and How Good Are Those Young-Earth Arguments?. That last references an actual written debate that Brown had with Jim Lippard, published in Creation/Evolution back in 1990. Does Brown discuss that? This archive has had a link to Dr. Brown's website up at least since 1996. Does Dr. Brown link back to us, or any mainstream science site? Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I guess I don't understand why this web site would be produced to deny God and the Bible. The Bible teaches the humanities to it's fullest. Equality for the sexes and all races. Respect for the environment and animals. Respect for the homeless and those afflicted with disease. Love thy neighbor as thyself... etc.. What does evolution teach? There are higher evolved classes or races of people, (no equality here). Survival of the fittest, so let's burn all the trees and kill those who oppose us. When you die, you get buried in a plastic bag and that's it.. I don't dislike evolutionists, since I was one before, I guess I just don't understand why some people have a problem with what the Bible teaches. I mean really, why? What's the problem here? Ok, scientifically some things may be in question, but wouldn't you rather believe that some animals came from a boat than out of a rock? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
This website isn't produced to "deny God and the bible". See the God and Evolution FAQ. I'd rather believe that the events of September 11, 2001 weren't real. I'd rather believe that no one could countenance genocide. I'd rather believe that the Inquisition hadn't happened. Drat. That doesn't seem to change the evidence, does it? Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just wanted
to say that I love this site. It has stopped many people I
know from using stereotypical Christian responses such as
"NO transitional fossils" or ranting about the 2nd law of
thermodynaics, which they can't even state the original
law. I was approached the other day, and a Christian I know
talked about how Human skulls haven't changed in 10,000
years, and I didn't have any information on H. Sapien
skulls, or the difference between other hominind skulls at
the time, and am still looking into this. Could you please
help me?
Thnaks for your time, Otaku_Faith |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your friend
is nearly correct. Human skulls from 10,000 years ago are
almost the same as modern skulls. Also, Homo sapiens
has been around as a species far longer than this. There
are no other hominid species living that recently. The
closest candidate, Homo sapiens neanderthalensis,
died out about 30,000 years ago.
On the other hand, skulls 10,000 years ago are apparently not quite identical to modern skulls. According to the FAQ, Hominid Species, there are trends towards smaller molars and decreased robustness which can be seen even as recently as 10,000 years ago. Look right to end of the FAQ, for the section on Homo sapiens sapiens (modern). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If there is enough evidence to support both theories (Evolution AND Creationism) then why are we bothering to even try to prove them? Why not just let people believe in what they want to believe in? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
The content of evolutionary biology is sensitive to the state of evidence. A brief examination of Peter Bowler's "Evolution: The History of an Idea" will confirm that there have been many theories proposed within evolutionary biology which have been overturned by the evidence. The content of theological creation doctrines is not, however, sensitive to the state of the evidence. There need be no evidential support for any particular doctrine of creation, and in fact a doctrine of creation may have much countervailing evidence, as we see in the case of young-earth creationism. Finding out more about biology is part of science. We do this not just for sport or recreation. We do it to make a difference in our own lives. By understanding how biological systems change over time we are able to make better decisions in medicine and agriculture, among other things. I'm all for letting people believe what they want to believe, conditioned upon teaching science in science classrooms, and leaving non-science outside those classrooms. If somebody wants to believe in counterfactual conjectures, I personally have no big problem with that, so long as they don't insist that their particular brand of ignorance be taught as if it were science in a science classroom. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Andrea B. |
Comment: | Just out of curiosity, do you happen to know what the Creationists' take is on the origin of human-dependent symbionts, parasites and other pathogens? Are they supposed to have been created AFTER the Creation of Man? Wouldn't that contradict Genesis, which states that Adam and Eve were last? Or are all these organisms derived AFTER Man's Creation from other organims that weren't initially dependent on human beings? And wouldn't that be - gasp! - evolution? Where do they think HIV was until about 50 years ago? I'd try to write to some open-minded (so-to-speak) Creationist board, but I don't know any. Keep up the good work. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There tends
to be considerable diversity amongst creationists when it
gets to fine details.
One very active creationist group, Answers in Genesis, has a large number of files on such issues. In particular, they have a FAQ entitled Diseases on the Ark (off-site -- obviously), which deals with this issue. They do accept evolution on sufficiently small scales, and allow this to a factor. With respect to HIV, they also speculate about carriage of the disease in monkeys, and in a small naturally resistent population of humans. I would not call Answers in Genesis open minded by any means; nor will I attempt a reply to the above FAQ. Think of it as a homework exercise for our readers. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Has anyone to your recollection or has anyone you have researched made any claims about finding Noah's Ark or artifacts related to it in the Himalayan Mountains, especially in the vicinities of either Godwin Austin (K-2) or Everest? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Flood Stories From Around The World |
Response: | Not that I know of. There is a Hindu myth that the ship in which Manu survived the flood landed on Naubandhana, "the highest peak of Himavat," but no artifacts are associated with this story. Flood artifacts are attributed to non-Noachean flood myths from several other parts of the world, however, including Tuvinian (north of Mongolia), Squamish (Mt. Baker, British Columbia), and Huichol (western Mexico), so I wouldn't be surprized by claims of flood artifacts anywhere. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just a Question. If the total theory of Evolution is True, and a Fact, then Why aren't we Evolving from that one or many, common Ancestors today. If Evolution is in fact an ongoing process, then it would still be occurring from whence it started would it not? |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | Although the ultimate direction of the changes are uncertain, it is a fact that we are changing. In every generation, millions of mutations and new variations of genes are produced and tested. Humans are still subject to selection, mutation, recombination, genetic drift and other evolutionary mechanisms. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Why are marine fossils on top of mountains? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Because
mountains are formed over very long periods of time, as
material is uplifted by geological processes. Many mountain
tops are composed of sedimentary rocks, which were formed
originally in the bottom of a sea bed. Such mountains
frequently contain marine fossils. This is discussed in our
Problems with
a Global Flood FAQ.
A spectacular example is Mt Everest. The summit of Mt Everest is mostly limestone, with many deep sea fossils. Everest is quite a young mountain, and still growing. It is formed from an ancient sea floor, which is being uplifted as the subcontinent of India collides with the rest of Asia. Marine fossils on mountains is also an interesting example for historical reasons, because it is one of the first lines of evidence recognized as a disproof of the global flood. Leonardo da Vinci was a keen observer of fossils, who first recognized the impossibility of marine fossils on mountains being debris from a flood. I quote here one paragraph from an article about Leonardo at the University of California, Berkeley, Museum of Paleontology.
|
From: | |
Response: | In fact, Stephen Jay Gould has written an essay on this very subject, which can be found in his book Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Why didn't
you try, however tentatively (and tentativeness is what
science is all about,) to try to venture a response to this
question of mine in December ?:
I have heard creationists say a number of times that language has become grammatically (etc.) simpler over time. That is, Sanskrit has changed to simpler Hindi, ancient Greek to simpler Biblical and still simpler modern Greek, Latin to the simpler modern romance languages like Spanish and French, and so on. They've told me that this is hard to account for in evolutionary theory. They ask how it could account for human beings beginning with the most complex languages rather than evolving toward them. They say that this would imply design and, afterward, "devolution" or simplification instead of "evolution" of languages." I'm an evolutionist, and think that now I know the answer, including the byte-sized version then I had sought, having done a combination of working it out for myself and then in collaboration with a friend who is a recognized expert in the field, but I had asked the question in perfectly good faith, there is nothing that I can find about it on the web, and it bothers me a bit that you wouldn't or couldn't or didn't feel confident enough to provide at least a tentative kind of answer. Thanks again. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This question was addressed in the January Feedback by Dave Teegarden and myself. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have
enjoyed reading the responses to many of the feedback
comments, as well as a great many of the articles on the
website. I especially appreciate the restraint and the
reluctance to trade “insult for insult.” Thank
you. That accords with scriptural counsel to Christians
(e.g., 1 Peter 3:9).
But I do wish certain of your writers would cease and desist from referring to literal-tradition anti-evolutionists as creationists. They have the right to apply that term to themselves, but no right to hijack it as their exclusive property. And when your good responders equate creationists with anti-evolutionists, I feel I am being unfairly painted with the same overly broad brush. I am both a creationist and an evolutionist. I believe God created random processes, giving a kind of freedom to matter-energy at the quantum level (indeterminacy), and freedom for the universe and the life in it to evolve in undirected ways. I believe that God is involved, but in ways that are scientifically undetectable. In fact, I’m currently writing a book titled “And God Created Evolution: How You Can Face Facts and Still Keep Your Faith in God.” Part of my message is this: God gave matter-energy and life freedom, and God also gives us Homo sapiens freedom to act in ways that can be either loving or hateful. Great website! |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
We have a split amongst our respondents here on this point. Some of us, including myself, agree with you that "creationist" is a broad term that can include people who accept the findings of biological science. Others seem to feel that "creationist" is equivalent to "anti-evolutionist". I'm not sure that agreement on this is going to come anytime soon. You may note that within the "jargon" file here, I've given the broad construal of "creationist" pride of place. But I'm not sure that I can agree that "creationist" should not be used to describe the young-earth, old earth, and intelligent design anti-evolutionists. These people almost without exception come to their anti-evolution stance by way of their religious commitments, and the relevant commitment there is to a particular doctrine of creation which they feel is incompatible with the findings of evolutionary biology. Wesley |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | You might want to look up some publications by Howard Van Till(professor emeritus of physics and astronomy at Calvin College). It sounds like you may have a similar viewpoint as Dr. Van Till's. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Unknown |
Comment: | If the Earth is indeed flat, what does the "end" of the Earth look like? And so, how do you justify the images from the many satellites in orbit, which show a round Earth? |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | The pictures
don't show a round (spherical) earth; they show a circular,
flat earth. This is precisely what one would expect from a
two-dimensional picture, yes?
As one can see from pictures, the earth has no "end" and thus your question is irrelevant! I can anticipate your next questions: 1) How can satellites "orbit" a flat earth and how, for that matter, can a flat earth "orbit" the sun? The answer is simple, everything in space is carried on the backs of turtles. 2) And what are these turtles standing upon? The answer to that is equally simple: It's turtles all the way down! see: The Discworld Books: It's a series, not a serial. Even so... and Turtles All the Way Down And... site under construction: Turtles All the Way |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | WHO IS THE AUTHOR? |
Responses | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | "Who is the
Master?"
- Sno'nuff (played by Julius J. Carry III, in Berry Gordy's, "The Last Dragon". 1985 TriStar Pictures) |
From: | |
Response: | Check The Author
Network, or The Author
Ring or The Author
Webliography for more information.
However, many postmodernists and structuralists think that the author doesn't matter anyway. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Mark Wolfe |
Comment: | Perhaps you
need to get a science education or something, but this site
contains nothing relevant to the Creation/Evolution debate.
Give one example of Hydrogen Gas ever turning into a human. Ah, you can't! Therefor, evolution is completely bogus. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I should
ignore this one, but I just can't...
If you want a single example of hydrogen turning into a human being, I offer myself as an instance. I am the result of hydrogen being transformed in a supernova into many elements, some of which ended up on a small planet and which, according to the laws of chemsitry (as yet not entirel y understood) turned into a sequence of living organisms that interacted with many other organisms and the environment to produce me. I do hope that you are now convinced that evolution is not bogus :-) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Barrett |
Comment: | Dr. Hovind is offering a reward to anyone who can prove evolution. If there was an abundance of evidence, it seems someone would have taken him up on his generous offer. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I don't know how many times we have to respond to this ridiculous "challenge" before people stop bringing it up. "Dr" Hovind's "generous offer" is a complete and utter fraud. The standards he erects make it impossible to prove ANY historical claim whatsoever. I suggest you use the search function for the archive and you will find this explained in great detail. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Where are the four corners of the earth at geographically? One is reported to be Brimstonehead on Fogo Island off the northeastern coast of Newfoundland, Canada, where are the other locations? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The Earth
has five corners, not four.
Quoting from the FAQ:
:-) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear Sirs:
Love your site! Iam a middle-school art student (13 years
old) and I was arguing with a creationist about the 2nd law
and referenced your site: He made the following comment
after allegedly reading your FAQs on the subject....
>From Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics, he retrieves the following statement: "Creationists recognize that in many cases order does spontaneously arise from disorder ... Crystalline snowflakes form from randomly moving water vapor molecules." And then makes these statements regarding the genesis of snowflakes: "Sorry, but totally wrong..... First, the talkorigins author alleges that "Creationists recognize", but it is an unsubstantiated allegation. As such, he has ASSUMED this to be true. However, by stating the conclusion (i.e. water becoming more organized as it turns into snowflakes) as fact, he has acknowledged that HE believes it to be fact. Second, when snowflakes form they loose energy. Thus, there is increase in entropy (i.e. increase in disorder not increase in order). Second, randomness is, by nature, very high in disorder. When a snowflake forms, the pattern is very random, NOT organized." I don't have the background in thermo to argue the point when he says that creationists don't recognize the your "fact" on the origin of snowflakes. Could you answer this, please. Thanks! Ian Hendricks ***** He goes on to make the following claims:(His "supporting premises" on why he thinks the creationist version of thermo "disproves" evolution.): (His "premises") 1) Evolution proposes the "evolution" of lower ordered systems into higher ordered systems. 2) The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that in an isolated system, Order moves toward Disorder. 3) The earth can be considered an open system, a closed system, or an isolated system. The Laws of Thermodynamics can be applied to any of these systems, if it is done properly. 4) The earth has been defined as a closed system by the following organizations: National Science Foundation, The Space Science and Engineering Center, and The Cooperative Institute for Meteorological Satellite Studies, in a web site designed to create a simple model for studying the effects of solar radiation on the earth. 5) An open system is a system which allows both matter and energy in and out of the system. A closed system is one where only energy (usually in the form of heat) is allowed in or out of the system. An isolated system is one where neither heat nor energy is allowed in or out of the system. 6) With the earth defined as a closed system, any life on the planet would be restricted to anything on the earth, plus any solar energy coming into the earth's atmosphere. 7) If only plant cells existed for 2.5 billion years, they would drown in their own wastes long before any further life evolved. 8) If both plants and animals existed long ago, then they would have become a balanced ecosystem that was at the level of output of energy from the sun. 9) There would be no remaining (i.e. AVAILABLE) energy from the sun to fuel any upward evolution. Thus, evolution is false (he concludes). ****** It seems to me that your FAQs answers these "claims", but he says that they don't and I have not had enough experience in this science (I'm a high school junior and my field is computers) to "put his nose in it", if you will. This looks like the millionth interation of the usual creationist bunk, but I need some help in stating the case directly to each of these so-called "claims". Aside from the wonderful FAQs pages, I really like the way you guys answer questions in the Feedback (directly, to the point, easy to understand, and politely). Keep up the good work!! Larry Hendricks PS: My little brother forgot to "sign" his question (we were both arguing with one of our Aunts' creationist friends (she isn't one herself) before we hit the "submit" button. Our apologies for the double posting!!! Thanks again (just for being there!) |
Response | |
From: | Tim Ikeda |
Response: | Let's see...
Your friend suggested: Second, when snowflakes form they
loose energy. Thus, there is increase in entropy (i.e.
increase in disorder not increase in order). Second,
randomness is, by nature, very high in disorder. When a
snowflake forms, the pattern is very random, NOT
organized."
That statement is exactly backwards. The formation of ice (and snowflakes) from water or steam results in a decrease in the entropy of the H2O molecules. When frozen into ice, the water molecules become locked into a crystal lattice, a state that is far less random and has fewer degrees of freedom than molecules in gaseous or liquid states. The freezing of liquid water into ice results in a net decrease in standard entropy of about 22 J/K/mole (at zero degrees Celsius). About definitions of open and closed systems: Your discussion partner is again incorrect and should consult the thermodynamics chapter of any decent chemistry textbook (or perhaps your chemistry teacher). An open system is one in which matter or energy can travel in or out. A closed system is one in which neither matter nor energy cross system boundaries. It has no interaction with anything outside it. An isolated system is no different from a closed system. The Earth is definitely not a closed system. The NSF, SSEC & CIMMSS have never said that the Earth is a closed system with respect to energy or matter fluxes. It's possible that your friend is confusing "closed" with "steady-state". The Earth may be close to a steady-state with regard to energy input and output but that's a completely different matter from whether it is a closed system. About plants drowning in their wastes after 2.5 billion years: Sealed terrariums provide a pretty good counter-demonstration. Plants have never existed alone on the Earth. There are also bacteria and fungi present that destroy the waste and convert the biomass to a form which plants can reuse. About there being too little remaining energy to fuel evolution: An interesting fantasy. If you have enough spare energy to play Nintendo and occasionally take out the trash, you've got more than enough energy to evolve. Mutations figure very little in the overall energy economy of the cell. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great Scott!
Mark did a fabulous job of dodging my questions. Did he
work nights as a stand-up?
What I was trying to put forth was obviously convoluted to say the least. Ok, I'll try again and be brief. When I asked where did the Bombardier Beetle and its ancestors come from (and the other questions), I was trying to say where did the elements of the Big Bang come from? That may seem to be a bit outlandlish, however, you must know, considering you know, with great confidence, where the Beetle's ancestors came from. If I follow your logic correctly, we humans came from primates, which came from some other lower form of life which came from another even lower form of life, etc., etc., etc., until we arrive back in time to the Big Bang. Right? Therefore it stands to reason that there are only three conclusions a logical mind can reach to explain the emergence of the Big Bang and its components and hence the existence of our universe and ourselves: (1)It has always existed. (2)It created itself. (3)A super intelligence (beyond our ability to comprehend) operating outside the physical constraints of time and space and not being bound by those physical constraints of time and space created it all by methods our finite, mortal minds cannot conceive. Mark admits the odds of life forming on its own are zero (question 4). Good for him. Then he adds that energy and raw materials must be allowed into the equation to contribute to the formation of life. Guess what the next question is Mark? Yep, where did the energy and raw materials come from? Please don't bother me with "they were already there" or the Big Bang formed them" or some other such nonsense. To admit that life cannot form on its own and then with the next breath admit that other raw materials need to "help" it out" to create it defies logic and contributes to the demise of your credibility. If life cannot create itself then how in the blazes can non-rational matter create itself to help along the creation of living matter? Am I missing something here? What do you mean by "an inflationary period producing helium, hydrogen and heavy elements"? That sounds like something a politician would say to dodge a tough question. The mathematical probability of a single DNA gene forming by chance is 1 in 10 to the 155th power. Fred Hoyle is quoted as saying that the odds of discovery by random shufflings of the number of trial assemblies of amino acids needed to produce enzymes (another basic building block of life) is less than one in 10 to the 40,000th power! I'm not going to print all those zeros! Evolutionists, by their mere belief system, do indeed say that life created itself. How else can you possibly explain your belief system if not by creating itself? Perhaps someone else created it? You babble on to say that mutation and recombination and natural selection produce organized complexity. That's interesting. Perhaps you can provide me with numerous examples, past and present, of successful mutations? I eagerly await your reply. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution |
Response: | If you want
to ask where the universe ultimately came from, then just
ask that. Making it part of a question about bombardier
beetles makes less sense than making lessons about cotton
and leather production part of teaching someone how to tie
their shoelaces.
The three options for the origin of the universe are (1) it had no beginning; (2) it arose spontaneously; or (3) something unknown (not necessarily intelligent and not necessarily beyond our ability to comprehend) is responsible for it. But #3 begs the question of where the 'something' came from. At this time, the best answer is nobody knows how our universe originated, although evidence does indicate that it had a beginning. I am afraid I don't what resources to recommend for the best introduction to the inflationary model of the Big Bang. I suggest you browse the astronomy or physics section at a local bookstore or library. (A university bookstore would probably be your best bet.) The odds of DNA or enzymes arising by chance are irrelevant, because evolutionary theory does not and never did say they arose by chance. For "successful mutations," please see Are Mutations Harmful? Pay particular attention to the appendices. |
From: | |
Response: | Regarding the inflationary model of the Big Bang, check out the book The Inflationary Universe: The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origin. Also, see the April 2002 issue of Discover magazine for an article on the inflationary model. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | "Biological
evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces
everything from slight changes in the proportion of
different alleles within a population (such as those
determining blood types) to the successive alterations that
led from the earliest protoorganism to snails, bees,
giraffes, and dandelions."
- Douglas J. Futuyma in Evolutionary Biology, Sinauer Associates 1986 The above quote appears on your web site under a heading that implies that you are going to help clarify the debate over the meaning of the word evolution. My question is, "If evolution simply means change over time, then why is it necessary to include in the definition the words "alteration from the earliest protoorganism to snails,..." which clearly implies that evolution is not change over time but change over time that leads to a new type of organism? You have muddied the water right from the start if you ask me. If evolution means change over time "period" I agree with you. However, I am not sure that what you are saying. Jon Bannon |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are
reading the FAQ What is
Evolution.
You are meant to read the whole FAQ, not just one little quote. And when you read a quote, you also read the whole thing. The full quote as given in the FAQ is as follows. I have emphasized in bold type the sentence immediately preceding the fragment you have quoted.
Someone is certainly muddying the water, and it is not the FAQ. We have a new FAQ in preparation, which should be coming on-line shortly, on the subject of Quotations and Misquotations. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Listen, I'm only 14 and I may not be a rocket scientist but at least I know the difference between a load of crap and the truth! I suggest that you get yourselves into some serious therapy very soon cause you obviouly have some major issues!How can you possibly belive that the whole world evolved out of nothing,nadda,zip,zero...... |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The word
"evolution" means "change". Any notion of origins, of
anything, which uses the word "evolution", is a proposal
for how something develops out of something else.
Biological evolution, for example, deals with how living organisms arise from other different living organisms. Scientific hypotheses for the origins of life, although not technically a part of evolutionary biology, are concerned with the origins and development of chemical replicators from pre-biotic chemistry. Models for the origin of the Earth are concerned with how a cloud of interstellar gas would coalesce into a star, and the formation of planets from a disk of dust and gas. Scientific models for the origins of the universe itself deal with the development of space and time and matter from conditions of extraordinary heat and density. We really don't know much about the universe before that. Just like you and I, the universe, or the world, has a history. It has developed and changed over time. Evolution is a study specifically of the history of life, and the processes by which life changes over time. It is not about things coming out of nothing; just the opposite, in fact. I recommend to you our FAQ What is Evolution. Also, I strongly recommend you look at the FAQ Welcome to talk.origins. This is actually about how to get the most constructive involvement in the Usenet group, but the same principles apply for constructive dialog in the web as well. Also very helpful is the following page on appropriate netiequette. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | So often,
rambling creationists will write in and make claims they
don't even try to substantiate. They are always easily
countered. Mr. Elsberry’s reply to my January
feedback falls into a similar category. I am not Catholic;
I said nothing of "Original sin" as if it were some
philosophy. I referred to scriptures that are
well-established parts of the original Bible cannon. His
reply had no scriptural support whatsoever. It seems as if
he feels the weight of his authority is enough. I can only
hope that some of those claiming to be Christian while also
believing in evolution will see that he had nothing of any
real substance to say.
I would also like to point out that his use of the word "grace" was inaccurate. "Grace" is translated from a Greek word meaning 'undeserved kindness.' How can anyone fall short of something that, by definition, they already don't deserve? We can fail to accept it, but we can't fall short of it. The teaching that fallen man needs the sin-atoning sacrifice of the perfect man Jesus Christ is so deeply interwoven in the scriptures that no one can reasonably claim it was simply an afterthought (like Wesley tried to do). (Read Isaiah 53, Hebrews 10, Revelation 7:9-14, and the texts I referred to in my original feedback. These are just a few of many, many such references.) Thank you. Ken |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
OK, I don't want to quibble about "grace". I'll retract the previous statement and assert this one instead: One doesn't have to attribute guilt to accept the position that all have sinned and require salvation. Hopefully, I've avoided the theological jargon landmines this time. Anti-evolutionists often do things other than ramble. They misrepresent prior argumentation, utilize bait-and-switch tactics, and make citations that are irrelevant to the point. I have never argued, as Ken implies above, that the need for Christ's sacrifice was "an afterthought". Anyone can confirm that no such argument on my part is present in the January feedback. I have attempted to respond to Ken's original statement, which is different than what he implies I differed from:
So Ken's original argument was about the literalness of Adam, and the argument he refers to in this feedback is the much broader issue of the necessity of salvation. That seems to me to be a clear case of bait-and-switch. I'm responding now, as I was then, to the point of whether a literal Adam need be considered necessary to Christian belief. I'll note that the "scriptural support" Ken cites often seems to stray from the topic of a literal Adam. Isaiah 53 is not about a literal Adam. In fact, Isaiah 53:6 appears to be counter to Ken's original argument, as it says that all have gone astray. Hebrews 10 is not about a literal Adam. Revelation 7:9-14 is not about a literal Adam. 1 John 2:2 is not about a literal Adam. It is an interpretation of scripture that would make a literal Adam a necessity for Christian belief. Not everyone agrees with that interpretation, nor even with according it status as a more minor doctrine. It is historically rather recent. The earliest reference that the Catholic church cites is about 100 AD. It wasn't widely adopted until after St. Augustine's exposition of it some three centuries later. That certain other scriptures that Ken cites have been interpreted as a basis for the concept of 'original sin' (whether one applies the name or just assimilates the concept) is stipulated, but it is not stipulated that the interpretation necessarily follows. If Ken wishes to respond, I suggest taking it to the talk.origins newsgroup. This feedback area is not intended for extended back-and-forth. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Some Pakistani scholar said that Darwin had Muslim influences. The guy said that some centuries before Darwin, some Muslim scholars, al-Jahiz and ibn Miskawaih had arrived at the concept of evolution (which I don't know the details) and Darwin, having been taught Arabic language, came across al-Jahiz's works and read it; hence the Muslim influence. Anybody in talkorigins had some more info about that? Found no Muslims in Darwin's precursors and influences FAQ. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Darwin read
and spoke French, and a little bit of German. I do not know
if he spoke Latin, but he certainly had no Arabic.
Any influence Islamic scientists had on Darwin were very indirect. It is possible that Islamic thinkers developed a form of evolutionary theory, although I very much doubt it resembled Darwinian evolution much, rather more like the Great Chain of Being notions that both western and middle eastern traditions inherited from the neo-Platonists. However, there is no record of which I am aware that these ideas made their way to Darwin or anyone who influenced him. Merely because an idea resembles a later idea is no reason to think that there is a causal connection - such influences have to be demonstrated. History of ideas is not the history of disembodies entities. Al-Jahiz and ibn-Miskawaih would have to be shown to have been read by Darwin. We know quite a bit about what he read, and no such references have come to my attention. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I don't believe that religion has anything to do with the earth considering that the bible was written in a time when they killed and persecuted all who questioned the the flat earth theory. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I do not
think people have ever been killed or persecuted for
questioning the flat earth theory. At the time and culture
where the old testament was written, the basic cosmology
was a flat earth cosmology, and there was no real
alternative.
The rounded shape of the earth was worked out in Greek culture. There were cases of Greek scholars who were run out of town for saying things considered to be ridiculous by the general population, but this was well before Christianity, and has nothing to do with the bible. By the time and culture in which the new testament was written, the spherical shape of the earth was well known and accepted to scholars, and it was not an issue for the very earliest church. In the first centuries of the organized church, the shape of the earth did become a minor issue, on which opinion was divided. There was no real persecution, however, and for the most part the round shape of the earth was accepted, with flat earth advocates becoming more and more isolated and idiosyncratic. It was a non-issue after about 540 AD. The popular modern myth of flat earth beliefs in the time of Columbus is just that: a myth. We ought to have a FAQ on this subject, as it comes up quite a lot. In the meantime, one place to look at the subject is The Myth of the Flat Earth. Note that in this page myth refers to the myth that flat earth beliefs were at all common in the middle ages. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | "Marcus" |
Comment: | I have been
carefully watching the struggle between the two sides
unfold. And I have come to several conclusions. First is on
the fact that creationists are now using scientific
explanations to back up their belief. I have found that
what they are really doing is just mutating the evidence
for evolution and then adding scientific jargen to make it
look intelligent. On a side note: they have opened up a
museum for creationism, sadly. Second, creationists make up
the WORST answers for issues such as the great flood and
the dinasours. Something tells me that humans and dinasours
could not live in the same world "peacefully". And third,
and the thing that makes me very upset, is how I can
effectively relate the way many creationsists work to the
book "1984". They seem to have a totalitarian approach to
their work. I have seen hundreds attempts to teach young
children to be soldiers in a war against the
evolutionists.I saw this on a show that was talking about
the debate, here a teacher in a christian school told his
students,"In this class we will prepare you to do battle
with the evolutionists". And when I watch the Trinity
Broadcasting Channel, I feel like I am watching a
propaganda film from the Soviet Union. And one more thing,
on whether or not creationism should be taught in schools;
leave creationism to church and leave evolutionism to
school.
One thing that we all have to realize is that"In this society, the truth is no longer defined by evidence and facts, but by majority belief." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a question about a supposed quote. Recently in our local paper there has been an ongoing debate between Creationists and evolution supporters. For the most part it is the usual slanging match about transient forms, etc. But some of the opposition keep coming up with a tale that the director of the Natural History Museum in London once asked a group of scientists to name one "true" thing about evolution, "the silence" continues the quote "was deafening." What I want to know is was there such a meeting and question asked? and if so what was the context it was asked in? As it seems to me that what may have been a perfectly valid enquiry has been taken wildly out of context. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are correct. This is an old creationist canard about Colin Patterson that pops up time and time again. Jonathan Wells, for instance, revives it in his book Icons of Evolution; a refutation is presented in Icon of Obfuscation (scroll down to the heading "The 'Darwinist Conspiracy': Wells vs. Reality"). Wesley Elsberry has also addressed this question in the November 1999 Post of the Month. Finally, this page discusses another common misquotation of Patterson. Patterson died in 1998. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Let me start out by saying what a great job talkorings does in presenting an unbiased view of creationism/evolutionism. I was just wondering if there was any information presented by creationists on the subject of continental drift? Satellites presently show (for example) that the mid-atlantic ridge is spreading at an approximate rate of 2 to 3 cm per year separating Europe/Africa from the Americas. Obvious even to Benjamin Franklin was the apparent similarites between opposing coastlines (hence a jigsaw fit / Pangaea), not to mention the paleontological data collected on opposing coastlines (similar flora and fauna, that's one heck of swim). How is this obvious detail accounted for by creationists? Assuming that the earth is only 10,000 years old then the rate at which the continents drifted would have to be approximately 0.34 miles per year (ex. New York to London...about 3500 miles (563e08 cms / 10000 years). Hold on to your hats! Just a thought.... (PS. I have a BS in Geology, and and MS in Hydrogeology). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: |
Talk.Origins,
I was sent a short article (arguing for creation, but that's besides the point) which talked a bit about abiogenesis and the impossibility of life comming from non-life. Here is an excerpt: BIOGENESIS Between 1859 and 1861 Pasteur proved as conclusively as science can that in the modern world no living thing arises except from other living things. Pasteur’s experiments marked the end of a line of similar work stretching back to Spallanzani in the eighteenth, and Redi in the seventeenth, century; it marked the end of belief in spontaneous generation and the establishment of the principle of biogenesis—‘all life come from life’ Reproduction of life from previous life is, as far as known, the only process involved in the rise of organisms today. It is the great principle underlying the continuity of life as we know it. On the basis of the Principle of Biogenesis, atheistic evolution cannot be true. Life came from a living Life-giver! VIRCHOW’S PRINCIPLE Virchow’s principle that 'all cells come from cells' is just a more explicit form of this same truth [biogenesis, TNT], because all life takes the form of cells. Where a cell exists there must have been a pre-existing cell. There is no life apart from the life of cells. The cell, in fact, is the minimum organization of matter that, in the modern world, is capable of all those processes we collectively refer to as ‘life’. On the basis of Virchow’s Principle, atheistic evolution cannot even explain the origin of a single cell, much less tremendously complex organisms composed of billions of cells. Is any of this true? I've never even heard of these "principles" before. Do I need to get out more, or is the author of this article misusing laws of science? On a side note, if anyone has the time to respond, could they please email me instead of/in addition to posting the response on the feedback board? Last time I wrote to Talk.Origins, I never heard back from them and I'm not sure if it's because they just didn't respond, of if they did respond on the webpage, but didn't send me an email to let me know. Once again, thanks for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As usual,
this is partly correct but mostly wrong.
Redi in 1668 showed that insects developed from fertilised eggs, not spontaneously, as the folk biology of the day held. Spallanzani showed that maggots would not form in rotting meat unless flies were permitted to lay eggs on it. This is hardly what the theory of abiogenesis (life from non-life) requires. On the very much outdated view of Lamarck, each species is the evolution (in the sense of development) of a spontaneously generated germ through a predtermined sequence. Hence, spontaneous generation was supposed to occur all the time. Darwin supposed in correspondence that there was only one abiogenetic event, and that subsequent possible events would quickly fall prey to already alive organisms. But in his publications he allowed that there may have been a few original organismic forms. But just about the time he supposed that, Pasteur was showing that spontaneous generation even of microbes did not occur, with the famous long necked flask experiment. That was more of a problem for Darwin, and he never followed up his initial speculations. But what was it that Pasteur showed? At most he showed that in that sterile broth under those conditions, life would not spontaneously originate. But under modern theories, nobody supposes that this is how life did begin. Modern theories involve a vastly different range of chemicals and conditions to Pasteur's broth. In fact, Pasteur was making a medical point - that bacteria are passed on in the proper conditions rather than forming on the spot, spontaneously. This meant that infection coul eb controlled through the use of sterile handling and antiseptics, saving the lives of millions. What he did not show was that life canot form in a volcanic vent or a "warm pond" of salts and other pre-organic molecules. Likewise Virchow's principle - the great founder of pathology showed that every modern cell (e.g., in human development of tissues from what we now call "stem cells") develops from the multiplication of pre-existing cells. In 1855, this was news - tissues were previously thought to generate under the right conditions spontaneously. His principle was "...no development of any kind begins de novo, and consequently [one must] reject the theory of [spontaneous] generation just as much in the history of the development of individual parts as we do that of entire organisms" (quoted in Mayr's The Growth of Biological Thought, p65). So, we have the principle that insects grow from eggs, that maggots form from eggs, that infections occur from bacteria that are transmitted to a food medium and that when organisms develop their cells form from existing cells. None of this relates to the issue of abiogenesis! This is the classical creationist trick of citing things selectively on the basis of some vague resemblance to a previously determined conclusion. Modern views of abiogenesis, a term that was coined by that arch evolutionist T.H. Huxley, involve the generation of very simple structures, far less complex than a modern cell. These would be able to do little more than convert chemicals and energy into copying themselves. But once that step was achieved, ecological diversification would shortly result in evolution as we know it. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your
response on a feedback gave me food for thought:
"You're unlikely to find any such reasons on this site, for two reasons. The simple reason is that the United States Supreme Court has ruled that creationism is a religious doctrine, and that teaching religious doctrines in publicly-funded classrooms is an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment guarantee against government establishment of religion. See the Edwards v. Aguillard decision, one of the primary cases on this subject." If vouchers are legalized will publicly-funded classrooms no longer be publicly funded, and will this give creationist the edge they need to instill their dogma in these same classrooms? The religious groups are pro-voucher, by the way. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is an intriguing question, because the law is unsettled on this point. My personal analysis would be that giving out school vouchers would turn private schools into publicly-funded schools, thereby requiring them to follow the same First Amendment rules that public schools today must follow. How the courts might answer this question, however, is anyone's guess. |