Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I read your
info on transitional forms, but you still can't seem to
offer any "concrete" evidences of distinct transtional
forms. Darwin even knew that the gap record was a flaw. I
found a website on transitional forms. I was wondering what
you thought of it. And also. How come you don't have a live
debate about this. I would be really interested.
Answers to my Evolutionist Friends: Present Day Examples of Evolution charleton |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I found this claim on that website.
As usual, the claims made are overarching and ignore relevant data. The impedance-matching ossicular chain in mammals is an example of a complex system that developed via evolution. The fossil record for stages in its development is quite good. The anti-evolutionary attack on fossil evidence often demands that two separate attributes be shown: fine-grained evidence and large-scale change. If large-scale change happens, as in the impedance-matching apparatus of the mammalian ear, it is commonly seen that anti-evolutionists will object that we don't have such a fine-grained record as to allow us to construct an unbroken species-to-species line of descent. If we have in hand a fine-grained transitional series, such as found in some foraminiferan evolution, the objection is raised that such transitions do not record large-scale change. The fossil evidence as it exists has been fully adequate to convince generation after generation of paleontologists of the reality of biological evolution, and stands as a major line of evidence for the theory of common descent. Anti-evolutionary critics should take some time to explain why this should be so, given that paleontologists and biologists subscribe to many different religious beliefs. The usual false claims about liquefaction of pupae tissues during metamorphosis also appear in the suggested link. We do have a "live debate". It is at the talk.origins newsgroup. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear Sirs,
Civilisations are created by aliens. I have proof Have you ever seen 1/2 a civilisation? There is no possible way that there was ever 1/2 of the Egyptian civilisation. It couldn't function. There must be food gatherers and distributors. What is the point of gathering loads of food if no-one can distribute it, and without the gatherers there is no need for the distributors. In every civilisation there is both gathering and distribution. The probability of these things developing by chance together is too remote. Also, there is never anything new in a civilisation. Any modifications to a civilisation are just changes, for example, Computers are just a modification of older technology. The process of Entropy forbids new technologies developing. I have read a couple of books about this subject, so I know what am talking about, and every claim that the 'macro-technologists' claim can be rebutted if you try hard enough. Don't try to show me how my ideas are wrong, I got them from the most reliable source, my father, so any evidence you do have must be wrong if it contradicts him. My father has never been shown to be wrong. Any time that it appears that he is caught in a contradiction, all that is necessary is to find out the source of the information. If it isn't my father then the information cannot be trusted, and my father can be vindicated. Now that everyone knows this, I hope there will be no more arguments on the subject. Yours truly, Filip PS Evolution couldn't have happened because it goes against the 2nd law of thermodynamics (I don't believe this, as no-one would who knew anything about science, but as everyone else who sends a mail to this site claims this, I didn't want to be left out). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | kinbec |
Comment: | Do evolutionists still date fossils according to the layers/strata of dirt they're found in? I read an article in which it was said that the heat from Mt. St. Helens's eruption melted the snow on the mountain resulting in a huge flood of water which carved a 200 foot wide, 100 foot deep canyon in a matter of hours. It went on to say that this canyon appeared to be "complete with strata" as though it had taken millions of years. The head of the geological survey team was quoted as saying something along the lines of "We are a experiencing a revolution in how we look at geological phenomena and associated dating methods." |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
"Evolutionists" don't date fossils; geologists and
paleontologists do. And yes, now that we have a good idea
of the dates certain strata were laid down, we can provide
absolute dates for the fossils in those strata.
Regarding Mt. St. Helens: The article you read is probably based on Steve Austin's work for the Institute for Creation Research, in which he claims that the Grand Canyon could have been laid down by a global flood. Unfortunately, many features seen in the Grand Canyon cannot be explained by this idea. (Not to mention that the "canyon" seen at Mt. St. Helens was carved in ash, not rock.) A discussion of this can be found at Coal Beds, Creationism, and Mount St. Helens and The ICR's Grand Canyon Dating Project. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | It says in the bible that their are some things we are not meant to understand and you have no idea why God may have created us the way that he did. What seems like a bad idea to you, may have been just the way it was supposed to be and their may be a reason you do not know for this. And if I were you when refering to the moron that created the urethra and prostate wrong, I would think about where I wanted to end up in the after life. Pack a fan my friend! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I find it interesting that those Christians and other believers who accept the universe as the creation of God and the mechanisms discovered by science as the means of God's creation always seem to come in for more than their fair share of criticism. Comments like the one by the reader above are distressingly common. God, it seems, is constrained by the reader's understanding to have created in some way other than what the evidence appears to show. This, then, is supposed to represent a salvation issue by which someone who took the evidence of the creation seriously will come to suffer as a result of that. I will have to respectfully disagree with the reader. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have asked this question several times and not once have I been given a straight-forward answer. Something in/before this universe had to have been eternal. For religion/chrisitanity/creationism, it's God. For evolution it's...well, matter. Either one takes great faith. Can you really say that there is any kind of a scientific or provable explanation as to where origianl matter came from, or how it could have existed eternally. Of course there isn't, but I'm sure you'll come up with a fancy string of very scientific-sounding words to explain this stumper. And as long as we're here, isn't it also true that it is scientifically/mathematically impossible for life to come from non-living material. I once read a study in which NASA calculated the odds of that happening. There conclusion was that the odds were zero; not 1.0 to the negative zillionth power, just zero. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That is not
really a question, but a statement.
In fact, it is not the case that something in or before the universe has to be eternal. That assumption presumes that time is something that goes on for ever, and that universe and other things exist somewhere along an infinite span of time. The truth is far more strange. Time does not have a kind of independent existence, but is a another aspect of the universe along with space and matter and energy. We really don't know all about the origins of the universe; but scientists have learned not to rely on simple assumptions about time. Some Christians who are aware of these strange aspects to cosmology speak of God, and eternity, as being outside of time altogether, rather than being a span of infinite duration throughout time. Evolution is concerned with the origins of living diversity. The ultimate origins of the universe are simply not an issue. Evolution works fine regardless of how the universe got here, and whether or not it makes sense to speak of the universe or anything else being eternal. It is also not true that it is scientifically or mathematically impossible for life to come from non-living material, and you have certainly never read a study in which NASA calculated the odds of life forming as being zero. It is not possible to make any meaningful calculations of odds without a detailed model, and no sufficiently detailed model exists. As far as we know, life might be highly probable in the right conditions, and spread widely throughout the universe. Or it might be highly unlikely, and Earth is the only place where life exists at all. In either case, evolution deals with what happens afterwards. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | "Science News" has an item, 15 JAN 00, p. 38, about scientists being hoaxed by a fake reptile/bird transitional fossil from China. Before anti-evolutionists crow too loudly about this, they should consider that this shows the error correcting nature of science, while all they do is bad mouth science and make no constructive contributions themselves. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Quite so.
This has been discussed in talk.origins. Here are some
relevant links.
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The one
thing evolution has been severely lacking in is an adequate
description of the origin of life. As Fred Hoyle himself
said, "The likelihood of the formation of life from
inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts
after it .... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole
theory of Evolution."
Though in the field of molecular biology, I have yet to see any convincing evidence to support abiogenisis, only pathetic excuses such as quoting the Miller experiment as evidence or vague references to mineral catalysts or autocatalytic RNA. After all of this study in the area of molecular biology, no viable theory has been produced, just vague, a priori statements about what we just "know" happened or about what we might one day find about the origin of life. If the evidence for abiogenisis is so clear, then why isn't it presented clearly, and if its not clear (or lacking entirely in many areas), then why do so many swear by it as undeniable fact? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your first
statement is spot on. The lack of an adequate description
of the origin of life sticks out like a sore thumb as gap
in our understanding of life.
One might quibble that evolution is not about the origin of life, but its subsequent development. This is true enough, because regardless of how life got here, evolution remains incontestibly the basis for any credible explanation of the subsequent rich diversity in living species. On the other hand, scientists are never satisfied with what is known, but seek to extend our understanding, and the origin of life is obviously an area where we have much indeed to learn; when and if we learn about this process it will almost certainly be considered a part of a more extended and comprehensive theory of evolution. However, knowledge builds on knowledge; and if you are interested in this subject you would do well to take care with your starting point. Fred Hoyle is mistaken; neither he nor anyone else has anything like a sufficient understanding to calculate a probability, since meaningful calculations have to be based on a very comprehensive model (theory) indeed. You and I are apparently agreed that no such understanding yet exists. See: Lies, Damned Lies, Statistics and Probability of Abiogenesis Calculations. The Miller experiment is getting on for fifty years old. If all you have seen are references to this experiment and vague references to other ideas, then I have good news for you. There is an enormous body of relevant investigative work for you to explore, often very detailed, and solidly grounded in empirical experiments exploring potential and hypothesized processes. There are various facts in this area, of course. Most scientists to my knowledge are pretty good about distinguishing fact (that which is confirmed beyond reasonable doubt) and hypothesis. One fact is that abiogenesis did occur. Whether by a supernatural creative act, or by processes according to natural law, or by seeding from a more remote source of life; life was once not present on Earth, and now it is present; and it has developed and changed (or evolved) over time since its origin here on Earth. To get you started in seeing what is happening in this exciting area, you may like to start with the following: |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | (This is the
second time this has been sent. I forgot to give you my
email address the previous time. Sorry about that)
Hi there, love this site and use it frequently, keep up the excellent work! I have one question: Often during debates with creationists on discussion boards I'm asked to provide references (i.e. Scientific journals) for various findings and things mentioned in my posts. Is there a quick-and-dirty way to find these things? Thanks in advance, Lee |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | A web search
can often find pages which contain bibliographies or
citations that you can then check. Books in a University
library often have many references.
I also strongly recommend posting requests for references to the newsgroup talk.origins. There are many well informed professionals and amateurs who will be glad to help. Finally, if at all possible, check all references yourself personally. This is hard work rather than being quick and dirty, but it is well worth it for the payoff in understanding and personal satisfaction. University libraries and major reference libraries maintain subscriptions to many journals. References given to others should be material you have found and considered for yourself. If you have not been able to check a reference personally, it is good practice to acknowledge this up front, and to give the source from which the reference was obtained. Good luck! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | When you use the Bible for information, what version have you been looking in? Have you ever considered looking at it in hebrew text? In Hebrew, Genesis says that God seperated the fluid from the fluid. Not water from the water. Isn't plasma a fluid? Can you not "pour" it? for your Genesis theory, I don't think some parts were meant to be chronological. It said God HAD made animals...not God than made animals. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This site
does not use the bible for information, and it does not
advocate any theory about Genesis. This site is about
origins, from the perspective of mainstream science.
There are many different ways believers reconcile the findings of science with Genesis, and we do have one file which very briefly mentions a few of them at (Various Interpretations of Genesis), but this is really not a concern of the site. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Just a question: If human race belongs to the monkeys why do monkeys still exist? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Let's try a different example. If Douglas Johnson belongs to the Johnson family, why do other Johnsons continue to exist? In this case, it is easy to see that Douglas Johnson being born does not mean that other members of his family must die. That humans derive from primate ancestors does not imply that other primates must cease to exist. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I thought that your site was very informative, but I do have problem with your arguments on creationism (keep in mind I believe in evolution and am not a Christian) Why do evolutionists and creationists always take the bible literally? How do you know that the story of Genesis in the bible wasn't just a symbolic story to illustrate a point that people weren't able to grasp at the time it was written? For example Genesis could be symbolic for God creating a single form of life so that it would eventually evolve into man, or that it was simply a story to illustrate why and how man got his good and evil traits, his 'human nature' (the story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit)? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | A good many people do take that line - it is called allegorical interpretation in the Christian tradition, and evolutionists wouldn't pay literal interpretations of Genesis any attention at all if it weren't imposed on the debate by the incessant contributions of creationists in public debate to "disprove" evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | After Reading Andrew Ellington's article on abiogenesis, I am curious where this theory fits in. Is it part of the theory of evolution, or is it a separate theory? In the small town where I live, the local newspaper prints an anti-evolution letter about once a month. The last one concluded that no one has ever seen life created from non-living material. If I were to replly to this, I would say that the original theory of evolution did not address the origin of life; that abiogenesis is a separate theory, with strong but not conclusive evidence, unlike the overwhelming evidence for the descent of more complex organisms from simpler life forms, and that it is possible for a religious person to believe in evolution without accepting abiogenesis. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Strictly
speaking, and historically as the theory of evolution
developed, how life arose in the first instance is not part
of the theory of evolution. Evolution applies when you
already have reproducing organisms in an ecology.
Pasteur's now classic experiment on spontaneous generation was designed to disprove the claim that now living things arise from non-living matter, which is a claim that the version of evolution known as Lamarckism, and which predated Darwinism by about 50 years, made. According to that view, each species is part of an independent lineage that arises from non-living matter, and so this happens all the time. Pasteur showed that the evidence for spontaneous generation failed. If life arose just once, then evolution as we know it kicks in. It may be that abiogenesis occurred as a matter of chance, but in fact it probably occurred as the result of a proto-Darwinian selection for efficient chemical reactions. Once life had arisen, any new abiogenesis would quickly be "eaten up" by the more efficient chemical processes of the earlier event, since selection would make them more efficient than the less evolved later forms. You can, if you choose, believe in evolution (although as a theory not a doctrine, evolution should not be "believed" so much as accepted for its factual adequacy). But what then happens if abiogenesis is shown to be physically probable, even, given the conditions at the time, very likely? Is the role for God then reduced? That is to accept a God of the Gaps view, and I would think that it is not an option for anyone who wishes to be both scientifically accurate and theologically open. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | There seems to be a web site that is offering $250K for proof of macroevolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | "Seems" is the appropriate word. Kent Hovind, who you can read about on this site or search for references to him, has refused all reasonable requests to debate, and has set it up so that no scientific evidence could count as evidence of macroevolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Do you just answer the questions that are easy just like you skew your theory to "fit" whatever evidence arises. Such as the case with Archaeopteryx. It had a large cerebellum which is typical of a bird, aerodynamic feathers of a "perching bird", a breastbone just like a bird and the "lack" of "supposed" transitions between the "avian" lung and how it could have arisen from a reptile type lung. Why would dinosurs "evolve" feathers for insulation then "evolve" them later for flight and then "re-evolve" them back for insulating (or downy) feathers such as an ostrich. Natural selection would not drive such a change. Did you not read the findings of evolutionist Alan Feduccia (UNC-Chapel Hill) who observed that birds lack the "embryonic thumb" THAT DINOSAURS HAD SUGGESSTING THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THEM TO BE related let alone "evolve" from one to another. How could large bipeds with shortened forelimbs and heavy balancing tails "evolve" to birds which have bodies centralized for flight, exactly the wrong anatomy for flight. There are so many holes in your evolutionary theory that it is ridiculous. Better luck next time. Go ahead and respond to this for everyone to see if you can and in my e-mail if possible. thanX professor enigma |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is no
formal basis for selecting the feedback that gets a
response. Speaking for myself, I guess I do often respond
to ones which are easy, but interesting; like yours.
We have three FAQs on archaeopteryx you may like to read. They discuss the similarites of Archaeopteryx with birds, as you do. They also discuss the similarities of Archaeopteryx with dinosaurs, which you seem to have omitted. Your comment on natural selection is incorrect. Natural selection can and does drive change that moves in hapzard directions. It works only on local circumstances, with no long term view or direction. We have an introductory FAQ with a good section on natural selection. Alan Feduccia proposes that modern birds may have evolved from the crocodilians or perhaps a small group of thecodont reptiles. The portion of your post in capitals is a gross misrepresentation. Feduccia accepts a relationship between birds and dinosaurs, but proposes that it is not one of direct ancestry. Feduccia's ideas for the evolutionary ancestry of birds are well known, and have been discussed at length in talk.origins and elsewhere. Here is a link to a talk.origins posting from deja-news, quoting two separate posts that discuss Feduccia's ideas. Much more can be found in the archives of the dinosaur mailing list. One wonders what is your point. I grant that there is considerable debate within science on specifics of some evolutionary lineages; whereas others are better known. For what it is worth, Feduccia represents a minority opinion on the available evidence; but like everyone doing scientific research in this area, he reconizes the facts of common ancestry. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I understand all the articles on this website, and I appreciate the hard work done by the authors. I read your articles with an open mind, but I can see you all have much more to be desired. For one thing, this is a biased site, and that is easy to understand. But to claim the bias scientific, is downright wrong. Macro-evolution cannot be observed. Adaptation can. Macro-evolution is not science if we follow the scientific method, right? For instance, there is no long-term reliable radiological clock, as mentioned by William Stansfield; the process of decay of material cannot be observed completely with all outside factors that may have affected it during the length of its existance. I know you may have an explanation for this, but the bottom line is: The Evolution you present is Materialistic, wherein the only reality you think is present are material things, such as can be seen, or touched. Overall, the case is still unclear, although you claim it is not. Science has become one of man's funnest toys. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | This is
typical of the kind of criticism we get around here, and
just shows how thoughtlessly so many of our critics react.
Macro-evolution is not science if we follow the scientific method, right? Wrong. It helps a great deal to find out what science is, and what "science" means, before one sets out to decide what is or is not science. So many people seem to think that if you can't recreate something in a laboratory full of beakers and lab-coated scientists, then it can't be science. But that's not true. Science fundamentally requires only that one make testable hypotheses; it is the test of the hypothesis that needs to be observable, not the phenomenon in question. Astrophysics is certainly science, but when was the last time you saw a full up star recreated in a laboratory? Biological evolution, in the sense of an ancestor-descendent relationship, from some primitive, primordial life, down to life on Earth today, is very much "science". In fact, it's very good science. The theory of evolution is based on logical assumptions rooted in observation over a wide range of disciplines. Hypotheses relating the various assumptions and predictions are tested, and as is usual in science, the hypotheses that work are improved and expanded, while those which fail are discarded. There is nothing about biological evolution that would fail to qualify it as a fully deserving science. For instance, there is no long-term reliable radiological clock, as mentioned by William Stansfield; the process of decay of material cannot be observed completely with all outside factors that may have affected it during the length of its existance. Wrong again. To start with, Stansfield never said any such thing, and all you are doing here is continuing to propagate more of the fictitious quotations that creationists are so fond of, and which those who are only too willing to believe, accept without question. In this case, your source has led you astray [you will find this related in the article Comments on David Plaisted's "The Radiometric Dating Game" - Part 2, by Dr. Kevin Henke; this is one of the articles found in A Radiometric Dating Resource List]. While it is true that geological systems are subject to outside influences, it is also true that most, if not all, of these outside influences, leave obvious clues behind. If radiometric dating is done right, then the criticism you raise about not being able to follow the system throughout its existence is negated. But creationist criticisms of radiometrc dating commonly ignore proper technique, and criticize only known mistakes. That's what you are doing here. See the Radiometric Dating Resource List for material on radiometric dating, including suggested books, and criticisms of faulty creationist reasoning. The Evolution you present is Materialistic, wherein the only reality you think is present are material things, such as can be seen, or touched. Wrong again. you call this "the bottom line". But the real bottom line is that you aren't bothering to read through the articles in the archive to find out what we are presenting here. Evidently you didn't read God and Evolution, or Evolution and Philosophy. You are (wrongly) interpreting what you read as purely materialistic because you don't want to see that people believe in God and evolution, both at the same time. One of the reasons why you fail to appreciate this, is that your idea of what evolution is does not at all match what the people who call themselves "evolutionists" think it is. I suggest you try re-reading Evolution is a Fact and a Theory, this time without imposing so much of your own bias on top of it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I know you
folks are busy, but why is the last "Post of the Month"
from June of last year? I kind of enjoyed that feature,
but, alas, there have been no new ones for a considerable
time.
With that single nit-pick, thanks for putting up a really great website. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The then beleaguered PotM coordinator put his tail between his legs and ran away. After I did this, someone else offered to take it over, but it seems that there has been a glitch. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | anonymous |
Comment: | Who ever made this website is the stupidest person ever to walk the Earth throughout all time since the dawn of man. Who ever made this website suprises me that they would have the brain capacity to move their fingers on the keyboard. Who ever made this website without a doubt has never had a catscan in their life because if they did they would have realized by now that there is nothin' in there!!!! Who ever made this website should be sent to a mental hospital. Who ever made this website has tons of free time and wants to spend it making a website that has nothing but false info!!!!! I don't even know why I wrote this feedback, because you probably can't even read!!!!!!!!!! The Earth is a sphere....duh!!!!!!!!!!!! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Well, at least we can read the disclaimer that this page does not advocate a flat earth, and that we are reproducing views held by others. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi! I'm learning about evolution in biology right know and I was just wondering what theory you believe? I don't really believe that we evolved from apes....but is that possible? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi Joanne.
The maintainers of this web site accept and advocate the
evolutionary models for origins of species, including
humans like us. The scientific consenus is that humans and
modern apes share a common ancestor, which is now extinct,
but would certainly be called an ape if it was living now.
Essentially, this means than not only did we evolve from
apes, but we are apes; just like we are mammals. Of course,
we are very different from other apes, like gorillas or
chimpanzees; just as they also are different from each
other.
We try our best to present here the basic consensus accepted within the mainstream of science. You may like to look at the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. If you are specifically interested in how we see the evolution of humans, you can look at the Fossil Hominids page. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is a
question rather than a comment. Should we agree that
science be naturalistic? In other words, should intelligent
design be excluded as a legitimate hypothesis/explanation
for data a priori? If so, why? If not, what would count as
a legitimate and confirmed intelligent design theory?
It seems many have answerd 'yes' to the first question, but I haven't heard a good reason why. I am aware of Ockham's razor, but no one has ever proven that the razor is actually a truth conducive principle - it is more a principle of practical reasoning, simpler explanations are easier to work with. However, that doesn't imply that they are true. Is it because of the razor that many insist on a naturalistic science? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | It's not so
much should we agree that the ontology of science
should be naturalistic (that is, that only physical things
can exist), but that the methodology of science must
be. If we are trying, as we are in science, to investigate
the world on the basis of empirical evidence, then all our
methods must rely on evidentiary availability. Scientific
knowledge can only work on the basis of open empirical
data.
This is an epistemological point: what we know through science depends on there being consistency to our observations and measurements. If a god intervened to make the physical world different to how it might have otherwise been, then we could not estimate the value of our observations, a point first made, I think, by TH Huxley. Ockham's Razor does not say that things proceed simply. It says that the explanation that is simplest and consistent with the observations is to be preferred. The reason for this is simple enough (forgive the pun): suppose you have explanation X0 for data D. Suppose no simpler explanation is available, but many more complicated ones are: X1, X2, X3, X4 ... each of which adds unobserved twists and turns. Which should we prefer? Each time we try to apply our theoretical explanation, we have to add these unobserved complexities to our efforts to predict, explain or do further research. Since there are an infinite number of possible explanations for D, we must make a choice, and science chose to go with the one that postulates the least amount of unobserved processes and things. Yes, it's easier, but only in the sense that we can use the explanation, which is a reason for doing science. This is not a reason to reject intelligent design - there are better reasons for that to do with the lack of work ID does in an explanation. It is a reason to choose between two competing explanations if nothing else offers itself, such as better empirical adequacy or internal consistency, etc. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | How do you guys answer the (for once intelligent) creationist points made on this page? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This page
(actually, this set of pages) is indeed one of the better
ones I've seen, and deserves a more complete rebuttal than
I can give here. I'll see if some of us can't collaborate
on a rebuttal for inclusion in the Archive.
In the meantime, I'll provide a short, off-the-cuff rebuttal of problems I see with Finley's asserted "Empirical Problems" with evolution:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It is generally agreed that humans use about 10 to 20 percent of their brain capacity. If human brains developed through the process of evolution, why do we only use such a small pecentage of our brain capacity. Logic would seem to dictate that an evolutionary brain would only have as much capacity as would be used, not have any extra. Also would there not be evidence that the human brain would be shinking over time rather than growing. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The notion that humans only use some fraction of the brain is a scientific urban myth. Here are some speculations on how myth got started. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Great job,
guys! I have been working my way through the site and am
currently half-way through the Feedback Archives for 1999.
I am enjoying it all, especially some of Ken Harding's
responses and offsite pages. I have only a few quibbles.
One is an example using a die roll stating that the odds against rolling a 6 was 6 to 1. The odds would be 5 to 1. The odds of rolling any particular number is 1 in 6. The other quibble is a semantical one I have seen in books, magazines, and on this site, too. If someone suggests that man descended from apes, the response is always "The correct statement is that humans and apes share a common ancestor." That is certainly accurate, but if the common ancestor were still among us, wouldn't it be classed as an ape as well? If our last common ancestor with chimpanzees and bonobos was not an ape, then apes would have evolved at least three times - chimps, gorillas, and orangutans. Perhaps the response should be, "Humans did not evolve FROM apes because we ARE apes." After all, chimpanzees are more closely related to humans than to gorillas. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That is
exactly the approach taken by Jared Diamond in his book.
But it is a semantic issue. If by "apes" creationists mean
"chimps", "gorillas" or "orangutangs", then we did not
evolve from them. But on strict taxonomic grounds the last
common ancestor of the ape-human group is itself an ape,
and so are we.
Diamond, Jared M. 1991. The rise and fall of the third chimpanzee. London: Radius. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Does modern science have any theories on whether homosexual behavior is genetically inherited or a psychologic phenomina? If it is genetic are there any theories as to how this trait would inhance these individuals chance for survival? Thank you for reading this. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | There is an
extensive literature on the "genetic" versus the
"environmental" causes of homosexuality, summarised in the
anthology listed below. Some believe that homosexuality is
the result of particular neurological structures and others
that there are genes that are maintained in the population
because they contribute to the fitness of near-kin who
share those genes. Personally, I think that homosexuality
is a complex interplay between genetics and social
dynamics, just as every other human behavior is, and that
there is no single cause.
De Cecco, John P., and David Allen Parker. Sex, cells, and same-sex desire: the biology of sexual preference. New York: Haworth Press, 1995. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Loved your
article on Earth-moon tidal recession. Although I don't
fully understand it it is very clear that you over looked
some things. I will be dogmatic as you are and just assume
that the moon's rate of recession was slower in the past.
The closer the moon is, the greater the tidal friction and
coupled with friction from magma in the earth's core, etc,
would mean the friction would be slightly greater than now.
taking that into consideration if the earth is 4.57 billion
years old then the earth would be spinning pretty fast.
Even if the earth was 500 million years old the Centrifugal
Force would have been so great that the earth would have
flattened out like a pancake. A major oversight. You
dogmatically say that "those creationist models" don't
work. It would be logical to assume that the current rate
of recession of the earth presents no problem to the
creationist model of a young earth. You obviously have to
come up with something other then the "OBSERVED evidence"
or your pantheism is invalid. Even if your model does work
then the centrifugal force is a major problem. Trying
giving "all the evidence" and not just your "religious
dogma." Of course you usually just answer the questions
that you can at least give a "hodge-podge" example and if
that doesn't work you just "sweep it under the rug." Thanks
for your time.
PROFESSOR ENIGMA |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | I'm glad you
liked the article, but you should have read it more
carefully. I did not "dogmatically assume" that the rate of
recession was slower in the past. Rather, I pointed out
that experimental evidence shows that it was slower in the
past, and the two are hardly synonymous concepts.
All you are doing here is guessing. Your guesses turn out to be wrong. You can't analyze the tidal interaction between the Earth & Moon by guessing, you have to work out the physics explicitly. Part of my article follows the scientific literature where that is explicitly done; you can read the papers, see the results, and find out why your guesses are wrong. Or you can go on guessing. Finally, I will note that the article which you saw contained an error in the Introduction to Tides section. It has since been corrected. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | How can we be sure that the opinions expressed in response to the feedbacks that are submitted are in accordance with the general assertions of the "mainstream" scientific community rather than the personal opinions of the individual who happens to be responding to a particular feedback? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | The feedback
responses are personal opinions of the individual who
happens to be responding. You can only be sure that any
particular response is in accordance with the mainstream
scientific community by checking for yourself.
That being said, many people responding are professionals working directly in the relevant fields. (Not me, alas.) We all are able to read each others responses, if we feel like it, and we do sometimes pick each other up. You can see a fairly trivial example above, where I made an addendum to a response by Tim Thompson. If anyone out there finds errors in a feedback response, by all means let us know. |
From: | |
Response: | To what
Chris has said, let me add that we sometimes send
electronic mail to one another in crafting our responses.
For example, if I am answering an astrophysics question, I
sometimes check my response with Tim Thompson, who works at
the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, just to make sure it's
kosher.
Actually, our best responses in these feedbacks occur when we refer readers to existing Talk.Origins Archive FAQs or to other references. We do not expect readers to take our word for it. We expect readers to check our statements against the primary scientific literature. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | freddy |
Comment: | How does evolution explain organisms that seem to have a highly specialized ability or technique for survival? one such example is the sea slug (this is quoted from a creation site) -- The sea slug is an truly impressive design that can be used to show evolution false. Sea slugs feed on the sea anemone.What makes this so impressive is that the anemones have poison harpoons that stick out and would paralyze anything that came in contact with it. The sea slug however, is able to put these darts inside its own stomach to store and use for its own defense. You would have to have all of these abilities from the start or the organism would die the 1st time it came in contact with the dart. A slow evolutionary process would have been deadly! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is not
true. A couple of processes could have resulted in such
symbiosis:
1. Coevolution. As the anenome species became more and more poisonous, its commensal species the sea slugs may have evolved methods to first deal with and then exploit that poison. 2. Suppose sea slugs at first only briefly dealt with anenomes. Those with greater resistance to the poison were favored by selection if they benefitted. Over time, the sea slug could adapt to and exploit the resources of the anenome. Note that these are just general ways in which selection could create this adaptation. The actual process, if we could uncover it, would be much more complex. But no poison works immediately to cause death, and evolution is full of "arms races" where species evolve to match each other. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | dking |
Comment: | PLEASE POST
THIS QUOTE! Your readers deserve to know the truth: that
your theory actually lacks evidence to the point that very
qualified individuals such as this question its validity.
Perhaps the evidence for evolution is not as overwelming as
you would have us believe.
"I will lay it on the line - there is not one such fossil for which on could make a watertight argument." Personal letter (written 10 April 1979) from Dr Colin Patterson, Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to Luther D. Sunderland; as quoted in Darwin's Enigma by Luther D. Sunderland, Master Boooks, San Diego, USA, 1984, p.89. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Of the 11
(so far) feedback responses where you have sent excerpts -
tired old ones at that - as "your" responses, this is the
only one we will reply to, I think. If you have something
to say about the site, please feel free to use this
facility. If you want to disgorge these interminable
quotse, try talk.origins, where we've seen it all before
and can reply.
By the way, see this: "Patterson Misquoted: A Tale of Two 'Cites' - Colin Patterson, senior paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, is frequently quoted by creationists as having said that there are no transitional fossils. But did he really say that? And if so, what did he mean?" |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What exactly is your (evolutionists) problem with Genisis chapter one? You're right about the "young earthers", congratulations. That doesn't mean the Bible is wrong. So repeat, what is your problem with Genesis chapter one? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | No problem.
It sits comfortably on my bookshelves, in the various
bibles I possess. It causes me no discomfort when I read
it, as I do from time to time.
Some folks (like the young earthers) are inclined to read Genesis 1 as a literal account of events in prehistory. Other people read Genesis 1 in many other ways. Some take as a symbolic account of events in prehistory. Some take it as a statement about the immediate and ongoing relationship of God, man and the universe, expressed as a creation myth. Some take it as an ancient worship liturgy. Some take it as a reworking of Babylonian cosmogeny intended by the Israelite writer to emphasize the lessons of montheisism in contrast to the squabbling pantheon of Babylonian deities. Debate with respect to the bible is not debate with the bible itself, but between people who have different views of the same text. The particular perspective which you might have, or I might have, or our local church leaders might have, do not have any special status. Your disagreement with young Earthers is not a problem with Genesis, and any disagreement I might have with you is likewise not a problem with Genesis. Evolutionists, as a group, have no distinctive perspective on Genesis. Many of them probably hardly give it a thought; and discussions on that subject are not really what this group is about. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I thought
I'd respond to your web page. You seem to have concerns
about the "legitimacy" of the educational degree of certain
peole and I must offer comment as a professor at an
"accredited" Unviversity in NY.
We graduate students who couldn't write 100 words without numerous grammatical/sytactical/spelling errors. We graduate students who testify that they have never read a book...let alone a text book. We graduate students who need to unlearn much of what they have learned at oru "accredited" college. Here's my concern about certification and accredidation. Henry Ford could not teach a course in industrial management. Albert Einstein would not qualify to teach math or elementary science in the New York City High Schools. In short, "accredidation" does not mean much these day. I want to see two things: The dissertation (study) and the life's work. They accredit the individual...not a board of stooges who know little about education or high ed! Dr. Mansforth |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Some graduate students are able to construct grammatically correct sentences and some professors are not. The issue concerning credentials arises because of the use of "argument from authority" in anti-evolutionary rhetoric. If an anti-evolutionist uses their credentials as a rhetorical weapon, the substance of those credentials has been made an issue by the anti-evolutionist. That said, there appear to be fewer cases of bogus credentials among anti-evolutionists now than there were a few years ago, primarily due to the deaths of some of those anti-evolutionists. There are still some quite interesting cases, though. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have been
reading information on your site for the past hour or so. I
understand I have barely scratched the surface, but I am
interested in locating books and/or articles that address
the issue of spirit as regards Evolutionist theory. My own
life experience gives me reason to believe that the human
spirit exists well outside the scope of human biology, that
it is a very real part of us but somehow beyond us and we
simply haven't been able to prove the existence of a human
spirit yet. Do you know of any articles or books that might
be helpful in my quest for answers?
Sincerest thanks, Lynn Coffren |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
codiscoverer of evolution, Alfred Russel Wallace, was a
believer in the existence of human spirit, because he could
not account for the abilities of human intelligence in
terms of selection, since the capacities of the human brain
exceeded, he thought, the needs for survival. Most
evolutionary biologists these days think that intelligence
is a result of the needs of a complex social structure, to
keep track of kinship and other obligations.
I know of no book that disusses evolution and spirituality in modern terms |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First, let me give an obligatory salute to the website. I love it. Next, I want to criticize one of your articles for technical accuracy. In the article called "Recession of the Moon..." by Tim Thompson, there is a math expression which represents the sum of two Force vectors. One force is gravity, and the other is a gradient of gravity. The problem is that the units are not consistent, and so they cannot be added like they are. The article as a whole has merit, but this must be corrected before it can be taken seriously. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System |
Response: | Thank you for pointing out the error. That article has now been corrected. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | First I would like to thank you for your generally well-informed web-site. But I wonder why you keep on trumpeting that you represent "mainstream science". It sounds so conformist and plodding, so conservative in the non-political sense. I don't believe evolution because it's mainstream--after all, once upon a time it was not. Then too, what of cutting-edge developments, bending paradigms? Evolutionary science has much greater claims than that people relying on research grants espouse it. As you point out, of course, but "mainstream" belies your greater purpose. I wonder, too, if your answer to the tautology charge is really adequate. While in theory fitness should be definable without appealing to survival, practically this is uncommon. I believe that forms fish and birds might be non-tautological. But I read Science, and Nature, Cell, Trends in Evolution, and I know how vexed the issue is. Genes non-adaptive to the organism are known to outcompete adaptive genes, mitochondrial DNA vastly complicates selection by accumulating mutations, and sexual selection is thought able to actually wipe out species. I believe that for the most part, species can be known to successfully evolve only after the fact. Certain aspects, as the aforementioned aerodynamic and hydrodynamic forms, example the functioning of adaptation to produce fitness and demonstrate that it is a force in evolution. Yet the scientific literature indicates that the question of the survival of the fittest has hardly been answered in most cases and its role in the various levels of selection remains as one of the questions driving the dynamism of current evolutionary research. Please note, creationists, the prodigious productivity of your nemesis in creating questions and problems. It is this itself that makes evolution a science. And because you don't know evolution, you don't even know the problems that evolution has. Creationists mostly focus on problems that it does not have. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | When I first
wrote that FAQ I was following the views of Elliot Sober,
whose Nature of Selection is the standard work. I
have changed them a bit, in line with John Maynard Smith's
view that of course selection is a tautology - so is the
logistic equation for growth. So what? Both apply as formal
descriptions of the dynamics of living things in the
appropriate circumstances, and in that respect they are no
worse of than f = ma or any other formula in science.
However, the actual effects of selection are anything but tautologous, as is true of the S-curve or anything else that mathematically describes dynamics. There is more than a century of work on how selection occurs, and some close detail and experimental work. It doesn't matter if selection is a name we give to certain dynamic pattern or if you think it is a law of nature or something more substantial - in the end, some organisms out-reproduce others for good causal reasons, and that explains adaptive evolution. The issue of mainstream science has a context: the internet is filled with crackpottery and crank science of every kind. There has to be a voice for the mainstream simply because while those with a scientific education or familiarity know that science is not a matter of democratic vote, and that scientists have good reasons for dropping or accepting a theory, most of those involved in public debate do not, from religious leaders to ordinary voters. This site aims to put that voice to the fore. Its contributors disagree over many issues from time to time, but at least the disputes are within the corall of science. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It seems to me that it is next to impossible for a lay-person to come to an informed position by reading evolutionist's information vs. creationist's information. There seems to be a lot of finger-pointing from both sides. One thing I still haven't seen is credible evidence of transitional fossils or other evidence of evolutionary change from one species to another, although it appears that many hoaxes have been fabricated to produce a "missing link" between man and ape. Any one care to point me in the direction of this evidence? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Certainly. Try the following articles: |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | In your page
"Biology and
Evolutionary Theory, words like caricature and
denigrate, and phrases like "puts the lie" have no place in
a scientific discussion. These emotion-filled words imply
that the site was not created for a fair and impartial
discussion of the issue. On your welcome page, you write
"The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy
access to alternative views, but those who espouse
alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the
archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites
within many of its articles." This last sentence is hard to
understand, and seems to stand in contradiction with the
first. I found several links that were not working. Why
don't you just post the opposing view? Why is there an
opposition to this? Science clearly does not prove
evolution, but has shown that it could have happened. I
hope that you will realize that Christians have proof. I am
a biologist, and whether or not there is more evidence for
evolution than for creation, it comes no where close to a
complete understanding of the universe. Remember that we
can't yet create anything as complicated as a planaria. If
we rise to that level, will we then feel confident enough
to assert that the univese came into being without help
from God?
Regards, Eric T. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dear Eric,
In the cited page, the word "denigrate" appears once, in this sentence: The word "caricature" appears once, in this sentence: The phrase "puts the lie" appears once, in this sentence: Frankly, all of the above sentences are very mild. My only complaint is with the use of hyperbole in the last case, with the word "impossible". Genuine scientific discussion gets far more heated than this. The level of sanitation you are proposing is absurd. However, you are quite right that this site is not intended to be impartial. We present unabashed advocacy from the perspective of mainstream science; though we do aim to be fair. This also is how scientific discussion is conducted. There is no contradiction in the statement of our policy. We try to give easy access to alternative views, and we do this by supplying links. We would be very grateful for anyone who can let us know of links which are no longer working, with an email . (See also the contact page for more ways to contact the archive administrators.) Our reasons for not actually presenting the alternative views on this site are as you have quoted. This is exactly the same as in scientific books or articles or web pages. You present and defend a view, and then make reference to further literature or information which may be relevant, including contrary views. Your last sentence confuses being able to create things with being able to learn about them. We can't create a volcano, but most books on the formation of volcanoes still don't bother to discuss God's role in their generation. This would be the error of thinking that God's role is in some kind of conflict with the natural processes. That is a very theologically suspect dichotomy; and it is just as suspect with respect to the origin of species. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Excellent
website. QUESTION: Do you know any websites or creationist
articles in Spanish?
Thanks very much. By His Grace, Ros atlas@cyberhighway.net |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Our comprehensive links collection has a link to Voz en el Desierto. If you find other such links, you can easily submit them for inclusion on the links page. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Glenn |
Comment: | I have recently stumbled across your web site and have been browsing through the FAQ, feedback, etc. I am a creationist and am just wondering if this forum is essentially one set up for the purpose of setting creationists straight, or is it an open-ended, open-minded search for truth? It?s all too easy to say that science has already proven this or that. For example, I have found in previous Listings that evolutionists are incapable of arguing from the viewpoint of unequivocal evidence. Rather, they take a bullying ?overwhelming? approach, citing the overwhelming number of scientists who believe as they do and the overwhelming amount of evidence that by sheer weight of numbers ?proves evolution to be a fact.? Or, ?the theory may need a little touching up here and there, but like gravity evolution will not cease just because it cannot be proven.? Or, they will send the creationist to another source rather than argue in their own strength. This kind of arrogant approach invariably leads to an emotional shoot-out and I?m not too interested in this. But, if there are those aboard who are willing to admit that evolution must ultimately be accepted or rejected by faith, I have no quibble and would like to lurk for awhile. I would especially like to learn how an evolutionist gets around the fact that much evidence (especially genomic) is being touted as proof for evolution when this same evidence argues equally well, apart from philosophical preference, for creationism? In other words, does the evidence actually exclude the possibility that an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God (however unscientific it sounds) might have instantly created parallel and overlapping genomic designs prior to some limited variation by natural selection? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Does the evidence point two ways? Can evidence exclude an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God? I believe the answers to be "No" and "No". Does the evidence point two ways? The evidence is consistent with an evolutionary history of life. Creationist views have become modified in order to become consistent with the evidence. As this process continues, creationist beliefs incorporate more and more elements of evolutionary biology. The creationism of today is much different from the pre-Darwinian creationism that yielded the concepts of geological superposition and the geologic column. One could say that the evidence points both ways, if one ignores the fact that creationist stances have been modified greatly in order to accommodate it. Can the evidence exclude an infinite, omnipotent, omniscient God? I believe that the answer here is also, "No". An example of how such a theological concept is immune from mere evidence is the concept of "Omphalism". Such a God as postulated could just as well created everything with the "appearance of age". In other words, God's creation could be made to look like something that has been the result of a prior history even when newly created. Phillip Gosse put this forward in 1857 in his book, "Omphalos", as an explanation of earth history. His fellow theists were extremely critical of any such doctrine that essentially made God out to be a teller of lies. This brings up the concept of "theological themata" which Paul Nelson has written about in critiquing evolutionary arguments. Theological themata are those statements made that assert certain attributes for God or God's works. Theological themata can be made susceptible to contrary evidence. For example, a theological theme called the doctrine of plenitude was current up to the early 1800's. According to this, God's concern for his created works would prevent any species from being completely extirpated from the face of the earth. Cuvier's demonstration of the reality of extinction as a phenomenon put evidence in conflict with this theological theme, and the evidence won. Getting back to Omphalism, the evidence cannot ever set aside the theological theme of an Ompahlic God, but the evidence can in that case set aside certain other theological themata which relate to the properties that an Omphalic God possesses. As mentioned above, one theological casualty of the evidence necessitated by Omphalism is the concept of God as only telling us the truth in works and word. What about the reader's scenario of instant parallel creation followed by limited evolutionary descent? In this case, we can examine the evidence of genetics and molecular biology to find those "overlapping genomic designs". What we find, even within those overlapping areas, is evidence that is consistent with common descent of those groups supposedly created in parallel. Insofar as the evidence goes, this is just another case of Omphalism. Gosse postulated Omphalic creation to coincide with a ~6000 year actual earth history. Modern critics of Gosse talk of "Last Thursdayism", where God created everything just last Thursday complete with a manufactured history and memories for everyone. The reader's version is no less Omphalic than the other two, but the time of the Omphalic creation can be pushed back further into the recesses of time than the other two. If it is considered acceptable to postulate a theology whereby creation is followed by limited evolutionary change, what differs conceptually when we expand the role of the subsequent evolutionary change? What distinguishes a creation that looks like it evolved prior to the time of creation from one that actually evolved from a prior point? God could just as easily, it seems, have created the first self-replicator and allowed all further developments to proceed via evolutionary processes from there. Or God could have simply created a universe with favorable conditions for the self-organization of life, and let things develop from there. It is interesting how Omphalism can actually be seen to grade into Deism given this perspective, and how neither Deism nor Omphalism can be set aside on the basis of mere evidence. But what about Omphalism and scientific inquiry? If an Omphalic God creates things with an appearance of history, then working out the prior history tells us something about what how God constructed pre-creation history as a concept. It seems reasonable that if an Omphalic God has gone to the effort of creating with apparent history that we should take that apparent history seriously and not ignore it. We should, it appears, treat the creation of an Omphalic God as if the Omphalic God had not intervened. To try and take an opposite stance leads nowhere. As discussed before, the date of the Omphalic God's intervention cannot be determined from the creation itself. When apparent history stops and actual history starts will not be reflected in the evidence. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Professor Enigma |
Comment: | To: Tim Thompson You said in one of your responses (Nov. 1999) that the argument against abiogenesis has been disproven. I hope you are just kidding because you are sadly mistaken. If you think Stanley Miller did it maybe you should ask him if he still believes it. His experiment produced 85 % tar and 13 % carboxilyc acid both of which are poisonous to life. The 2 % amino acids that he produced he "filtered" (which is "cheating" and not viable for real life.) out. 20 Amino Acids are needed for life and Dr. Miller fell well short of that. Half of the amino acids he produced were right-handed and just one right-handed amino acid would destroy the possibility of any life being "produced." Miller was in the crowd at a debate in San Diego several years ago when Dr. Duane Gish was debunking Miller's abiogenesis experiment. Miller was asked if he would like to respond to Dr. Gish's comments and he said "no." He then went on to state that he realizes the serious problems with his experiment(s). Evolutionists continue to grasp at the proverbial last straw to promote their "religion." |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | I can only
find one place where I mentioned abiogenesis in the November 1999
feedback. This is what I said, in response to a message
from John Peterson:
Now, to begin with, my comments are only in relation to his erroneous appeal to Pasteur's research as an anti-abiogenesis argument. Also, as you note, I did say that the argument against abiogenesis had been disproven. But nowhere do you notice that I say abiogenesis has been proven, nor did I bring up Miller's experiments anywhere. Abiogenesis is the a-biotic genesis of life, and I have never heard anyone claim that Miller created life, or even came close, so what's your point? Miller's experiments proved only that some amino acids can & will form in a putative ancient terrestrial environment. That's all the experiment was intended to do, and it certainly does not prove that abiogenesis happened. It is only one part of an expansive exploration of biochemistry which provides a large number of clues as to how abiogenesis might have happened. It has not been "proven" that abiogenesis did happen, nor perhaps even that it could have happened. However, neither has it been "proven" that it did not or could not have happened, and that is the main point of my comment. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In response to Mr. Thompson. In rebuttal to your "hodge-podge" response to the Law of Conservation of Angualar Momentum. If the Big Dud din't violate the afformentioned Law then the sun should spin very rapidly. The sun has over 99 PERCENT OF THE MASS OF OUR solar system but ONLY TWO PERCENT of the angualr momentum. There is no way the earth is 4.57 billion years old despite "so-called" clocks usch as radio-metric dating, K-AR method, uranium-lead, etc. using the Carbon 14 process dating the shell of a living mollusk at 23.00 years old. A dactite lava dome at Mt. St. helens that was known to have formed in 1986 was "dated" at 45,000 years by Potassium/Argon method and 45 million years by Carbon 14. If we can't trust it to dat items of KNOWN AGE then how can we trust it to date items of UNKNOWN AGE? Here are some good methods to consider: Every ten months a "leap second' has to be added to the atomic clock because the earth's rotation is getting slower mainly becasue of tidal friction. If the earth was even 500 million years old then the Centrifugal Force would have caused the earth to flatten out like a pancake. Just one more thing (concerning the earth's magnetic field)The earth's magnetic fieldhas never reversed itself, there is no OBSERVEABLE EVIDENCE to prove this nor is their a legitimate hypothesis to HOW it would have performed this incredible feat. They go in and measure levels of magnetic field above cracks in the ocean floor and then measure the levels in other places and say the fact that the levels are "different" shows reversals. WRONG!!! Good observation, WRONG conclusion. It is easily discerned that cool rocks (i.e. water flowing into a crack in the ocean floor) will store magnetic field even better. No such thing as a magnetic reversal. One last thing (I know I am long-winded and boring but hear me out) Would someone like to disprove Robert Gentry's observations about PARENTLESS POLONIUM HALOS????? UNTIL NEXT TIME YOUR FRIEND JOHNNY P |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Just to add
to Tim's excellent and comprehensive response...
The reader's comment regarding "Carbon 14 process dating the shell of a living mollusk at 23.00 years old" is certainly a typo. The reader meant 2,300 years old. The reader may also be interested that living snails have been dated to about 27,000 years old, and for very similar reasons. Tim is thus technically incorrect in his response on this point. Radiocarbon dating can be applied easily to living creatures, and any age obtained other than near zero is of considerable scientific importance for establishing limits of the method. The source for the reader's figure of 2,300 years on mollusk shells is The snail figure of 27,000 apparent years is from Other examples of anomalous radiocarbon dates can be found in the mainstream literature. These papers are widely used by creationists, but often indirectly and without reference. The papers themselves clear up the problems quite effectively; the organisms in question do not derive their carbon directly from the atmosphere, and radiocarbon dating is actually dating the time since a living creature took in carbon from the atmosphere or from plants growing in the atmosphere. The usual creationist tactic is to cite such studies and impute a general unreliability to the whole of radiocarbon dating. This is not justifiable. They ignore the clear explanation of exactly how and why anomalous results are obtained, and more importantly they simply ignore the vast body of finely graded radiocarbon dates from uncontaminated sources (often cross checked with other methods) which plainly establish a timeline that utterly refutes the creationist position, regardless of occasional expected and well understood anomalies. |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Peterson is
responding to my response to him, in the November 1999
Feedback (see the third letter from the top).
Spinning Sun The Mollusk Shell The Dacite Dome of
Mt. St. Helens The leap seconds added to the atomic time scale are not a direct result of the slowing of the Earth's spin. Rather, they are an artifact of the fact that one second of atomic time is not the same as one second of universal time. So, to keep the two time scales in sync, so that they will always read a time that is within one second of each other, leap seconds are occasionally added to the atomic time scale (always at intervals of 6 or 12 months, never 10 months). The actual current rate of spin down for the Earth is approximately 1.5 milliseconds per day per century (i.e., every 100 years, the day is 0.0015 seconds longer, on average). If we assume that is a constant rate, then 900,000,000 years ago, the length of day should have been about 20 hours and 15 minutes (13,500 seconds shorter). Observations of tidal rhythmites suggest a length of day rather shorter, about 18.9 hours ["Neoproterozoic Earth-Moon Dynamics: Rework of the 900 Ma Big Cottonwood Canyon Tidal Laminae"; C.P. Sonett & M.A. Chan; Geophysical Research Letters, 25(4): 539-542, February 15, 1998]. This is consistent with the understanding that the rate of spindown for the Earth should not be constant, but should have been larger in the past. The actual rate of spindown is consistent with an evolutionary age for the Earth, and your explanation and interpretation of leap-seconds are both wrong.
Reversals of the Earth's Magnetic Field
Gentry's Polonium halos are not "parentless", they only appear to be so when carelessly investigated. All of Gentry's halos are from Polonium isotopes 218, 214 and 210. Despite the fact that there are many other isotopes of Polonium, these are the only ones he has found. All three of them appear in the Uranium 238 decay chain. All of the locations where Gentry found halos are in proximity of uranium 238 sources. Significantly, the halos from Polonium 210 and Radon 222 (the parent for Polonium 218) are indistinguishable to Gentry. In every case, his halos are entirely consistent with the products of Uranium decay, and an evolutionary time scale. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It figures that this would be a so called "mainstream" science web site.you focus primarily on slandering meaningless matters on accredited schools or non-accredited degrees and honory degrees. Your objective, so it seems to me, is to slander the individuals and defame them (you must've learned this from the clinton adm.) Well anyway you still can not dispute the facts of the earth actually losing its magnetic atmoshere. You know that you yourselves have investigated the findings of Prof.Thomas Barnes and have found no fault in his work but because you want to hold on to the attitude that the earth is four billion years old you refute this evidence of a young earth as you do the law of thermo dynamics (entropy). Look into the findings of Dr.,Dr.ottoway Ray a member, no, a genius of the russian acedemia. Holding two doctorites in quatum algebra and once an out-spoken atheist who set out to disprove once and for all that the young earth concept was not correct instead he found irrifutable mathematical evidence that this is a young earth. this truh let him to the ultimate truth. Jesus is lord. But let us not talk about faith, well no lets talk about faith, concerning the amount of scientific data that proves this earth is young and that man and dinosuars were contemporaries, the amount of information that has so far been extracted from a single human cell, the nebraska man that was no man at all but A PIG (and this is still being taught as a real finding?!?),... it takes faith to believe in evolution and an earth and a universe that is older than ten thousand years and that is alot by 4 thousand years. mainstream scientist find evidence of a designer in all their scientific data and what answer do they give for these findings "OH UHM?!? E.T. YEAH THATS IT E.T. CAME TO EARTH AND DID THAT".....WHATTT!!!! I cant believe you mainstream scientist... and to think I almost became one of you! Ok explain to me the Nile river overflow record? Or the salt content in the sea? Or the cooling of the earth(Lord Kelvin's calculations)? The pressure of our oil geysers(Charles Cooke)? How about carbon-14 disintigration, only accurate within eight thousand years or less(Dr.RoberWhitelaw)? Ocean sediment? Influx of cosmic dust? Comet decay? Population stats.(check that one out "Duhrwin")? The missing radiogenic helium(c.cooke again)? Stalactites and stalagmites?!?...Pughh!! Go into the NYC subways to eyewitness these so called million years formations take place in a span of as little as 30-40 years! The decrease of the suns diameter, 5 feet per hour???? And how about the earths depleting spin rate? Go look at niagra falls...oh wait I forgot we had to make some modifications because scientist found that in a couple of hundred years there wont be a niagra falls. How could this be the entropy rate should be nonexistant the falls are not suppose to deteriorate they are suppose to EVOLVE?!?...NO?..YES?...WHAT??? Come on people of the world look into the facts just because a person is a christian does not mean that their science is not sound. The mainstream scientist dont want to give up their FAITH and BELIEF in evolution. They want what they have no matter how unbelievable it is. They want "A.LIE.N.SCIENCE". MAINSTREAM SCIENTIST ARE THE OSTRICH OF MANKIND WITH THERE HEADS UP THEIR... OOPS I MEAN THEIR HEAD IS IN THE SAND. Creation scientist are the eagles of mankind, with there eyes sharp and their vision clear looking far ahead without fear heading towards the ultimate TRUTH. You want the truth!?! You got the truth!?! And you can't handle the truth!?! In the begining "GOD"...... |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | I think the
intent of the "bogus degrees" section is to reinforce the
point that creation "science" is merely religious
apologetics dressed up in a false veneer of
scientific respectability. Though such shenanigans do not
by themselves refute the creationist's claims, I would
expect any honest person to be appalled by that behavior.
(And, remember, the truth is never "slander.")
As for your supposed "evidences" for a young Earth: nearly every one is already refuted in this archive, and a simple web search would find off-site refutations for the rest.
You have presented a long list of scatter-shot claims, many of them already disowned by knowledgeable young-Earthers and nearly all of them already demolished in this archive. Next time, I would recommend that you strive for quality over quantity. Pick your three (or so) strongest pieces of "evidence." Use the archive's "search" facility to see if they're already dealt with here. Answer the archive's arguments up front. Let's see if you can come up with something less embarrassing to your cause, next time. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Is there any way to support this website (besides buying your beer)? Can financial assistance from readers help in any way? If there is something that supportive readers can do to keep this site operating with the same high degree of competence? Please let us know. Keep up the fight for what is right! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thank you
for your support. We greatly appreciate the sentiment.
Brett Vickers, the Archive maintainer, has stated that financial donations are best given to a worthy organization, such as the National Center for Science Education. Our readers can help us, however, in three important ways:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have not decided if I believe in the God of the Bible or evolution and no God, so I've been doing reading in both subjects. Most Christians believe that science is a farce, which is so far from the truth. Any idiot can see that the world is not 6000 years old and that natural selection occurs. I have read the arguements against religion in this informative website, and while a little closed minded I have found it to be quite logical. My problem is that I have read some work of Dr. Hugh Ross. It seems to make a lot of sense scientificly (if not mathematically). Is there anyway you can tell me where he is wrong (using only science and not any opinion like some of your stuff)? I would really like to be able to have no doubt in what I believe. Thank you very much. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You may also
like to consider a third alternative; evolution has nothing
to do with whether or not God exists. Frankly, I think you
are incorrect about most Christians. Most Christians accept
the value of science, and manage to maintain belief in God
along with belief in the utility of science for revealing
the processes of the natural world. Those who reject
science are a small but noisy minority.
The articles in this web site are not intended to be against religion. They are against a particular view of prehistory. Many contributors to the archive are Christians. Many others are not. I'm personally in the "not" category, but I work very happily and constructively with Christians all the same. Any differences we might have on the bible are just not relevant to the subject of biological evolution, since we agree that Genesis 1-11 is not, and was never intended to be, a simple unvarnished account of events in prehistory. We do not, alas, have a good review of Hugh Ross' work in the archive; though there is an outstanding request for volunteers to submit an article for the archive. In the meantime, I suggest you look at this review of Hugh Ross' book The Genesis Question. The review is by Glenn Morton. Glenn is an evangelical Christian and ex-creationist, and an excellent counter example to the notion that Christians are opposed to science. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Noah's ARK |
Comment: | There sure
are alot of Christians in the USA. I'm pretty sure though
that Christians make up only about 15% - 20% of the world's
population. That's probably pretty hard for most Christians
to believe though, since most people in this country are
only exposed to their own very small world.
I'll bet 50 cents that there are a heck of a lot more Muslims, Hindus and Bhuddists, etc. I'll bet a dollar that their god(s) is(are) better than the Christian god. Look how many followers they have...right? I mean...if I was the toughest god on the block, I would be darn sure to get the most worship for my efforts. Boy, maybe that's why the Christian god is so darn mean to his worshippers...all that hell-fire, brimstone, eternal damnation and really boring church music. Yeah, but who can blame him. I'd be pretty pissed off at mankind for abandoning me too. I need to go find me a god with a whole lot of followers! That's got to be the winning team...and who doesn't want to be on the winning team...right? I am correct about the 15%-20% though...right? I would sure hate to lose my 50 cents. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | According to the Religious Population of the World section of the Information Please Almanac, roughly 1/3 (33.7%) of the world's population is Christian. Christians are the largest single group; following them in size order are: Muslim (about 1/5); non-religious (about 1/7); and Hindu (also about 1/7). After that there's a big drop to the next-largest group (Buddhist with about 1/18). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What do you have to say about the bombadier beetle? I didn't see anything on your website about it. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | The Search facility uncovered this in the July 1996 Feedback. |
From: | |
Response: | We also have a FAQ entitled Bombardier Beetles and the Argument of Design. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi, I'm in
high school and I had a question about the universe. Since
I couldn't find any info anywhere else, I decided it was
only logical to ask someone here. :)
How does an explosion such as the Big Bang account for a flat universe? Would not it have occurred as explosions occur today, given that all of the laws which currently govern physics were in operation then? If that is so, then wouldn't the universe be more spherical (or at least, not "flat")? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | The word
"flat", as used by cosmologists, is jargon,
and does not mean what you think it means. In cosmology,
any space that is flat is by definition a space that
obeys Euclidean geometry. A sphere is 3-dimensionally
Euclidean, and is therefore cosmologically flat. If
we add in a dash of relativity, a flat universe is
one that obeys the rules of Einstein's special theory of
relativity, and is commonly called "Lorentzian".
From the point of view of general relativity, a flat
universe is one with an average mass density that is
exactly equal to the "critical density"; a universe
with a larger mass density would eventually stop expanding,
and do a "big bang" in reverse; a universe with a lesser
mass density would continue to expand forever, still
expanding when the clock strikes infinity; a universe with
critical density will expand forever, but will stop when
the clock strikes infinity. Current observations of the
cosmic background emission appear to favor a flat
universe, but this is not a unanimous opinion amongst
cosmologists.
Another problem to keep in mind that the Big Bang is not an explosion, despite appearance to the contrary. An explosion is an energetic expansion into space, but the Big Bang is an energetic expansion of space, which may (or may not) be expanding "into" something else. String theory is interpreted in terms of structures called "branes", where our universe is interpreted as a 3-dimensional brane in a universe of 10 or 11 dimensions. A convenient analogy would be that the surface of an expanding bubble in our 3-dimensional universe, would be a 2-dimensional brane (if we ignore the fact that all real bubbles have thickness and are therefore really not 2-dimensional).
|