Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have two
quick questions:
|
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Gary Nelson
is my thesis supervisor (he is now an associate at the
Department of Botany of the University of Melbourne after
retiring from the AMNH). I can assure you that he is not a
creationist, from his own mouth. Neither he nor the
recently departed Colin Patterson ever denied the reality
of evolution, nor the mechanisms proposed by modern biology
for it. What they did deny, and this is what has given rise
to the misunderstanding that they are supposed to be
creationists, is that one can know for sure that a given
fossil represents the actual ancestor of any lineage. This
is due to the fact that most concepts of species and
conspecificity (being members of the same species or
lineage) depend on behaviour, genetic and other unpreserved
information in the fossil record. So even if we find a
fossil that matches everything we expect of an ancestor, it
still is not reason enough to claim that this fossil is the
actual ancestor.
Patterson and Nelson are the leading exponents of a view called "pattern cladism", which is a technical field of systematics, or the classification of organisms. In effect they say that we are justified in classifying modern organisms into relationships but not fossil organisms. Needless to say, this view has been challenged. Recently, even those who have been sympathetic to the purely technical argument are starting to accept that the fossil record gives some information that can be used to make classifications and thus be used for reconstructing evolutionary history. This is a problem of epistemology, or the philosophy of knowledge: it is an argument about what science can find out with confidence. I think Nelson is correct in that the techniques used under the name "cladism" are classification techniques not phylogenetic reconstruction techniques. There's more in the Evolution and Philosophy section on kinds and the essay on Colin Patterson being misquoted by creationists. |
From: | |
Response: |
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Darwinquote:
On his evidence of existing Simian/Homo sapiens phylogeny:
"But we must not fall into the error of supposing that the
early progenitors of the whole simian stock, including man,
was identical with, or even closely resembling, any ape or
monkey." Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, Chapter
4 -- On the Affinities and Geneology of Man.
On his evidence for the past evolutionary descent of human beings: "With respect to the absence of fossil remains serving to connect man with his ape-like progenitors, no one will lay much stress on this fact . . ." Then he reiterated his excuse, found throughout his writings, for the lack of any evidence for evolution in his Origin, i.e., we haven't looked hard enough: "[T]hose regions which are the most likely to afford remains connecting man with some extinct apelike creature have not as yet been searched by geologists." Thus Darwin admitted that, at least in his time, he had not one utter piece of evidence for man's evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | t. miller |
Comment: | If you were to take a stack of lumber and set it out in the yard, how long do you think it would take (using the theory of evolution) before it would turn into a house? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Because a stack of lumber is not self-replicating, Darwinian natural selection does not act upon it. Thus, the failure of stacks of lumber to assemble themselves into houses says nothing about the validity or lack thereof of evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jeff Dennis |
Comment: | In response to a posting (May-98) referring to 'Flawed dating methods' - You said how nice it would be to have a specific instance in mind to evaluate. I would agree. I had some correspondence with that same gentleman and the only example he sites is some obscure geologic exercise at some unnamed volcano. Lava samples from a 168 year old flow were broken loose and given to geologists for dating. The resulting ages were spread along a ridiculously wide spectrum (0.16 to 2.96 Billion) and -in his opinion- scientific dating methods are not reliable and the fossil record is explained thoroughly by Noah's flood. He insists that he, himself, has witnessed a petrified tree stump that doesn't lie within a geologic level but protrudes through several layers - completely refuting conventional Geologic theory and indicating that the ONLY way this could have occurred is by being laid down by the great flood. If one can just scratch the surface of scientific dating methods, they would find that in 999 out of a 1000 instances, the various scientific methods give similar dates when applied to a single example. I remember reading about a series of meteorite strikes that occurred hundreds of millions of years ago. It seems that a string of meteors (like Shoemaker-Levy) stuck the earth in rapid succession, leaving craters in places around the world. This article evaluated the different locations from Canada to France and the Ukraine, using 3 or 4 different dating methods. All these craters indicated an age of 220 million yrs plus/minus 10 million years. The methods used were: U-Pb on zircons; Rb/Sr ; Ar/Ar Laser spot fusion and 2 craters were evaluated using stratigraphic information based on recognizing conventional geologic information. One must be quite desperate to cling to the 1 example out of thousands that backs their preconceived notions of mythology. Apparently, preponderance of evidence means nothing. The fact that he no longer leaves his name might indicate that he KNOWS his position is intellectually indefensible. It seems he has resorted to anonymous sniper shots. Personally, I enjoy the site immensely - especially the hominid fossils. I have noticed there is no pictures of the '444' A.afarensis skull from a 1991 dig. Could we perhaps 'dig' one up? |
Responses | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | The "obscure geologic exercise" is, judging by the dates reported, the Hualalei lava flows of 1801. Here's a recent talk.origins posting of mine. The latter half of the posting discusses this example in a fair amount of detail and shows why creationist treatments of it are misleading. |
From: | |
Response: | Andrew MacRae deals with the claim about tree-stumps protruding through multiple geological strata in the "Polystrate" Tree Fossils FAQ. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As a sincere Catholic I believe that God created the Universe and has guided its continued creation throughout time. I regard the description of creation in the Bible as true in as much as it states that God created the Earth, etc. out of a void. This lines up with the 'Big Bang Theory' as I understand it. I believe as a matter of faith that God has guided the evolution of life here on this planet. The proof needed that God created what exists is that very existence. You don't put all the pieces of a pocket watch into a desk drawer and rattle it back and forth and have the watch come out ticking. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As a former
Catholic myself, I find that your belief was very similar
to the one I had reached. The Big Bang Theory was in fact
first formulated by Catholic priest George LeMatre at the
Pontifical Academy of Science. Nothing in the realm of
science stands in opposition to your belief that God guided
the evolution of life. Such an idea is untestable, and
therefore outside the realm of science. You should not feel
that your belief is threatened by this website or by
science in general.
The analogy of the pocket watch, however, is unsound. A pocket watch has no DNA that can be altered over time, no method of self-replication, and there are no survival pressures in the drawer to act upon the watch in the form of natural selection. You should take advantage of the resources on this website and familiarize yourself with these concepts. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I was
reading the Noah's Ark FAQ and I was wondering about the
boat itself. I don't know much about ships, but I do know
that you need I good hunk of mass at the bottom to keep the
ship upright and something long sticking in the water (or
pontoons out to the sides) to keep it from rocking too
much. In the VERY high seas of the Flood, that Ark is going
to have a hard time not capsizing even with these features.
Now maybe Noah could get this monster boat built and loaded, but what is going to happen after the flood? He didn't park this thing in a harbor, he went aground on a mountain and the waters drained around him! With no keel the boat could just lay down flat, but if there is one it's going to fall toward it's side. Would the fully loaded ark be able to stand that kind of strain? And what of the door? It will probably be servicable enough for the nimble creatures but, whether the door is on the 'up' side or the 'down' side, are you going to be able to get the elephants out? Also, I'm finding it very difficult to reconstruct the timeline of the flood. The waters rise for 40 days. On the 7th month the ark comes to rest in the mountains. On the 10th month the mountain tops become visible. So how did the ark come to rest three months earlier? Then there's this Dove story (Gen 8). It appears to me the dove was released within a few days of the land appearing. So where did the freshly plucked olive leaf come from? Seven months under water will, I'm pretty sure, kill any olive tree. I don't think a new one would be able to sprout up in just a few days. One caveat - if God is omnipotent then a roundabout way is just as good as a direct one. What's the point of being effecient if you have infinite power? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm looking
for a popular human evolution-related graphic, which I was
unable to find in my texts on the subject. (This is perhaps
because in my work for my MSc in biological anthropology,
the references, while interesting, are not always full of
popular art!!)
It's a series of profiles of hominoids to hominids ending with a man; there are about 4 or 5 full-body profiles walking to the left. I'm sure you know the one I mean. I'm looking for it as either a computer graphic or as a hard copy. Any help, especially in the next few days, would be much appreciated! Many thanks, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | See the about page for Jim Foley's Fossil Hominids FAQ for information on the "March of Progress" graphic. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Alexandra Shubin |
Comment: | I am presently taking a summer class in evolution and creation for my senior seminar. On the first day of class someone asked the definition of religion, faith, beleif. We could look it up in the dictionary but we want a creation/evolution definition. Or what the laws say it is. How can I get this or do you have the answer. Thank you very much for your time |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is no
special definition of religion from the point of view of
the evolution/creation debate. An important thing to
realize is that there are many firm supporters of evolution
who also hold strong religious beliefs.
Here is the best I can offer you: Religious faith involves a concept that is held to be true without any supporting evidence. Faith can persist even in the presence of contrary evidence. An example of faith is the belief that a worldwide flood destroyed the earth, and Noah took 2 of each animal on a great ship that he built. Faith requires no evidence to substantiate it. In other words, you don't have to prove it to believe it. A scientific 'belief' is an unambiguous idea which actually an expectation based on experience and objective evidence. Galileo had a 'belief' that a hammer and a feather, when dropped from an equal height, would land at the same time in an airless environment. He had no way to test this theory. It was not a demonstrated truth until the Apollo missions, when just such an experiment was conducted on the surface of the moon. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would like to say this site is obviously not an open forum where both sides of Evolution and Creation are discussed. It is very one-sided and I think you should rename your site. It gives a false impression that you are unbiased, when you are really just trying to refute Creationism. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Indeed, this archive is not intended to be a forum at all but a repository for FAQs written for the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup. The Archive has a bias towards mainstream science, as is clearly explained by our Welcome page. The best people to make the arguments of creationism are creationists, and we provide an extensive list of links to other sites for just that purpose. We invite all of our readers to examine those sites, to examine ours, and most importantly, to examine the data presented in the primary literature referenced by the FAQs found here. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It takes a
lot more faith to believe in evolution than to believe that
there is a creator. According to evolutionists the Egyptian
pyramids could have just happened over several billions of
years. Why not? We all came out of the same puddle of slime
or oooze as the pigs, horses, chickens, and yes monkeys
that eventually turned into humans. Talk about blind faith.
The heavens declare the glory of God. To think that this world just happens to be the perfect distance from a star to sustain life, is rotating perfectly around it while moving back and forth for changing weather is blind luck. Maybe the Taj Mahal just happened by chance, also. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Your letter
is an example of what is called a Straw Man Argument, which
means mis-representing a position in ridiculous terms to
make it look weak. It sounds like you may have done this
unintentionally, and may simply need some information on
the subject.
Monkeys did not turn into humans. Pigs, horses, chickens etc. did not emerge from a puddle of slime. The pyramids and the Taj Mahal have no DNA which can alter over time, have no method of self-reproduction, and are not subjected to survival pressures in the form of natural selection. I would suggest that you take advantage of the resources on this website to learn more about the subject, and to learn why your letter did not represent evolution correctly. Faith involves a concept that is held to be true without any supporting evidence. Faith can persist even in the presence of contrary evidence. An example of faith is the belief that a worldwide flood destroyed the earth, and Noah took 2 of each animal on a great ship that he built. Faith requires no evidence to substantiate it. In other words, you don't have to prove it to believe it. A scientific 'belief' is an unambiguous idea which actually an expectation based on experience and objective evidence. Galileo had a 'belief' that a hammer and a feather, when dropped from an equal height, would land at the same time in an airless environment. He had no way to test this theory. It was not a demonstrated truth until the Apollo missions, when just such an experiment was conducted on the surface of the moon. |
From: | |
Response: | Completed in
1653, the Taj Mahal was built by the Mughal emperor Shah
Jahan to serve as the tomb of his wife Mumtaz Mahal. The
Taj was started after the death of Mumtaz in 1631 during
childbirth. The primary architect was the Persian Isa Khan,
and over 20,000 people worked on its construction.
I urge anyone who has the opportunity to do so to visit the Taj Mahal. Although the pictures are lovely, they don't begin to do justice to its beauty as viewed in person. It is truly a wonder of the world. More information on the Taj Mahal, which is in the city of Agra in the state of Uttar Pradesh in India, can be found on the Lonely Planet web site. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jason Munroe |
Comment: | It seems
that creationists are changing their tactics when it comes
to arguing against transitional forms. Instead of saying
that there are gaps in the fossil record or there are no
transitional forms, they are saying that transitional forms
were merely "special creations" to prepare the way for
future creations.
In the creationist journal, "Facts and Faith" (Vol.12, No.1), Dr. Hugh Ross makes some comments on the PBS "Firing Line" debate. Ross criticized Kenneth Miller's claims that Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, and Indocetus were transitional forms between land dwelling animals and whales. Ross argues, "The whale's capacity of natural process change is severely limited by six factors: 1) relatively small population; 2) long generation spans (the time between birth and the ability to give birth; 3) low number of progeny produced per adult; 4) high complexity of biochemistry and morphology; 5) enormous size; and 6) specialized food supply." (p. 6) He then goes on to argue that these factors severely limit change and evolution and thus it's easier to accept the idea that the transitional forms were actually "special creations." If it wasn't too much trouble, are there any marine biologists here that can point out flaws in Dr. Ross's argument? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Did somebody ask if there was a marine biologist in the house? ;-) Let's look at Dr. Ross's objections.
Summary: There are reasons to suspect that the "severe limitations" that Dr. Ross asserts for natural change in whale lineages may not be as severe as he would like us to believe. The fossils have a clear temporal sequence and show clear signs of anatomical similarities. Ross wishes to convince us that the timescale is too short for adaptive evolution to effect the changes seen across time. Invoking a series of special creations as an explanation falls into the category of a "God of the Gaps" argument. Ten or fifteen years ago, the known fossil record for cetaceans was exceedingly sparse. Two or three ancient special creations and the modern panoply would suffice. Today, the number of fossil species identified in the cetacean lineage is a good bit larger, and still appears to be growing, now that paleontologists have figured out where to look for the fossils. As this number grows, the attractiveness of the "special creation" conjecture diminishes. With more species, the apparent likelihood that transitions took place via descent with modification becomes higher. That's just considering the numbers. When one looks at the anatomy of the specimens, other reasons to prefer accepting descent with modification suggest themselves. The Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ is a good starting point for examining this issue, but I would recomend looking up other sources as well. For links on a number of modern species, try my Cetaceans page. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What about the conservation of angular momentum which states that all objects in the universe, if coming from a common source(big bang, singularity) will spin in the same direction? There are two planets in our solar system that do not spin in the same direction as the rest. What's up with this? How does the materialist answer this? Regardless, it seems that whatever answer I get will be ad hoc. I would like an answer to the question of what objective evidence would disprove evolution/old age cosmology? Has anyone read Sir Karl Popper? The more evolution tells me, the less it tells me because it seems to explain everything, and in doing so, explains nothing. Please, offer me just one piece of empirical evidence that would, if found, disprove the materialist's account of everything. I'd be very thankful. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | See
Planet Formation by Jack J. Lissauer; Annual Review
of Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol 31 (1993); pages
129-174. Specifically, section 5, Planetary
Rotation, page 158. As pointed out by Fair, your
statement about planetary rotation and basic physics is
wrong. There is no such fundamental restriction on
planetary rotation, so the retrograde rotation of Venus and
Uranus is not a problem.
Revolution and Rotation of the Planets is one of the URL's Fair gave, but he made a typo. One piece of Evidence is easy. If the fossils were deposited, say by a large flood, they would be all jumbled together. They are not. Fossils are so strongly sorted, that even tiny microscopic fossils are sorted by species in the fossil record. Had the fossils been disordered, evolution would have been disproven. |
From: | |
Response: | Your
question deals not at all with evolution, but instead with
physics.
Your statement of conservation of angular momentum is incorrect. If it weren't, not just planets but also tops, wheels, and even figure skaters could only spin in one direction. The total angular momentum of a system is conserved if there are no external torques acting upon the system. (A torque is a rotative force.) But even if there are no external torques acting upon a system, this says nothing about the angular momentum of bodies within the system. A body in such a system may experience a change in angular momentum as long as the rest of the system experiences an equal and opposite change in angular momentum. Space prohibits a full discussion of the formation of the solar system here. However, the planetessimals that later formed Venus and Uranus may have have been given retrograde rotations through collisions with other bodies whose angular momenta were affected as well. Discussions of how angular momentum contributes to the formation of planetary systems can be found here. See Planetary image finders a page of sites with planetary images and information. Also, see the song lyrics to Josef Wankerl's "Conservation of Angular Momentum." |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The theory of evolution that is presented as fact is disturbing. For there is not one fossil that has been found that is physical evidence to support this theory. Not one fossil has been found to prove a transitional or intermediate creature. So why do we continue to hear this theory presented as fact? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Perhaps before you assert a lack of transitional fossils, you should check out the Transitional Vertebrate Fossil FAQ, as well as the Horse Evolution FAQ. |
From: | |
Response: | And don't forget the Fossil Hominids FAQ. |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | For those who prefer paper, see Paleontologic Evidence and Organic Evolution by Roger J. Cuffey (Penn State U) in "Science and Creationism", Oxford University Press, 1984, pages 255-281. Cuffey cites numerous examples of transitional fossils, from species to species, and genus to genus, with full references to the original papers. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | How many
evolutionists does it take to change a light bulb?
None. In fact, you don't even need a new light bulb or a socket to put it in, given enough time, in a never-ending struggle to survive, dead materials and minerals will eventually form the metal, glass, and wire, to form a light bulb, the metal, wire, and electrical generator that runs from naturally occuring petroleum to form the socket, while ultra-violet light and other raw energies will cause the bulb to float to the ceiling and screw itself in. Now if only evolution were so simple... -Jon Scott |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | It may
surprise you to know that some inanimate objects can indeed
self-assemble. Some two billion years ago, naturally
occuring uranium deposits in Gabon in west Africa reached
just the right concentration, with just the right cooling
from ground water, to form a nuclear fission reactor - the
so-called Oklo Reactor.
This entertaining site gives details and references,
but a simple Web search on "Oklo" will find many papers.
Light bulbs would evolve if they reproduced, and all steps to them were feasible. The difference between a light bulb and an organism is that light bulbs do not beget little light bulbs. If they did, and how well they lit their environment influenced how well different variants reproduced, then in no (evolutionary) time at all, you'd have extremely efficient light bulbs, probably better than the ones Edison designed. I am tempted to suggest that creationists would not ever change light bulbs themselves, as they would expect God to do it, but that would be a cheap shot. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What do evolutionists have? A theory which, if true, answers a whole lot of questions about the relationships among organisms and species. Some of those answers are directly verifiable, many are not. And some questions aren't even addressed, with no particular answers being favored over any others. What do Creationists have? Their principle hypothesis is that some agency is responsible for the existence of all the species. The presumed "separateness" or "abruptness" of creation is a SECONDARY hypothesis, having no evident bearing on the first (and presumably more important?) premise. The first of these premises offers no description of the physical processes involved in the "creation", and therefore neither refutes nor confirms the involvement of common ancestry as part of the process. The secondary hypothesis of SEPARATE creation does conflict with evolution theory, but only because the irrelevant word "separate" (or sometimes the word "abrupt") was inserted. Being an antonym of "common" (as in "common ancestry"), this has the effect of adding as an implicit premise, the negation of the main premise of evolutionary theory. Without any details other than the presumed separateness, it gives no real answers not already given by the hypothesis of creation (or causation) by an agency, so it adds nothing to the "creation" part of the hypothesis. However, negating the main premise of evolutionary theory, while adding nothing to the main point of Creationism, revokes those answers provided BY evolution theory without giving any answers in return. The other secondary premise in some versions of Creationism is that the creation was "abrupt". To evaluate this, one must first figure out the scale on which the creation process is assumed to be abrupt. If this refers to the time scales generally assumed by geologists, then it does not conflict with evolution theory anyway. If it refers to creation of a new type (species or larger group) in less than the period of one generation for that type, then it implies "separate" as well as implying some way by which the organisms could be constructed other than via reproduction. As outlined above, "separate" doesn't answer any questions, and revokes those answers implied by commonality of origin. While "abrupt" (if true) does address one question (how long does it take), it doesn't describe what lead to that abruptness. Also, without direct observation of the process itself, there's no empirical distinction between "separate creation" and fast evolution. So if the apparently "abrupt" appearance of a new type coincides with a time or situation in which evolution theory would expect fast evolution (i.e., following a major extinction event, or colonizing a previously uninhabited territory), then there's no direct criteria for choosing between the fast evolution and separate creation. There is one indirect criteria: if comparison with earlier species (or larger group) shows one to which the "new" type is very similar, then we're choosing between descent from that ancestor, and creation using the prior species as sort of a "template" for the new one. The creation by "template" concept is consistent with the available data; it's only problem is the assumption of an agency (or set thereof) having the means and desire to sporadically cause the appearance of new types (note: "type" can be as small as one species, but might be as large as an order). That, plus the fact that it doesn't really answer any questions about relationships among the types and individuals. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is a lot more to this colntroversy than a philosophical discussion. The claims made by creationists are clearly false and defamatory. Science is supported by factual information; in order to attack science, which creationists view as immoral and anti-God, creationists attack the validity of the factual information with half-truths, distortions, and outright falsehoods. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In the May
"Feedback," Robert L. Baty publicly vilified me and accused
me of maliciously and intentionally spreading "various
errors" in a lecture that he attended. It is unfortunate
that Mr. Baty has chosen to use an archived forum of the
Internet to persist in a long-standing personal vendetta
against me and my work.
Mr. Baty has "majored in minors" in his criticisms of certain statements that I made over half-a-decade ago. In the speech that Mr. Baty heard me give, I made reference to Matthew Fontaine Maury (1806-1873). In addressing Maury's multiple contributions as a scientist to the field of oceanography, I discussed certain aspects of his life, including the various accolades afforded him as a result of those contributions, and his strong reliance on the Bible as the inspired Word of God. Much of the information I presented had been gleaned from recognized, published accounts of Maury's life and times-accounts whose veracity I had no reason whatsoever to doubt. Some time later, Mr. Baty wrote me at my offices at Apologetics Press (of which I serve as Executive Director) to take issue with one or more points of my lecture. I shared Mr. Baty's criticisms with Trevor J. Major, our Director of Scientific Information, who spent several months thoroughly researching the matter. Upon learning that certain of the statements in my lecture were incorrect, we then published the actual facts of the matter not only in the monthly journal for which I serve as editor (Reason & Revelation, 15[5]:39-40, May 1995), but also in a peer-reviewed article in the Creation Society Research Quarterly (32[2]:82-87, September 1995). Interestingly, the CSRQ editor even published Mr. Baty's attempt at a response, accompanied by our counter-response (CSRQ, 33[1]:22, June 1996). As far as we are concerned, since that time the matter has been a non-issue. The original erroneous statements were not deliberate falsehoods, or some kind of "dark side" (to use Mr. Baty's words) of my life's work. Furthermore, the errors were corrected publicly (something Baty has refused to accept, and continues to ignore). As links to our Web site articles from infidels.org attest, we are not averse to correcting popular misconceptions regarding Bible/science matters. My suspicion is that, likely, typical readers of Talk.Origins will not have much interest in Mr. Baty's life-long hobby. However, should you desire further information, please feel free to contact our offices at: Mail@ApologeticsPress.org. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Mike |
Comment: | First of all, there is no controversy here. There are people who believe, regardless of the lack of evidence, and evidence to the contrary, that the earth is flat. In known human history, there have been hundreds of religions, each with its own particular creation myth. Therefore, given that most of them exclude other explanations, a few, at most, could be right. So, where is the evidence????? Why are christians right and muslims wrong? What about the hundreds of native-american and african religions? Religious people should quit picking at Darwin and put forth their positive evidence that they are right. Just saying it doesn't make it so, right? And if evidence and reason are not to be demanded and relied upon, then what shall you use? Don't tell me God's truth, because I'll ask you what god and why you limit yourself to one. Final comment: I've asked some of my creationist friends what they would have to learn or see before they would believe that man evolved. Most say, "Nothing could convince me of that." In other words, there minds are closed and any further discussion is a waste of both of our time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
If the strategy of the SciCre-ists and other anti-evolutionists were premised upon finding and analyzing evidence supporting their views, things would be quite a bit different. We would see actual research being published, with hypotheses and theories stated and then tested. However, that is not the strategy which most anti-evolutionists take. It's too much work, for one thing. Instead, anti-evolutionists seek to make their gains via political action, where rhetoric rather than evidence rules. In the political arena, it does not matter whether one is establishing a case for one's viewpoint, or simply making negative statements about someone else's. Favorable action can be achieved via either route. It also means that evaluating cases on the evidence and finding one case to clearly be supported and another clearly not supported should not give rise to complacency. Action can continue in the political arena regardless of what reality tells us. This is why further discussion is not a waste of time, but is instead absolutely necessary to impede the progress of anti-science via political action. I can't speak for anyone else responding to these messages, but for myself, the number one reason that I bother to oppose anti-evolutionists is precisely to combat the introduction of non-science or anti-scientific concepts into science curricula. As far as I am concerned, anyone can believe what they want to. What they cannot do is falsely claim that their beliefs are actually scientific when they manifestly are not. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Were there ever any giant horses (like 20'ft) if so can you tell me something about them I can't find any information on them thanks |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | In the long and well-documented fossil record of horses a large percentage of them were quite small, even at the height of their diversity during the Miocene Epoch (25-5 mya). During this time there lived a genus of three-toed horses named Megahippus, however they were only large (mega) compared to other horses of the time. The two largest genera known are the living Equus (horses, zebras, donkeys) and the extinct Hippidion of the Pleistocene Epoch (1.8mya- 10,000 yrs. ago)in South America, with a size range similar to Clydesdales. The order to which they belong is Perissodactyla (odd-toed ungulates), which also includes tapirs, rhinoceroses, and some extinct forms such as the chalicotheres. Within the 'family' of rhinoceroses, there evolved the largest land mammals known. Indricotheres (such as Indricotherium and Baluchitherium), from the Oligocene to Miocene (ca. 37-25/ 25-5 mya)Epochs of central Asia grew to nearly twenty feet at the shoulder, and presumably could have been hand-fed from a third story window. The only horse I can think of that might fit the bill would be the Trojan one. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | A young friend, newly arrived from Bangladesh, says he read an article in Bengla (his native language, about an American research scientist named John Stanley. Stanley, through the use of "artificial lightning" in the late '50s or early '60s, managed to "create life in the laborator." Does anyone have more information about this scientist? . Is he still alive? Where can I learn more? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | Jim Foley |
Response: | This sounds
like a reference to the work of Stanley Miller, who in 1953
showed in a celebrated experiment that amino acids could be
synthesized by passing sparks through a mixture of methane,
ammonia, water and hydrogen. Although an important result,
he did not create life nor did he ever claim to have done
so.
Miller is still alive (and has a web page). |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Great
website,
There is another powerful argument that slays the Biblical account of the ark. It is that no matter how the pairs of animals survived the ark (space issues, # of animals, etc.) they could never continue. after they were released.Two animals cannot create a sustainable population for one reason:inbreeding. Inbreeding has two absolutes. The high incidence of homozygous lethal genes means high mortality rates and sterility. There isn't enough diversity for two animals to continue a lineage. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Another argument: The Noah's ark story states that there were only two of each kind. After the preditor animals ate the prey animals, the prey animals would become extinct and the preditor animals would starve to death. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have never found anyone who believes in evolution and the "big bang theory" who could answer and explain the following question: "Was there a time when nothing existed?" I look forward to your attempts to answer. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Your
question deals neither with evolution nor specifically with
the Big Bang theory itself, but with cosmology in general.
Time is a property of this universe. It is consistent with what we know about the universe that time came into existence during the Big Bang along with space, matter, and energy. If that is the case, the answer to your question would be, "No." Unfortunately, as far as we can tell, science cannot investigate events which occurred before the "Planck time," which is at about 10-43 seconds. So for now, the only scientific answer is, "We don't know." |
From: | |
Response: | Let me begin by stating that most scientists who study either 'evolution' or 'big bang cosmology' do notbelieve in either. Evolution is directly observable and therefore exceedingly difficult to refute. Big-bang cosmology is a theoretical construct that proposes several tests for itself. So far, the big bang theory has held up well to its challengers, but will continually be tested and refined as data require. Your question then becomes more fundamental in nature. You seem to crave absolutes and if science cannot offer a concrete answer, then you assume science must be wrong. Indeed, that is never the case. Science is a pursuit of the unknown and there will always be questions which have (so far) no answers. We can then choose to give up and stop looking for answers and ascribe everything to some unknown force of our own choosing OR we can keep searching. Personally, I like a good mystery and I am sure that most scientists do. I would hope that your theology is based on something more than unanswered scientific questions. Given the success of science in the past century, such a theological stance is precarious indeed. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What is a "troll"? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | In fishing,
one "trolls" by trailing a baited line behind a boat. In Usenet newsgroups such as
talk.origins, "trolling" is
the act of posting an inflammatory message not to add to
the debate, but merely to generate heated responses. A
"troll" is therefore such a post.
Sometimes those who troll are also called "trolls," implying a different meaning of "troll"; namely, a grotesque creature that lurks under bridges or in caves, ready to ensnare unsuspecting victims. Although "troll" is not in the talk.origins Jargon File, it probably should be, and I will suggest that a definition be added. Other unfamiliar terminology related to the origins debate can be found there, however. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Dear Talk
Origins,
I appreciate you publishing my comments. I would like to make one small correction. The coverup published under Trevor Major's name in the Creation Research Society Quarterly was not in their June 1996 edition as stated. It was in their September 1995 edition (20 lashes if I am wrong on it this time). The June 1996 edition contains two letters to the editor concerning Trevor Major's article. One has my name subscribed, but I didn't write it. The editor presented the letter to me and I signed it (as far as it goes it does represent my view, and the editor led me to believe it was his views that he simply preferred to be voiced by way of the letter with my name on it). He otherwise refused to correct Trevor Major's misrepresentation of the Lewis biographical work, and I think he was surprised to find out Maury wouldn't be standing with the young-earth creation scientists today. Of course, he wouldn't allow anything to be printed regarding how Trevor Major came to write the article to cover up for Bert Thompson, Ph.D. That being said, I don't know if Trevor Major actually wrote the letter to the editor carrying his name. It really is a curious tale here. I appreciate your interests in taking note of this small, but symptomatic matter of interest to me. I apologize if my guess at the CRSQ reference misled anybody. I didn't have my references available (I just borrow this computer stuff at the local library). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great web
page, just found it after reading ocregister article. As a
hs.science teacher i have had a terrible time teaching
evolution and just today had a run in with my assistant
principal about a group who has been at the school this
past year praying for the teachers and students and leaving
notes in our mail boxes saying that they are praying for
us. I will be passing this page url along to my studdnts.
thanks mm |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Keep up the
effort and don't back down. It is at the high school level
that this issue is most critical. Young people need to be
correctly introduced to the concept.
Check out this site about teaching evolution: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (online) and this: Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science (reviews and purchase options). |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | It'd be nice to see some articles on how to debate an evolutionist. It's interesting and all to learn how to debate a creationist, but it's only fair to do the same to the other side. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You're in
luck. Check out the talk.origins Welcome FAQ.
Although it specifically discusses debate in the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup,
the same principles apply to debates in other fora. Follow
these principles if you hope to convince supporters of
evolution of your views.
As to how to debate from a particular creationist perspective, the Talk.Origins Archive leaves that up to creationists to determine. See the bottom of the Talk.Origins Archive welcome message, which explains the Archive's policy about creationist articles. See also our extensive list of links to creationist and anti-evolution web sites. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have seen
this in print before. My question: Is it possible to
determine a loss of 24 hours when we have no frame of
reference where we know the beginning and ending points,
only the ending point? I am an avid reader of Acts and
Facts and trust your opinion.
[Ed: The reader has included the following, evidently from Acts and Facts.]
[Ed.: Portions of story deleted for length.]
|
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This was a
fascinating question to research.
The story about the "missing day" of the Book of Joshua being proven by NASA researchers at the Goddard Spaceflight Center is an urban legend. The legend has its origins in the work of Charles A.L. Totten, a Yale military science instructor who came up with calculations allegedly proving "Joshua's missing day" in his 1890 book Joshua's Long Day and the Dial of Ahaz. It was later turned into an urban legend about NASA and Goddard Spaceflight Center by Harold Hill, former president of the Curtis Engine Company of Baltimore, Maryland, now deceased. Goddard Spaceflight Center, where this legend allegedly took place, denies it occurred and explains why the legend makes no sense in its " Ask A Scientist" Web page. See also Jim Lippard's discussion of the myth. Even the Creation Science Foundation states that this is story is an urban legend on their Christian Answers Web site. Further research turned up the Answering Islam site, which has a discussion of this hoax on its hoaxes page. The evidence on this site lists the story as originally appearing in the Evening World of Spencer, Indiana, with the date of the story listed alternately as 1978, 1970, or 1969, perhaps on December 6 or October 10. (Additional information can be found on the Answering Islam site at Joshua's Missing Day Found? and Joshua's Long Day.) The Johnson Space Center's Space Educator's Handbook authored by Jerry Woodfill has a section on hoaxes with a page mentioning the story, citing it as appearing in the 1970 Evening World. [Ed: Perhaps someone near Spencer could research this? The Spencer Evening World is at 114 E. Franklin St., Spencer, IN 47460, (812) 829-2255. Spencer is about 15-20 miles northwest of Bloomington, Indiana, on Highway 46.] Amazon.com shows the publication date (evidently a reprinting) of Totten's book to be in December of 1968. I suspect that Hill read Totten's book or heard an account of it and later transposed it in his mind onto the work he was doing as a NASA subcontractor. A search on AltaVista for the "Curtis Engine Company" turned up about a dozen sites dealing with the legend. Scan through them and see how the myth changes and remains the same. Sites that repeat the myth:
Sites dispelling the myth:
Some miscellaneous Spencer, Indiana, links:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Robert Camacho |
Comment: | This is in response to an Editors Response made to a Mr.Matt Quinn in reference to a "thesis that neither common descent nor intelligent design theory is falsifiable ...." Continuing to explain that "The reason that intelligent design theory is unfalsifiable is because an omnipotent, intelligent designer can choose to build something in any manner it deems appropriate." Expressing further that the DNA sequences in animals or plants can be decidedly designed with totally opposite and completely unique DNA sequences. There's no problem with what was partially quoted here but I don't think the editor realized what he was saying. First off you mentioned it was an "INTELLIGENT design theory" also "OMNIPOTENT" and "Deemed APPROPRIATE" were words used to describe this designer. Does it make any sense to you or to anyone else here, when you add those few components together (INTELLIGENCE,OMNIPOTENT,APPROPRIATE) that this somehow makes this theory a less plausible one? Does it make sense to anyone that a designer such as this would just go about halphazardly with a whimsical snap of the fingers add a little DNA here with a pinch of DNA there? Infact the word Designer is described as one who plans,configures,builds etc. Would you look at humans themselves,you and I, and think we are just halphazard results? That is the whole premise of an "INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY" that all we see around us has beauty of design,structure,color,etc.etc. but you see a problem with this. "That's the problem with an OMNIPOTENT DESIGNER--any FACT (emphasis mine) imaginable can be called evidence for its existence." Not if an Omnipotent designer does exist. It would simply be the result of his work, and that somehow should be a problem? I think the result of both theories would bring us closer to a clearer vision of all existence. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
If we assume an omnipotent designer exists, then no set of facts will pose any difficulty for us. The concept of falsifiability requires that we consider the the case where no omnipotent designer exists. If the concept of the existence of an omnipotent designer is a falsifiable one, then there will be some test by which we can determine that the concept is not true. What Robert describes above is a brief case for corroboration of the existence of an omnipotent designer, not a case for the falsifiability of the concept. Plausibility is a separate issue, and how plausible one finds the concept of an omnipotent intelligent designer (OID) of life's diversity will depend critically upon what attributes one associates with those concepts. This is what Paul Nelson has referred to as "theological themata" when evolutionists say that "God would not have done it that way". However, theological themata are implicit whether the person is arguing that "God would not have done it that way" or that "God certainly could have done it this way". The argument changes with each theological theme, and the theme is not usually articulated, which leads to a great deal of confusion. The presence of an OID makes any fact seen a possibility. It is only the addition of some particular theological theme to qualify the concept of an OID that makes certain facts inconsistent with that specific theme. It must be understood that what is falsified in that case is the theme, not the OID. Let me illustrate with the concept of "intelligent re-use". Some claim that similarities in the DNA of organisms stems not from a history of common ancestry and descent with modification, but rather from the intelligent re-use of modules of DNA that worked well elsewhere. In the case of the cytochrome-c protein, all aerobic organisms possess a version of the protein. Does cytochrome-c support intelligent re-use as an alternative to common ancestry? Here it becomes necessary to look at the molecular structure of cytochrome-c as it differs from species to species. Sequence comparisons reveal that it is not the exact same cytochrome-c that is used in all those different species. The protein is recognizably performing the same function in all of the different species, but it does not have the same sequence of amino acids in all of them. Common ancestry explains the pattern of changes based upon the accumulation of mutations in lineages separated since the last time those lineages shared a common ancestor. The data fit this explanation quite well. Intelligent re-use, on the other hand, has to explain the same pattern of data in the light of a designer introducing changes into a particular protein which performs the same function across all those species. Why would an intelligent and omnipotent designer prefer to put exactly a pattern of differences into cytochrome-c that is expected from a history of common ancestry, when simply putting the same sequence into all the species would work pretty much just as well? (Caveat: Some sequences probably do have some effects on function, such as result from Q10 considerations.) The answer to that question is theological in nature, and will differ depending on who is providing the explanation. An omnipotent intelligent designer (OID) who takes care to see that the smallest details of heritable information conform to the expectations of common ancestry as well limits the number of theological themata that can reasonably be applied. Such an OID is completely consistent with and indistinguishable from a history of evolution that doesn't reflect the action of an OID. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is a
really nice idea to have this Creation/Evolution
Controversy web site. As a scientist, I have to struggle
with creationist "philosophy" (!) inside my own family.
But, in my country, the creationist problem is not so
frequent and is quite unknown (I am French). Then, I have
to congratulate you for such a site I will recommand, even
for my relatives involved inside an evangelic church.
Here is a link to my own Internet site. Sincerely yours, Christian Nitschelm Astrophysicist (and always against creationist ideas!!!) PS: A few years ago, I wrote, with three another French scientists, a text about Creationism in front of science. This text is also available on the Internet from my Web site. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for your compliments. I have forwarded your site to the Archive's list of other links, where it should appear shortly. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I want to basically ask if Darwin felt so secure in his belief of evolution, then why did he accept Christ as his own personal savior on his deathbed? This is not a fabrication of an event. If there is one thing other than evolution is false it is the fact is creator found it to be false and embraced his creator before he died. Just something to think about. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The story by
Lady Hope that Darwin renounced evolution on his deathbed
is a hoax, as Darwin's own daughter confirmed that Lady
Hope was not present at Darwin's death and in fact probably
never even met Darwin. See the Lady Hope FAQ for the full
story.
More to the point, scientific theories do not stand or fall on the opinion of one person, even the originator of the theory. They stand or fall instead on the weight of the evidence gathered in observation and experimentation. The theory of evolution has undergone a rigorous process of testing over the past century and a half, and has been more than adequately supported. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Re: Bert Thompson, PhD; Critique By Robert Baty 5/98 I was concerned by the allegations in Mr. Baty's comments concerning Dr. Thompson's presentation at his congregation. I have heard Bert Thompson speak, have read many of his papers and a few of his books and he is very careful to meticulously document his sources. Should an error come to light he is quick to publish his mistake. I have heard the reference to Matthew Fontaine Maury before but this posting was the first I had heard about the statue. I did some checking myself and this is what I found. There is a statue of Maury on "Monument Avenue" in Richmond, VA. It is an eight foot bronze of Maury seated, his right hand clasps a Bible. Behind him is a nine foot dia. globe with wave action and figures beneath it. But it was the reference to the statue at the "naval academy" that threw me. So I sent a message requesting information on the statue and included a description. The message I received stated that the statue resides IN their library which bears Maury's name. As to the Biblical inspiration for his exploration, the common "legend" is that it was his son reading to him while he convalesced. I do not know if this is true as it is not documented, but credit to the scriptural inspiration is given by Maury himself (though not specific as to the "event") in his memoirs. An extensive archive of his manuscripts and letters, (being added to regularly) is available online at the Virginia Military Institute's web site. Thank You for allowing my response. Kyle |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Homo erectus was a crude version of humanity. If he/she were raised with modern humans, he/she could most likely do crude works of art, cook food, operate CD players, etc. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Ah, but
could he or she get the VCR clock to stop flashing "12:00"?
That, it seems to me, is the true test of intelligence, and
most of us Homo sapiens haven't even figured that
out yet.
You should check out the Fossil Hominids FAQ to learn more about the descent of Homo sapiens from our hominid ancestors. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am trying to find a copy of the Firing Line evolution-creation debate to show to my evolution class. Any suggestions? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Videotapes
of Firing Line debates can be ordered from:
Videotapes are $49.50, which includes free shipping and handling and a transcript of the tape. Transcripts alone can be ordered for $10.00. The December 19, 1997, debate on evolution and creationism is debate #203. For more details, see the Firing Line web site. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As a member of the Roman Catholic church, I thought that the the argument between creationalists and evolutionists was settled; evolution has happened - the pope even said it - and that creationist science is just a sleazy, underhanded attempt by narrow minded fundementalists to shove their insidious, antiquated view of Christianity down the throats of public school children of all ages and religions. Heck, my mom does the rosery every day and she tries to make it to church every day, and even my mom says that she is proud that I'm going for a degree in evolutionary biology (Oh I forgot, to you mainstream fundementalists she's catholic, so she doesn't count.) So what is the controversy?. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The controversy is just as you have stated it. The creationist minority of Christianity is very vocal, and politically powerful. They attempt to position their views in the public school system at every opportunity, while attempting to aid this effort through legislative measures. Unless they are fought with constant vigilance, they may at some point prevail. Public education on evolution, such as this website provides, is the first line of defense. |