Feedback Letter | |
From: | danielle |
Comment: | ok. I understand the fact that you are trying to offer explanations from a mainstream perspective, but I must input something. Your definition of evolution is incomplete, many people do the same thing. The full definition of evolution is the belief that everything in the universe has come into being by mechanistic processes that are ascribed to properties inherent in matter- a random chance methodology VOID OF SUPERNATURAL CAUSATION. So when you say that evolution does not contradict God or creationism you are wrong. Creationism specifically says God created the universe, God is supernatural. There can be no such thing as theistic evolution because evolution says there is no supernatural help. Evolution by definition removes God or a creator/ designer from the formula. Nevertheless, I think this website is insightful, and my only suggestion would be to look at it maybe from more than one perspective. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your revised
definition is incorrect.
The actual definitions used in science are available in our FAQ What is Evolution?. Some scientists are atheists, and consider that there is no involvement of God or gods in the processes of the natural world. Some scientists are Christians, and believe in a supreme creator God who ordained and created all the natural world, including any process scientists may study. Other scientists come from other religious traditions, and there is a great diversity of metaphyiscal perspectives; but science itself is not able to distinguish them. Science does, of course, refute various concrete models about histories and events. To take a very extreme example, available empirical evidence shows plainly that the Earth is very ancient; and thus it was not made over the space of six days some six thousand years ago. But science does not, and cannot, refute or confirm the metaphysical notion of a supernatural and divine creator being the foundation of the natural world which we study, and the definitions of scientific theories like evolution or anything else do not include metaphysical riders like the one you present. As a straightforward counter example to your perspective on evolution, consider Theodosius Dobzhansky. He was a geneticist and an evolutionary biologist of enormous importance, instrumental in development of the new synthesis in evolutionary biology (in the 1930s) which amalgamated the fields of genetics and evolutionary biology. His groundbreaking book Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937), along with major works by Mayr, Huxley, Haldane and others, gave evolutionary biology a solid foundation which synthesized the two critical notions of selection and mutation; previously seen mainly as distinct alternatives. He continued to be prolific in work and insight up to his death in 1975. He also considered human evolution, in Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species and other works. (See Modern evolutionary synthesis and Theodosius Dobzhansky in the wikipedia.) Dobzhansky is famous for the remark Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution, which is the title of an essay he wrote in 1973. Read the essay. It reveals another aspect of Dobzhansky of which you should be aware. Dobzhansky was all his life a devout Christian (Russian Orthodox). In the article above, he says:
His essay concludes (citing Teilhad de Chardin) with the following phrase:
That is not a conclusion of science. It is a position of faith. But it is a position entirely consistent with science; and it is a serious misunderstanding of science to write into the definitions a metaphysical presumption that there is no role for a God or creator in the processes we see in the natural world and study by the tools of science. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | You guys are great. If I were to receive as many emails week after week by fundamentalist creationists repeating the same washed out dismissals of science over and over as you guys have to put up with ... I would probably decide I was wasting my time and move on to something less repetitive. It seems like you get a lot of angry emails from offended literalists, but I hope you understand that there are a lot of people out there who aren't stubbornly closed to the science side of the debate. And it is for those people's benefit that I am thankful that you guys haven't given up. I love reading the feedback section of the site. I think I enjoy it in a similar way that people enjoy watching talk shows (the Jerry Springer kind). It is entertainingly unnerving. What you guys have been able to create with talkorigins.org is incredible. I think it may be reasonable to assume that most of the people who write in are angry with you guys about something. The volume of negative emails probably outweighs the positive ones. Which is fine - it is to be expected I guess. Just as long as you know that there are a lot of people out there enjoying and benefiting from the site who aren't writing in to congratulate you guys. Anger probably motivates email-sending more so than praise does. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You keep saying that you are trying to prove evolution, yet in answering some of the questions you are self-refuting yourself. You say that creationism is not a possible replacement for evolution, yet it was evolution that has only in the last 100-150 years replaced creationism as the dominant belief. You even said that nothing can be proven for sure, yet then you say that evolution is fact. How does this fit together without refuting itself? Isn't there even the smallest chance you could be wrong? and if so, then what would you cling to as your belief? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Let's answer
your last questions first. Yes, there is a chance that we
could be wrong about evolution and creation. As you point
out, scientists are well aware that nothing in biology can
be proven true. What would scientists then accept (I
dislike the "cling to" phrase: no one is clinging to
anything)? Scientists- and rational people everywhere-
would accept what the evidence indicated. Also- if it is a
problem that evolution as a theory was proposed less than 2
centuries ago, what is your position on special relativity
(early 1900s)? Antibiotics (first widespread use in 1944)?
Lasers (1950s)? What about the semiconductors in the
computer on which you composed this feedback?
There is an entire FAQ section (Frequently Asked Questions) about the difference between evolution the fact, and evolution the theory. I recommend it to your attention: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html In short, we observe evolution. The genetic nature of populations changes. That is a fact. Facts need no proof; they are observations in the real world; they simply are; they exist. Many observations about life on this planet beg for an explanation: why are some organisms similar to one another, and others different? Why are some organisms found in certain places but not others? The theory of evolution- which draws on information from biology, geology, paleontology, and other fields- explains those data. So while no scientist would claim that common descent (which is what most people object to about evolution) is a fact, and none would say it has been proven, almost every scientist (including hundreds named "Steve") would say there is overwhelming evidence to support it, and no evidence to support special creation. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What implications for evolution versus creationism would there be, in your opinion, if definitive life was/is discovered on Mars this month? Does it bolster evolution or is it apples an oranges? Does it hurt creationism? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
discovery of life on Mars would, in itself, have virtually
no impact on the creation/evolution debate. We already know
that meteor impacts on Mars can eject material that later
falls to earth. It is entirely possible that the opposite
could also happen. A sufficently large meteor striking
Earth could dislodge rocks carrying microorganism spores,
which would later land on Mars. Bacterial spores are quite
resistant to environmental extremes, and the interior of
meteorites don't get overcooked, so the spoors could
survive the trip. Such a scenario is consistent with both
evolution and creation, so would not bolster either side.
Various properties of life on Mars, such as finding its genetics not to be DNA-based, could bolster evolution. Creationism, in its general sense, can accomodate absolutely anything, so it would not be seriously hurt, though creationists might want to adapt and include Mars as part of where God created life. Finding a large black obelisk, on the other hand, could seriously challenge our understanding of evolution. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Would you be
interested in discussing the folowing:
The Bones of Time © 1971 - 2000, D. Ertle Forward This thesis, concerning the substance of physical real time, was begun in 1971 when the author questioned the validity of the concept of evolution, and desiring to speak against the falsity of that belief system sought a manner to do so. Finding the concept of gravitation open for examination, the solution to that problem was sought for in order to have a platform to speak from. The examination of the force of gravity became a look into what physical time is. That led to the manner by which mass moves, which led to the reason why mass should move at all, then to what energy itself is. Then there was the geometric form of earth and why its magnetic and electric fields existed and how the Coriolis force formed them. Later it was back to physical time and to the real time structure of solar bodies and their structure limitations, which led back to the atom and its physical wave structure. No doubt you see a pattern emerging here. All these different forces are connected by the concepts of E=mc2, m=E/c2 and c2=E/m. It is interesting that even though time is able to be described more accurately than ever before, still no more is known of what it physically exists as than has been known from the dawn of its existence. What time is by itself and to itself is unknown. It appears that were man to know what time actually was, then man would understand what creation is. [Remainder of essay snipped - WRE] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This would
make for lively discussion on the talk.origins newsgroup.
Remember to set an "X-Archive: no" line in the header of
your post unless you want Google to archive it.
Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Fantastic!
Talkorigins has become one of my favorite web-sites. Thanks
so much and please keep up the great work! The forces of
nescience seem to be gaining in North America - what you
are accomplishing is needful.
Tho't you might find some amusement from a little poem I wrote years ago while finishing my Anthropology degree (It was written for a friend who is now an Anglican Bishop - he found it funny). Actually you could put a bit of a rap to it, now that I think of it... The Flood There once was a shellfish living in the sea he lived in sin, immorally And God who sits upon the throne said, "he must be punished and turned to stone", And so the flood, it came and went and buried all in sediment Eons passed, new life did grow, and then at last, the winds did show: The shellfish, now revealed in stone... Long ages spent for sin atoned. Chipped from its' geologic bed, a Christian palaeontologist said: "Let this sad fossil be, a lesson for humanity, "Such a find as this is great! the proof of sinning bivalves' fate! Atheists, humanists, commies and jews! This shellfish will get them to the pews!" And so fore-armed with such weighty facts, The church remains complete, intact For it is true, the rocks cry out, "This shellfish leaves us with no doubt!" Dan Warren |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Interesting article on geometric dating. I still question why some rocks would test older than other rocks. I can see that rock formations at the bottom of a given strata would have been deposited earlier, and thereby the deposit would be older. However, that wouldn't change the radiometric "age" of the deposited rock. All the rocks have been part of the earth from eons past, so should reveal an equal age during radiometric testing no matter where when or how they were moved and deposited. It's strange. I may be missing a piece of the puzzle, or is everyone else? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Radiometric
dating methods do not measure the ages of the individual
atoms and molecules which make up the rock. If they did,
you would be correct, and we would expect all of the dates
to come out pretty much the same. What most radiometric
dating methods measure is the amount of time that has
passed since the rock became solid.
The reason that these methods work is this: minerals typically have a distinct structure and chemical makeup when they first form. For example, quartz is made of molecules of silicon dioxide locked together in a characteristic way. Because minerals are solids, the different atoms and molecules which make up the mineral are locked into place relative to one another. When an atom of, for example, uranium decays, it turns into an atom of something else (in the case of uranium, the product is lead). The "new" (or daughter) atom remains locked in the same place in the mineral that the "old" (parent) atom was. As a result, the chemical makeup of the mineral changes. For example, if enough time passes, a mineral which is normally rich in uranium but poor in lead will become rich in lead and poor in uranium. If you know what the ratio of the parent atom to the daughter atom would have been when the mineral formed, and you know how fast the parent is converted into the daughter, you can find out the age of the rock by determining what the ratio is now. This is a gross oversimplification of the process, of course, but it should give you an idea of the basic theory behind the process. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi,
Re. 'The First Chimpanzee' by John Gribbin and Jeremy Cherfas (2001. In chapter 'The Ape's Brainchild, arguments are raised against the so called 'Aquatic Ape Theory' (AAT) of Elaine Morgan. But since the authors insist on debating what Morgan wrote in 1972 because, as they say in the notes, that 'Morgan has since elaborated on her theme in several other books, but the flavour of her argument comes across best in the original version of the story', it seems to me that their critique is quite off target. I have read and reread the pertinent parts of 'Chimpanzee', comparing with the book by Morgan issued in 1997 (I am away from home, but believe title is 'The Aquatic Ape Theory'), and I find several significant differences between Morgan 1972 and Morgan 1997. I am not much concerned with 'flavour ' in this context. I am more concerned with the differences, the arguments no longer raised, and all the changes as well as additions to Morgan's hypothesis. Without reading what Morgan herself actually says in 1997, one is being misled by Gribbin/Cherfas. I do not know which of the two authors had the greatest influence on the relevant chapter of the book, I just guess it must have been John Gribbin. All of what Morgan writes in 1997 simply is ignored. Seems to me the 1972 version is used as a strawman. Has this been the subject of debate anywhere, can any further light be thrown upon the subject? Rolf Aalberg |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I've not
read either book, but it seems to me that there is not a
lot of debate or interest on the matter. It was an
interesting idea, but flawed. It has no legs scientifically
speaking. Our main focus here is with creationist
misinformation relating to science. Our local anthropology
experts tend to consider the aquatic ape theory as
nonsense, but since it is not creationist nonsense we don't
have any information on it in the major FAQs.
There is ongoing discussion in other byways of the net. Here are two relatively comprehensive sites and with quite different perspectives.
The TalkOrigins Archive gives an unofficial offhand endorsement of the second site in our links collection. It includes a rather blistering review of Morgan's 1997 book: The Aquatic Ape Hypothesis. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | So then what is the probability of abiogenesis occuring? I found a number on your site (one chance in 10 to the 40) but is that the correct probability? If you can't place a specific number on it, then about how high is it? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
probability of anything is always relative to some
background probability. So the probability of life arising
given that life has arisen, is 1. The question you are
asking seems to be something like, what is the probability
that life will arise given some set of conditions
occurring, such as the right chemicals in the right
conditions? The answer to that question is unknown - there
may be only one possible combination that leads to life, or
there may be many millions of them.
Chemistry, whether it is organic or not, is deterministic in a fashion - it means that if you bring two or more molecules of kind X, Y and Z in the right pressure, temperature and in the presence of catalysts and the like, a reaction is certain to happen, or will happen in some set percentage of cases. However, we just do not know if the whole class of reactions that can give rise to self-reproducing chemical systems is large or small, if only one of the trillions of combinations of the basic building blocks of life as we know it can cause life to begin, or if many can. It is beginning to look like the possibilities are rather large. Moreover, we just do not know how often these conditions, in which life can arise, occur in nature. Perhaps earth was entirely covered by oceans of the stuff life needs to begin, or perhaps it happened once, in a single small place. So we just can't assess those probabilities. The usual creationist "calculations" assume that everything is equally likely - but if life is more likely if a common set of chemical reactions occur than random chance, then life is more likely than not. In short, don't take the claims that life is likely or unlikely at face value. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If Darwin had died youg would the theory of evolution have emerged in the 19th century? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yes.
Darwin deserves full credit for a thorough examination of the evidence and the possibilites, and he stands out as one of the great scientific minds of the era. But the discovery was in the wings, and many other naturalists were starting to understand the processes that Darwin was also studying. Indeed, Darwin had to rush Origin of Species to print because very similar ideas were due to be published by another naturalist, Alfred Wallace; and there was also a host of other naturalists working on related ideas. For more details on the relevant history, on Darwin's original contributions, and the contributions that were made by others, see our FAQ Darwin's Precursors and Influences. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Pete R |
Comment: | Wow, you
guys are amazing. I can barely begin to tell you what a
pleasure it is to read the material on this site. Rarely
does one come across such well-written, engaging, thorough,
IQ-enhancing work. I also have to marvel at, and applaud,
your patience in dealing with creationist buffoons, and
those obviously unfit to wash your underwear let alone
engage you in serious debate. It never ceases to amaze me
how these pseudo-scientific knuckleheads can bang out their
creationist missives on keyboards attached to machines the
very existence of which depends on an understanding of
quantum mechanics that could never have been achieved in
the absence of real science...in an attempt to use,
pervert, and discredit science where they perceive
conflicts with their god-myths. They don't appreciate the
irony there. If progress depended on them and their ilk, we
would still be flinging dung at each other. They can't
actually *do* science, but rather use the fruits of science
to carp and annoy, and worse, to further misinformation and
try to keep the human race in ignorance. Sad to say there
will be cures for AIDS, heart disease, cancer, and the
common cold before there is a cure for stupidity, but
that's the one we need most.
I have the luxury of sitting back and dismissing them as fools, but you fine gentlemen are devoting valuable time, energy, and expertise in an effort that must frequently feel thankless and just plain annoying. But it is appreciated. And in point of fact I have realized of late that I really don't have the luxury of ignoring creationists if I don't want my freedoms trampled by a Christian version of the Taliban. Religion would be benign if simply practiced privately, but the organized Jebus worshippers have of late stepped up their culture war in an attempt to suppress our Constitutional freedoms. So I do my part to speak out against irrational thought, and apart from the pleasure I get in reading these works, I am thankful to have such a resource. Please keep up the great work, it is more important than it may seem at times. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | For a while
now, one of the top arguments against Noah's Ark was that
the vessel would have been too long to maintain structural
integrity in the open sea, due to a 300 ft. limit for
wooden ships set by the American ship building industry.
Annoyingly enough, however, there appears to be an achilles
heel to this argument in the form of Admiral Zheng He, a
Chinese mariner who had wooden ships that were 400+ feet in
length. I've spent the last several weeks trying to get material on Zheng He, but incredibly I've gotten nowhere. There are literally no resources to my knowledge that do any more than summaries of his voyages, but no one seems to have any artifacts to corroborate the length of these ships. What exactly do we know about Zheng He's ships? Is there any evidence to suggest that length of his ships may have been grossly exaggerated? Could fifteenth century China have really had superior shipbuilding not possessed by American shipbuilders four centuries later? I don't doubt the existence of the man or his voyages, but the size of these ships seem to be one of the strangest historical claims I've ever heard. Is there room for doubt? And is the ship size limit argument still valid against Noah's Ark? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The question
is not necessarily if ships built solely of wood that large
could be constructed and even floated, but rather, could an
itinerant stoneage goatherd build a ship that size without
any modern tools or materials. Zhen He's flagship (circa
1430 C.E.) was reported to be 440 feet long by 186 at the
beam; the ark comes in at 300 cubits long (450 feet), 50
cubits at the beam, (75 feet) and 30 cubits (45 feet) high.
In the book, "When China Ruled the Seas: The Treasure Fleet
of the Dragon Throne 1405 - 1433" author Louise Levathes
observes: "The keel consisted of long pieces of wood bound
together with iron hoops."* The use of iron for
strengthening wood members would certainly allow for bigger
ships. Also it should be noted that sailing ships have an
ability to manoeuver with a rudder and sails. Without this,
the Ark would have been pushed into the trough and
capsized.
You don't have to be a naval engineer to figure out that a vessel as long and narrow as the ark would need an incredible amount of ballast and would still be very unstable. With no mode of propulsion or steering to counter a storm produced by the effects of a worldwide flood this is a disaster waiting to happen. I would challenge anybody to try to build a boat the size of the ark, by themselves, using stoneage tools--and float it. Zheng He was reported to be over 8 feet tall. You can make your own assessment if the size of his ships were exaggerated as well. J.E. Hill (Licensed Mariner and former shipboard Navigator for Nation Ocean Survey, NOAA.) *Thanks to Paul in Baton Rouge for bringing this book to my attention. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I understand that Lamarckism has been proven wrong. However, it is my understanding that it is possible to damage genetic material via radiation or drugs (and perhaps other means) which results in damaged offspring. Are the genes of the offspring then altered in such a way as to replicate the damage to subsequent generations? Thanks for your response, great site. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Genetic damage is passed on only when it arises in germ line cells; which means sperm, or eggs. |
From: | |
Response: | A large part
of the problem lies in defining "Lamarckism". Anything that
happens to genes in the sex cells, as Chris notes, is not
"Lamarckian" because it is not the transfer of experience
of the organism's body to future generations.
However, there are some processes that look a bit like Lamarckism on the surface, depending how you define it. The sense in which evolutionary biologists of the period from around 1890 to 1930 rejected Lamarckism is the sense that what happens to the organism as it individually adapts is passed on to the progeny, so that individual adaptation affects species adaptation. This has been proven false, with some exceptions. Under the influence of maternal genes, the material that surrounds the DNA strands, the chromatin, can be modified to match the way it is patterned in the mother, in placental animals. This can affect how genes are expressed and when. Also, it has been shown that immunological particles, called antibodies, can be passed on by many animals to their progeny. These do not stay in the children's systems for very long, at least in mammals, and so they don't form an evolutionary lineage. However, they protect the young until their own immune system has matured and can protect them. Another possibility is that immune cells which have variable genetic regions that make them better or worse at binding to invaders could in theory have that genetic sequence passed on to sex cells through the action of a class of viruses. This is not impossible, but has yet to be shown to occur to everyone's satisfaction. Any harm or changes made to the sex cells (sperm and eggs) in parental bodies can of course be passed on to progeny. This is not Lamarckian. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Mike Dworetsky |
Comment: | A correction
to a feedback answer for February 2004 by Tim Thompson.
Phobos's orbit will decay in less than 40 million years, at
which time it will crash into the surface. Before that,
however, it will probably break up due to tidal stresses
and form a ring around Mars.
Although Phobos and Mars are both small, they are very much closer together than Earth and Moon, and tidal forces depend on the inverse cube of distance. Details can be found in the sci.astro FAQ, |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In the February feedback section David Warner states that "I'll have you know sir that I am a DIRECT relative of Thomas Jefferson, and your link to the site that blatantly misquotes him is nothing short of being written by a blithering IDIOT that has either been seriously misinformed, is just an out and out LIAR. My family has in our possesion (sic) ALL of his personal journals and diaries that we have not given over time to the Smithsonian and other institutions, and the man was NO deist, and in fact attended church REGULARLY at a small church in what is now Falls Church,west virginia (sic) for MANY years." While this has nothing to do with evolution, I have to wonder why the family has withheld this significant material from qualified historians, who can only quote from available documents (I believe the quotes on the referenced website are accurate, so rather than "misquoting", I suspect Mr. Warner actually meant "misinterpreting" with respect to Jefferson's views on religion). If Jefferson's religious beliefs are misrepresented, due to our limited understanding based solely on available documents, what better way to correct our misinterpretation of his views than to make the material Mr. Warner speaks of freely available? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Perhaps responders to feedback should be careful about claiming that there "never" was a global flood. While there was certainly never a global floor as described in Genesis, there now seems to be compelling evidence for a global ice age, some time before the Cambrian explosion. It's not too much of a stretch to say that this might qualify as the whole world being covered by H2O (though not in liquid form). ;-) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | At this
point, I don't think anyone would hold it against you guys
if you decided to just get rid of the flat-earth link. It
was considerate of you to be thorough and provide the link.
But no good deed goes unpunished ... I guess some people
can be counted on to be morons. Apparently, no matter what
disclaimers are provided in clear view, and regardless of
the number of times people are corrected, there's always
another clueless Internet user who will chew you guys out
for being flat- earthers.
~DS~ (replace nospam with AOL) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have one
question.
Can you give me one ,just one fact that can be proven that shows evolution to be more than just a theory? I am a devoted christian but, I am also open minded I myself have found more logic in the belief that I was created by an intelligent loving creator rather than just haapened by pure luck. I am interested in any actual proof you can offer. Thank you and God Bless you, Eric |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | "Proof" in a
formal sense belongs to math and formal logic. The loose
popular usage is closer to "convincing," and that depends
on whether you can be convinced by facts rather than
emotion. There is also the problem of your idea that
evolution relies on some process that "just happened by
pure luck."
But, I would suggest that you look through the archive, or even better take some geology and biology courses at your local college. If you are in a hurry, I would recommend 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution. Enjoy. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | There is a spelling error on your page of Punctuated Equilibria, in the out line. This states "Paleontology should be informed by neontology" neontology is actually spelled "neonatology." |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is not
an error.
The word you've given, neonatology, refers to the study of newborn children. Neontology refers to the study of currently living organisms (as opposed to paleontology which is the study of extinct organism). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Stetson |
Comment: | Hey can somebody explain to me any proof concerning the inteligent design theory? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Well, if you
mean "proof" that it is a fraud, I would recommend the
following books:
Unintelligent Design, Mark Perakh God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, Niall Shanks and Richard Dawkins Intelligent Design Creationism and Its Critics: Philosophical, Theological, and Scientific Perspectives, Robert T. Pennock (Editor) Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism, Matt Young, Tanner Edis (Editors), (available July 2004) If you mean "proof" that it is a far-right end-run around the US Constitution, I would recommend the following book: Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design, Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross If you prefer websites, let me suggest: |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Thank you guys for being here! You literally helped me write my English paper on "Is creationism real science?" Every creationism site I went to couldn't even explain their own theory very well, much less defend it. Thanks for making sense and being easy to navigate. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | A friend who
is still teaching, complained to me of a problem with a
glib creationist student and asked me for input on the
topic of the human appendix. I accessed your worthy site
and replied and, after a few days, I work slowly, composed
the following to send her also. Hope it covers the salient
points.
Vermiform
Anastasia Voight There’s temptation to dismiss with ease But present primates such as us Don’t wag tongue at me of other uses. Though guttish wormform by caecum lurking This rudimentary residue Some who question whence it came, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I am
reminded of Cicero's famous dictum: De gustibus non est
disputandum...
But thanks; biology and poetry are too rarely combined. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great site had exactly what I was looking for!! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | John Hynes |
Comment: | In last
month's feedback, Chris Thompson stated, "I am afraid you
have confused evolution with cosmology..." Cosmology
is about evolution, specifically the
evolution of the universe. It is just not about
biological evolution. Certainly, the
universe, our galaxy and the solar system, including the
earth, itself, evolved, as did pre-biotic chemicals. If
either the questioner or Chris had said, "biological
evolution," he might have had a point, but that still would
not have answered the questions, even though good answers
do exist, and I see no reason not to provide them.
I would not bother to write if this was the only instance of this, but I seem to repeatedly read statements to the effect that TO is concerned only with biological evolution, even though the name of the newsgroup is talk.origins, not talk.evolution. Not only does the name imply a broader scope, but the FAQ states, "The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins." Further, the Welcome FAQ states, "Talk.origins ('t.o.') is a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. Topics discussed include, but are not limited to, evolution, creation, abiogenesis, catastrophism, cosmology, and theology." In addition, the original proposal to create the net.origins newsgroup specifically included, "the origin of the universe, life, human beings, etc." All of these things are included within the scope of Creationism, and all are covered on this web site, so I do not understand why I sometimes read dismissive replies such as, "The origin of life (or the universe, etc.) has nothing to do with evolution," without actually answering whatever comment is being made. To creationists, rightly or wrongly, the term "evolution" does not refer solely to biological evolution, but to all scientific alternatives to divine creation. This semantic distinction is irrelevant to the real issues at hand. Nor are creationists incorrect when referring to cosmological evolution, unless you want to tell NASA that they are also incorrect. It may be helpful to point out that biogenesis or cosmology are distinct from biological evolution, but one can also answer whatever the questions are, as well; otherwise, it may look to others like one is just dodging the issue. In this specific case, I think that the questions were totally valid, and that Chris's reply was off-base. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | If we're
going to be picky about terminology: the original writer
did not mention "evolution." Rather, they asked how
"evolutionists" explained the origin of the universe. While
the term "evolution" may apply to several fields, the term
"evolutionists" almost certainly refers specifically to
adherents of biological evolution. Otherwise, one is
suggesting that old-universe creationists would be properly
called "evolutionists," a proposal which would infuriate
them.
The reason why you will often see folks here take the time to point out the difference between, for example, abiogenesis and (biological) evolution, is that creationists often try to cultivate and profit from the misleading impression that attacks on the former are actually refutations of the latter, or uncertainty in the former implies uncertainty in the latter. As you correctly note, pointing out the distinction is not a substitute for also answering the question. Still, it is worth calling attention to the sleight-of-hand which is being used to score debating points, rather than letting it slide as an "irrelevant semantic distinction." I'm not aware of a good answer to the original writer's specific question, by the way... unless "I don't know" is considered a good answer. Though I'm not quite up to date on the field, all the answers I've seen have been fairly complex and quite speculative. Our creationist claims index entry CF-101: Origin of the Universe could use a brief version of a good answer to that question. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just to let
you know that you're my first googlewhack.
Thank you, you have inspired me. Please get in touch if you are unaware of the significance of this moment. Garry |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I feel so
proud. And confused.
So I checked it out; a googlewhack is a two word google query, using legitimate dictionary words and no quotes, which returns exactly one match on google. See googlewhack.com. I've decided I can live without knowing the query that whacks talkorigins. And repeating it here would, of course, mean it is no longer a googlewhack. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Dear
Whomever, I wondered if you might be interested in a
evolution vs creation discussion group. It has been Yahoo's
most popular discussion group in this field. As you know,
evolutionists are claiming so-called proofs and it would be
really nice to see a knowledged people believing in Allah
there. The web address is: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/theevolutiondeceit/
In this site there are some banners which direct you to a site in which you can read more than 200 books , some are avaliable in Turkish, English, French, Spanish, Chinese, Arabic (more than 20 languages) without any compensation. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
theevolutiondeceit?
Completely non-biased, I take it. I'll tell you what: come to the Usenet group talk.origins. There are many knowledgeable people that read those posts. Chris |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Truly impressive. The arguments presented are clear, concise and sensible. The very best of luck with the project! |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I was
reading a site that was recommended by a fellow user of the
astronomy.com forums, and I found that your rebuttal to Dr
Jonathan Sarfati's article "Exploding Stars point to a
young universe" to be totally wrong and un-true.
Usually Creationists and evolutionists are in complete agreement over the evidence that we observe, we disagree on how the evidence should be interpreted. But you said that the scientific evidence, i.e. number of observed 3rd stage SNRs, is different. I believe that you are lying, because why would evolutionists have this compelling evidence and not tell anyone? It has never been mentioned by any respectable scientists! In fact, it has not even been published as "evidence for the big bang" in any textbooks. Your site has no references, and is not written by a scientist with a Ph.D unlike the AiG site. They have references, you do not. Not even one, which I find to be very screwy! Not even one to NASA. If what you say is true, then everyone should have heard about it, but the truth is they have not. You and your site are lying! There has never been a 3rd stage SNR observed. You are going against scientific knowledge. Respond via email if you want. Matt. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The plain
and compelling evidence for the enormous age and size of
the universe is indeed available to everyone. This is not
actually from evolutionists, but from astronomers.
Supernova remnants are also an aspect of this evidence, and this is no particular secret. The Supernovae, Supernova Remnants and Young Earth Creationism FAQ details the information and gives seven examples of third stage (radiative) SNRs. Quite likely more have been found since then given rapid developments in space based observation. No one bothers to cite them as evidence for an ancient universe. There is already evidence which is far easier to comprehend for novices, and experts routinely discuss ages in many thousands of years for faint SNRs without drama or surprise. SNRs cannot possibly be evidence for the big bang, which occurred some 13.7 billion years ago. The evidence for the big bang is also plain and compelling and readily available from many sources; but SNRs are not part of that evidence. SNRs are important evidence for understanding supernovae; that some of them also show great age is unsurprising and incidental. The wonderful Astronomy Picture of the Day site has some images of SNRs. Mostly they provide images of remnants in earlier stages, since these are much more easily visible and spectacular. However, you may like to see this image of Semeis 147, an SNR which has an apparent age of 100,000 years. This is not quite the dramatic evidence you think. Third stage SNRs do refute creationist time scales, but to appreciate the evidence requires a fair degree of background on the details of how remnants develop over time, which is far from immediately intuitive. The development of an SNR is not nearly as simple as Davies' article suggests, with all remnants passing through the listed phases at the same ages. The observational evidence is also not particularly dramatic, giving the difficulty of observing very faint ancient SNRs, and it is actually very difficult to estimate the ages of older SNRs. A very thoughtful and comprehensive answer to your underlying question is available from the Ask a High Energy Astronomer page, in a question specifically about claims that SNRs are all under 10,000 years old. See Can you refute claims that the Universe is only 10,000 years old? in the SNR question category. Finally, your count of references is incorrect. The FAQ on this subject references 9 books and 406 technical papers. The major creationist article on this is not by Sarfati, but by Mr Keith Davies, a creationist and amateur astronomer with no formal scientific qualifications at all. Dr Sarfati simply wrote a short summary for Answers in Genesis of Davies' article. The article by Keith Davies is dreadful as an introduction to this topic. The FAQ by Dave Moore shows many of the errors, and Davies also gets a gong in an amusing compendium of all kinds of crank astronomy: Bad Astronomy, by astronomer Dr Philip Plait. Your comment about "no references" applies to a brief non-technical exchange with Sarfati, in which neither Sarfati nor Moore used references. That exchange is given with links to the main FAQ article; it is the main FAQ you should focus upon for the evidence and details. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have found
a genuine flat-earther on the Web: www.truechristian.com/03.html Actually, truth to tell, I'm not totally sure this isn't a parody, but if it is, he's very good at keeping a straight face (metaphorically speaking). |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Other pages on the website suggest parody. For example, on their shopping page, we find this: "As Christians, we do our best to keep prices low and not have any hidden costs. To ensure this, we give our gardeners Mondays at 4:00 PM off work to watch their cock fights." (And check how low their prices are!) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great site!
I saw this in a cartoon and thought it was quite fitting. The Scientific Method : Here are the facts. What conclusions can we draw from them? The Creationist Method : Here's the conclusion. What facts can we find to support it? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | From John
Wilkins in the February feedback:
"Meaning , on the other hand is contextual. As you clearly noted, the meaning of "dfhdsf" depends entirely on the agreed conventions of the language speakers (the users of those words). Other words can depend for their meaning on the language used - Gift in English means a present. In German it means poison." In Swedish "gift" means poison too. Additionally, it means married... |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | O wad some
Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This webstie is pathtic. It does not "explore" the Creation vs. Evolution debate in any sort of objective or meaningful way. Instead, it takes pot-shots at Creationism, and views evolution as undeniable fact. Way to go, Satan is proud of you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That is true
if you believe "a meaningful way" is simply to parrot the
nonsensical tripe put forth by charlatans such as Ham or
Hovind.
TalkOrigins.org makes no pretense of being anything except a mainstream science site. We present the creationists arguments fairly, and show that they do not stand up to evidence. That is objective. Your claim about satan sort of indicates to me that you are the one who might not be completely objective in the matter. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Your arguments against a global flood are idiotic at best. All your points discount the fact that God himsefl was involved in the process. And so, asking questions like "What kept the vapor barrier up and how did it fall?" are irrelevant. The creator of the entire universe wouldn't have to exert much energy to accomplish that, now would he? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are
certainly correct that any argument against a global deluge
is trumped by resorting to divine intervention. An
all-powerful deity would be able to make water appear and
disappear, and protect an unpowered, leaky wooden barge
loaded with seasick animals against the great mother of all
storms. This deity could also magically transport the
animals to their new homes after the flood waters
disappeared.
However, that isn't science, and it does not belong in a science classroom. That is our main point concerning the flood. But you should also consider that there really is compelling physical evidence against the flood. Are you ready to believe that the all-powerful deity destroyed all evidence of the flood to test our faith, or fool us? Or that the deity constructed evidence that would lead us astray in our conclusions? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Rach Shuck |
Comment: | I think that Kent Hovind is one of the best doctors. He gives alot of information on creation and shows the people by proff of what really happened. That the whole Evolution theory is a big joke |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In the
article at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cosmo.html
it says " life on earth as we know it would not have
evolved in the short span of six billion years." Shouldn't
that say 4 1/2 billion years?
Henry |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That (4.5 Ga) would agree with what I have read. Consider this passed along to people with actual ability to correct these things. (Hey people with actual ability, I think this guy is correct.) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Under the
heading, "Philosophy & Theology, CA005.2("preservation
of favored races,": your Response is "Race as used by
Darwin refers to varieties, not human races." Darwin,
in,The Descent of Man, says, "At some future period...the
civilized races will almost certainly exterminate, and
replace the savage races throughout the world...The break
between man and his nearest allies will then be wider, for
it will intervene between man in a more civilized state, AS
WE MAY HOPE."
It appears to me that Darwin is very definitely speaking of the the Human variety here. Not to confuse the issue, but Thomas Huxley wrote, "It may be quite true that some negroes are better than some white men; but no rational man...believes that the average Negroe is the equal... of the white man.[Thomas Huxley,Lay Sermons, Address and Reviews,1870 I'm a first time visitor of your site. I hope I stayed within your guidelines. I'm looking forward to your response! Thanks, Steve |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Here is the
full quote, from
chapter 6 of the Descent:
I have bolded the excerpts you have quoted. There are three things to note: 1. Throughout the Descent, when Darwin refers to "civilised races" he almost always is referring to cultures in Europe. I think Darwin was simply confused at that time about the difference between biological races and cultural races in humans. This is not surprising at this time - almost nobody made the distinction but Alfred Russel Wallace. 2. The Index entry CA0005.2 refers to the title of On the Origin of Species, which almost nowhere refers to Man, and when it does, merely makes a promise that "light will be shed". In that work, "race" refers to any well-defined subspecific variety. It does not refer to human races, and the Origin is simply not being racist in any sense whatsoever. 3. Darwin is talking about intermediate forms. At this time it was common for Europeans (based on an older notion of a "chain of being from lowest to highest") to think that Africans ("negroes") were all of one subspecific form, and were less developed than "Caucasians" or "Asians", based on a typology in around 1800 by the German Johann Friedrich Blumenach. In short, Darwin is falling prey to the same error almost everyone else was, but not in the Origin, in the Descent, which was published around 13 years after the Origin. So far as I can tell, he was not hoping for the extermination of these "races", though. Your version cuts off at the critical point. Throughout his life, Darwin argued against slavery and for the freedom and dignity of native populations under European slavery. Darwin was not perfect. But he was no racist. |
From: | |
Response: | With regards
to the Huxley quote given by the writer, it is from an
essay titled:
Here is some context with the writers quote in boldface:
While it is true that Huxley is here expressing the commonly held 19th century racist belief (one shared by many creationists of the time as well) that the average white European was more intelligent that the average black African, he is also arguing for their emancipation from slavery and against their being further oppressed by whites (for the good of both). It should be noted that the rest of the essay is a passionate argument that women should likewise be emancipated from their second-class status in Victorian society. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | O_D |
Comment: | Looking at
the feedback you have recieved over the years, I see an
irreversable trend in stupidity.
Drawing a line based on this regression in intelligence shows that people muct have had IQ's around 304 in 1992, which isn't true. Therefore, God created the world in 1999. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Julius |
Comment: | Good job on the website. I liked how you go over issues point by point clearly and concisely. The recent hooplah over intelligent design in the science classroom had irritated me to the point that I started to research ID in order to understand more clearly why it's wrong. This lead me to your excellent site. In reading about the ID explanatory filter, it occurred to me that one of its more "persuasive" arguments is that the filter mimics human thought. In addition to the obvious "Argument from Ignorance" fallacy (curious how the filter practically spells this out), the filter takes advantage of the fallacy "Appeal to Authority" where the authority in this case is the audience. It "formalizes" how people _decide_ design. Aside from the obvious that people's thought processes are often illogical, people tend to make logical decisions rather than strict logical inferences. By decision I mean to make a conclusion when no strict logical inference is possible given the evidence. If people were never able to deal with uncertainty (ie inadequate evidence or knowledge), we would be paralyzed with indecision and probably extinct. Perhaps this is one reason why ID rings true to so many. I also suspect that the science in the classroom focuses more on "facts" about how the world works and less on rational critical thinking. Perhaps educators, being educated this way themselves, think science is primarily about facts and theory and miss critical thinking. With the advent of the internet where "facts" and "theories" are at our fingertips, often the only way to determine "truth" is our own brain. Maybe we should let ID into the classroom anyway... as a piece to sharpen critical thinking. Finally I wonder how many accepted scientific theories rely heavily on the inadequacies of others rather than stand solely on their own. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There's a
paper that you should read about Dembski's "design
inference":
Information Theory, Evolutionary Computation, and Dembski's
Complex Specified Information (Elsberry and Shallit
2003). We take apart Dembski's claims that his "design
inference" captures how human detect design, point out
severe problems in his formal framework, and propose an
alternative methodology for making "ordinary" design
inferences that is far superior (it's based upon the
"universal probability distribution" of Algorithmic
Information Theory). Our "Specified Anti-Information" does
everything that is scientifically useful that's claimed for
Dembski's framework, without the bugs, and is simple to
apply to boot.
The only thing that SAI doesn't do is underwrite a "rarefied" design inference. The most that can be said for a bit string exhibiting high values of SAI is that it is due to a simple computational process. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Boy, are you evolutionists in trouble. All this work to be on the loosing side? How sad. I think it is the sadest thing I have ever seen. I've got a secret... and you can't handle it. Unfortunately for you, you will have to. I love my life. It's so fun to be on the right side of the facts all the time. Evolutionists are such wimps! We invited your key players to come see our sites and they wouldn't. Now you will be caught with your pants down when you see on TV what you were not prepared for. We try to invite your chicken wimp boys like Dawkins, and they refuse to come and look at these sites all the time. I know, don't confuse you guys with the facts. Just try to debate the obscure philosophy of it all. Do your song and dance away from ACUTAL PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. You religious nutcase fruitcakes! Try playing video games for a touch of reality. Brad (former atheist and evolutionist) |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: |
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html looks as
though it has an error in the text or else it really
doesn't say what I would expect it to say about
creationists given the context. In point 2:
"The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their willingness to face evidence." would make more sense if "willingness" were "unwillingness" or "face" were "deface" (or something else depending on who actually did what when the footprints were *discovered*). |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Oops. Fixed now. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I had a
creationist argue that genes never add new information, I
tried to search for a direct link to answer his question in
scientific terms, do you have such a link if not can you
provide an anser for me? I suspect this may be the new
argument for creationists, so I would post this answer if I
was you.
thanks, JM from PA |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Nah, it's a very old argument, that has been addressed multiple times. See the Index to Creationist Claims. I've also recently had that argument thrown at me on my own site, and took it apart with some basic genetics. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | 1. According
to evolution, how where the stars formed, that emit
infrared light and radio waves?
2. How did life evolve withouut oxigen in the prebiotic soup? Oxigen stops the reactions of all other chemicals. But without oxigen the UV rays of the sun would kill everything. 3. How do living organism get amino acids that are 100% right handed when the laws of chemistry and physics would make a mixture of 50% right handed and 50% left-handed? 4. How do living organisms get 100% left handed sugars when the laws of chemistry and physics would make a mixture of 50% left handed and 50% right-handed amino acids? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | 1. Astronomy
is at the Planetarium, sir. Try there. 2. Did you hear
someone claim there was no oxygen 3 billion years ago? If
so, you heard a terrible mistake. There was plenty of
oxygen----in the form of water, and water vapor, and ozone,
and a host of other compounds. There was no O2- which is
what you are probably talking about. So there was a
mechanism for a UV shield (ozone and water vapor) without
the toxicity of free oxygen. 3. Um. Maybe they only used
the spontaneously-generated right-hand AAs?
Chris |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Matt |
Comment: | I hope this site stays up forever, because I am always using it to look up the fundamentalist claim of the moment. It boggles my mind as to where they come up with this stuff. I am always debating creationists and this site always has all the favorite fundie claims (i.e., trilobites in human footprints) arranged and debunked. Another favorite has been Hovind's book "Refuting Evolution" examined critically. That alone makes this a great site. In my opinion no one ought to even get into a debate about religion or polititcs unless all parties are agreed to change their minds if their viewpoint can be proven false (or in the case of politics.. the less untruthful). |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You might
also take a look at the new Weblog that was recently (ahem)
created:
Chris |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Three
quick(ish) comments:
I find your index to creationist claims a work of pure magnificence. It's beautifully organized and the absolutely ideal resource when confronting a barrage of questions from the uninformed. I shy away from newsgroups and forums, as they tend to be rife with trolls, but an articulate and exhaustive FAQ (as you have assembled) is an invaluable resource for honing in on good responses and provides a springboard for further research, without forcing me to wade through so much "noise." I like it so much, in fact, that it makes me disagree with your CA041 - "Teach the Controversy." I think we should teach your FAQ in schools! Also, wanted to nominate a new question for the FAQ. "What use is half a Lung?" would likely be CB921.3 (maybe a note in the CB300s as well). Seems I've been getting that question a lot frequently. And if CB921.1 and CB921.2 are justifiably included, then I'd think my suggestion should cause little hesitation, provided that the frequency of this question isn't localized to my conversations. Thanks for a great resource, write me if I can help! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | To me the big question, ( which I'm not sure I'm hearing ) is, how does a living organism know how, when and why to change or adapt? How does it do this without forsight? Is there an overiding intelligence or instinct? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Organisms know none of these things. You are ascribing powers to organisms that they simply don't have. You must remember that individual organisms do not evolve: populations do. And they don't know when or how or why- it is in response to local conditions, or genetic drift, or some other mindless mechanisms. They might die off, they might not change, they might give rise to a new species. But it is not a planned event; it is a result. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | You people are ignorant. Evolution is an anti-God religion. There is absolutely no evidence for evolution. Please find me something provable. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Something
about "anti-God religion" makes my head hurt.
One must wonder, though, if the reader made it this fair into the website, how she missed the evidence for evolution documented here. I would hate to think anyone reading this web site might have a closed mind about the issue. One last item: the distinction between "proof" and "evidence" is of much greater consequence in science than in, say, law. That you are unaware of this is telling. Chris |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I recently
had my first debate with a creationists co-worker. We
debated creation vs. evolution for weeks. I have never met
anyone this stubborn to facts and evidence. He did make me
do my homework though, and thank God I found this site. In
the end we decided to go our seperate ways and nothing was
accomplished. He thinks I'm going to hell and I think he's
been brainwashed.
I have a question for the team that maintains this site. Can (or maybe should) parents of a child be held responsible for forcing a child to believe in false things? I mean we don't have too big a problem with people telling others the world is flat anymore but if a parent forced a child to believe that... I mean to me it seems like mental abuse. Anywho,when science makes rockets to go to the moon, satellites to bring us more television, new medicines to cure disease, or better materials to make more durable long lasting bibles creationist don't blow their whistles... but a scientist who discovers how old the earth is and how humans devolped is accused of everything for athieism to government conspiracies to being mentally handicapped. The most obvious explanation for their reaction seems to be fear. The fear of losing your religion. (A little R.E.M. please...) The only thing a creationist christian must lose to accept the facts and evidence for evolution is his/her interpretaion of the bible. I love how all your answers to claims and feedback are calm, confident, specific, educated, relevant... and entertaining. The last thing I'd like to say is I think by studying evolution and cosmology we are getting to know God. Great site! Nik |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I've been
searching on this web site for a review of how ALL
scientific dating methods correlate with each other, but
without success. Is this task too difficult due to the
differences among various methods? Are some so much less
accurate than others that they're not worth mentioning till
they become more highly developed? Are some still too
experimental? It would seem to me to be a powerful argument
in favor of evolutionary theory to show the overwhelming
consistence among them, despite various uses, differences,
stages of development, etc.
Alternatively, do you know of any books or other sources, such as other web sites that attempt to overview ALL scientific dating methods? In my opinion this is the best pro-evolutionary site on the web. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I think that
one very important reason that you won't find what you are
looking for is that not all of the available dating methods
will work for the same sample. That is why we use different
methods in the first place. Carbon dating is fine if there
is carbon, no contamination that can't be corrected, and
the sample is probably less than 50 thousand years. U/TH
dating is good on samples that have not been water
saturated, and are very ancient. Thermoremnant magnatism is
fine if the samples are properly collected (not easy) from
undisturbed locations (rare). Thermoluminescence, and/or
electron spin resonance is good if you know the burial
context, and the samples were not exposed to sunlight or
high heat while being collected (forget surface collected
potsherds).
And then there is the costs involved. Mucho dinero. You get the idea. Methods are cross-checked all the time, but not all the methods all the time. A good (but very expensive) introduction can be found in : Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1991 The Age of the Earth Stanford: Stanford University Press (Dalrymple's book is the least expensive and probably better for the average reader than Dickin's highly technical but excellent book). Dickin, Alan P. 1997 Radiogenic Isotope Geology Cambridge: Cambridge University Press R. E. Taylor & Martin J. Aitken, Editors 1997 Chronometric Dating in Archaeology New York:Plenum Press. (This is the best one stop source I know for all dating methods good in the 200 to 200,000 year range. I remember that I spent around $100 for it, so I would suggest that you try a university library.) |