Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Have evolutionists ever explained the origin of the Big Bang gases? They, like anything else before it would have had to be created. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
"Evolutionists" aren't responsible for explaining anything
about the Big Bang. The theory of evolution concerns the
diversity of life on Earth; the Big Bang falls into the
realm of astrophysics.
We know that the Big Bang happened, regardless of its origin. As we look out into space, the farther away something is from us, the faster it is moving away from us. That observation, in combination with other evidence such as the microwave background radiation, leads to one inescapable conclusion: Since everything is moving apart now, a long time ago, everything was really close together. It's just like running the film backwards. As to the origin of the matter in the universe: One hypothesis that remains to be rigorously demonstrated is that (very loosely speaking) the "positive" energy of matter is balanced by the "negative" energy of gravitational pull, making the total mass-energy of the universe zero. Whether that's true or not, there's certainly nothing to stop a person from believing that God "detonated" the Big Bang. After all, that was the view of Georges LeMaitre, the Catholic priest who first proposed the Big Bang. |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | As Kenneth
points out, the Big Bang is not the responsibility of
evolutionary biologists. Cosmologists do in fact have an
explanation for the existence of the "big bang gases", it's
called "big bang nucleosynthesis" or "primordial
nucleosynthesis". This physical theory explains the
existence of all matter, and all atoms & nuclei after
the big bang. But no physicist has explained what caused
the big bang to happen, nor is it clear that it is even
possible to have an explanation consistent with the laws of
physics, since those laws do not themselves exist prior to
the bang. Here are some WWW resources to further your
education on big bang cosmology.
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a high
school biology teacher always on the lookout for good
activities for my students. The horse sequence seems like a
good possibility: students would get information on a
number of horse species (past and present), and organize
them in a family tree. The thing is: it probably would only
work if I had PICTURES of the fossil organisms
(descriptions often don't mean much to children). Please
recommend a site or book which has illustrations
(preferably black and white) of many species of past and
present horses.
Danny Goodisman dgoodism@gonzaga.edu |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I would suggest trying Macfadden's book on the topic, Fossil Horses : Systematics, Paleobiology, and Evolution of the Family Equidae. It is $33.95 in paperback. Check it out from a library first to make sure it has suitable illustrations. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I can tell from your information that you come from a very biased position towards evolution. It would be nice if you would let your viewers see that instead of trying to pretend to being neutral. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I can tell
from your feedback that you didn't read the Archive's Welcome message, which
addresses this very topic:
We have never claimed to be neutral. We have a very strong bias: towards good science. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Interesting
site. I believe in creation but had never seen most of the
? you posed as "stumpers" or frequently asked but not
answered ? I found that I did agree with some of the
presumptions in your questions but I think to be fair you
should qualify those areas to read "frequently asked but
not answered TO OUR SATISFACTION questions" I think you
would also admit that evolution has never and will never be
proved according to conventional science just as creation
cannot be proved by conventional science. When you get into
questions of fact interpretation and how we (meaning
intelligent life) discover and interpret scientific data,
you are as out of your league as the creationist who
debates fossil records with Bible quotes. This is more
philosophy or epistomolgy-something that convetional
science is not equipped to deal with. However when you did
stick with the facts (and most of the time you did) your
arguments and conclusions were both interesting and well
supported. Finally your last ? about God giving us
intelligance and scientific evidence that contradicts His
creation was pretty silly. Its like asking "Why did God
give Hitler the ability to reason if he used it to try to
murder and destroy certain races." It presumes that your
observation and interpretaion of events is so flawless and
scientifically sound, that your conclusions are close to
perfection. I don't even think most real scientists believe
that. I do know though that we have our share of arrogance
too. If anyone wishes to reply I will do the same as long
as the discussion remains as honest and free of personal
attacks as your site has. GOOD JOB!!!!
S Kelly |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It's not
just about answering those questions "to our satisfaction",
it's about answering them scientifically, in a way we can
test and verify. Answering them with conjecture and
suppositions based on biblical scripture is not good
enough, and does nothing to actually answer the
questions.
Evolution has indeed been "proved" as well as any other scientific theory. We can be confident that is has actually happened (and it continues to happen). Evolutionary biology is conventional science. If this is unclear, if you are unaware of why evolution is so solid, perhaps you should take a look at my Evolution for Beginners webpage. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Why do you think the earth is flat?, are you mad or are you just on drugs? Men have proved that the earth is sphere shaped by flying into space and photographing the earth.And you still don't belive? If the earth is flat then how come all the water doesn't just flow off the edge?,how can you explain the horizon? We are living on a sphere,if you take any point on this sphere all the land around it will slope downwards.Its just like living on a football.I'm sorry but I think you guys don't really belive the earth is flat but you're just saying it for a laugh aren't you? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Why do you think that we think the earth is flat? We don't. You didn't read the very obvious disclaimer in the gray box at the top of the page. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am searching for an honest review of "Not By Chance," a book by Lee Spetner. My initial opinion is even if his arguments are correct and evolutionists are wrong this still does not prove the creationists are correct. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We don't
have a review of this book on our site. We would welcome a
review of this book or a link to a site with a review.
Many creationist arguments suffer from this misconception, namely the "fallacy of the excluded middle." That is to say, even if creationists were completely 100% accurate that evolution is completely 100% incorrect, that would not in any way prove the truth of creationism. There is always the possibility that both evolution and creationism are false. Honest creationists recognize this and spend less time attempting to debunk evolution and more time trying to demonstrate creationism. (Actually, honest creationists have stronger faith and don't require physical evidence to support their faith in God, i.e., they aren't creationists.) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I will be straight forward and admit I am a creationist. I am not a creationist by blind faith and untestable facts. I am replying in regaurd to an article I read at this site about naturalism and hte reason we can't talk about supernatural phenomenon in science. The author stated that the supernatural was untestable and therefore we could not scientifically believe in supernaturalism. The author gave an example that he could make up a story about an invisible pink unicorn being the cause for some phenomena, and that it couldn't be disproven. The author is wrong though. We can't ignore the supernatural posibility. Just because we can't see it doesn't mean it's false. After all isn't science a search for truth? Also just be cause it's not observable dosn't mean there can't be evedence to suport it. I would believe in a pink unicorn if I saw the pink hair hoof tracks. Likewise I believe in a supernatural God because of the natural evedence he has given us. After all you can't naturalistically prove the big bang theory, or the cambrian explosion because they can't be observed. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The idea
that "Just because we can't detect it doesn't mean it's
false" does not belong in a scientific discussion. You
cannot prove or disprove the existence of something that
you cannot test.
For example, please think of a way to test Creationism. Every test that scientists have come up with to test creationism has been sidestepped by creationists through a miraculous intervention by God. This test: the distance of stellar objects further than
10,000 light years disproves the idea that the universe was
created less than 10,000 years ago. This test: there is not enough water on the earth, now
or in the past, to cover all the mountains as specified in
the biblical flood. As long as creationists offer up this crap, they will continue to get the ridicule and derision that they deserve. That is not science, not even close. So any falsification, any test, any request for specifics-- all of these are side-stepped by this appeal to the supernatural. In no way can the supernatural be part of a scientific theory. It's not enough to say that it's real because we can't disprove it. The party making the claim must substantiate it. You must provide some tangible, demonstratable evidence. You need a theory that is testable, has repeatable elements, and is potentially falsifiable. How could we falsify the hypothesis of a special creation origin? You mention "natural evidence" in regards to a supernatural creation. If you have such evidence, you should come forward with it quick! The Creationist Movement really needs it! They have been unable to provide any evidence for their position in all the years that they have been trying! Let's hear it! To say that we can't prove (substantiate) the Big Bang Theory or the Cambrian Explosion because they can't be observed is a sadly underinformed position. Maybe you should find out more about those subjects. There is substantial physical evidence to support both events. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have just
browsed your "Feedback" area for the first time. At the
risk of sounding a little arrogant I believe I can nail
down where the evolution/creation debate is really at.
A number of years ago I was a staunch creationist. I felt that my religious beliefs mandated that I adhere strictly to the Genesis account of creation. However having taken the time to study BOTH sides of this arguement, including rebuttals to all the creationists claims, I was no longer able to honestly hold such a position. After about a decade of following this controversy I have found nothing to change my position back to one of being a literal creationist. The evidence for evolution is substantial. On the other hand I have found nothing on the evolutionary side to convince me that all the life we observe on this planet could have arisen by chance. I have read in the postings that "intelligent design" to account for all the complexity we see in nature is not "required". This has not been proven. In order to prove this, evolutionists must be able to show that all of the apparently irreducibly complex systems observed in nature could have arisen by mere chance. (Experiments and working models would be nice.) And until they do, they are taking it on "faith" that science will one day find the natural answers they believe are there. The "incredibility" arguement is a valid one. It is valid because it goes against what people expect. It goes against common sense. If you see a complex system you immediately assume a designer. Atheistic evolutionists must show that life and the laws of nature need not too have been "designed" to act as they do. And they must explain why "intelligent design" is not the most "reasonable" explanation, whether you believe it was by a supreme being or little green men from Alpha Centauri. Obviously if an individual has atheistic tendencies then he/she will believe that eventually a "natural" explanation will be found for all of the unsolved mysteries of evolution. Or even if one is not found, because of their preconcieved notion - there is no God - they will hold on to this belief anyway. Richard Dawkins is a perfect example of this type of individual. A staunch atheist who believes that all of life can or will be explained naturally. There is no need at any stage for an intelligent designer. Of course the same could be said of those who believe God directed the course of evolution. A preconcieved notion that God does exist directs them to believe that, at some level, the mysteries of life cannot and never will be explained in naturalistic terms. A belief that the astonishing complexity of life, and the cosmos mandates the existence of an intelligent designer. Perhaps Michael Behe is a good example of this type of individual. So there you have it. Two opposing camps, each having "faith" in their beliefs. The evolutionists have "faith" that all the mysteries that science cannot now explain will someday be explained - naturally. The believers have "faith" that God is the source and "first cause" of it all. Ultimately your "faith" must incorporate the entire universe. As an atheist you must ultimately you believe that the entire universe had no beginning, that matter and energy are eternal, and that this mindless matter and energy at one point in time just happened to fall together under the right circumstances and sentient beings were produced. As a believer you must believe in a supreme intelligence, an all-powerful and infinite being, that by definition is out of your ability to really grasp. You must believe that this being decided at some point to create time, the universe and its laws, the earth and it complexity of life and then leave very little DIRECT evidence of His existence. (Indirect evidence - yes. Direct evidence - where?) And so there you have it. Each individual must decide for themselves which to belief. Based soley on this I am not sure how anyone could choose. I believe however that one must take other, admittedly non-scientific arguements into account. Atheists must face the existence that their "faith" mandates. An existence where there is no ultimate purpose to his/her existence. An existence in which they are dead and buried in but a spec of time in relation to the cosmos. An existence in which nothing they do will ultimately matter at all. Atheists must face the fact that their faith precludes any such thing as absolute morality. That morality, in all its forms, is simply man-made and has no ultimate bearing on anything. You can be a Hitler or a Stalin and it will not matter. You can be a Ted Bundy, a Pol Pot, a souther slave owner, or a mad priest during the Spanish Inquisition. You can abuse a little boy or girl, rape, pillage, steal, maim, torture, and kill all you want with no ultimate consequences because nothing is really right or wrong. All morals are man-made concepts and mean nothing and the picking and chosing of which morals you will adhere to is, at its base, a useless and empty exercise that signifies nothing. The believer, absent any direct communication from God, must decide which collection of writings they will adhere to as the voice of God. The Bible, the Torah, the Koran, etc.,etc. . And if they select the Bible, they must accept it with it's apparent conflicts, however minor they may be. The must accept it with its apparent scientific difficulties( Genesis, the flood). The must accept it as an imperfect document and have faith that the real substance of the messages within are "perfect" and are from the "perfect" being. And as far as I can tell,they must do this on a fair amount of faith. Possibly not "blind" faith, but a great amount of faith nonetheless. And so where does this all leave us? The terribly bleak existence of the atheist or the confusing, unprovable existence of the believer. Sometimes I think I'd rather be a dog. P.S. For all the creationists out there. Do yourself a favor and read other materials than just creationist ones. Read evolutionists rebuttals to creationist claims. Don't let your beliefs make you blind to the facts. If you believe evolutionists are your enemy then do the smart thing are read their stuff. After all - one of the best defenses is to know your enemy. You may be suprised at what you learn. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is a
well-thought-out, intelligent post, which deserves a
considerate, detailed rebuttal.
You make some very valid points regarding the nature of world views, but I think you have gotten off track as to the actual evolution/creation debate. At the heart of the debate lies objective interpretation of physical evidence, and objective inferences drawn from genetic and taxonomic evidence. You have come to realize the non-objectivity of creationist biblical literalism, and have the integrity to recognize that evolution represents the best explanation of the biological diversity of life on this planet. I am glad to see that. End of debate. You have obviously opted for Theistic Evolution, as is your right, and nothing more needs to be said. As to whether an individual chooses to accept a naturalistic or theistic evolutionary view, science has no say in the matter. Science cannot substantiate what cannot be tested, directly observed, falsified, or has left no physical trace. The rest of your feedback, on the preference of either a theistic or naturalistic evolutionary perspective, is not really a topic suitable for the Talk.Origins Archive. However, I feel compelled to respond to a few of your points which, I feel, do not correctly represent the naturalistic viewpoint. I will keep this as brief as possible. In all discussions of "chance", one must remember that the question of whether or not a given product of any process arose by chance or by intent only becomes significant if it can be shown that the product was the goal of that process, and not merely a result of the process. It is not necessary for scientists to prove that design is not required for the complexity we see in nature. NONE of the scientific theories that explain natural phenomena make appeals to an unseen designer. If you or any I.D.er's have evidence that something shows signs of being designed (something that could not have arisen naturally) please come forward with it. To date, no one has. You are trying to shift the burden of proof. Intelligent Design advocates are the ones introducing supernatural forces... they are the ones who must substantiate their incredible claims. The whole "irreducibly complex" argument is deeply flawed. Please follow this link to learn why. Scientists do not "take it on faith" that the natural answers are there... that is all they have evidence of. And those answers do very well. The "incredibility argument" is not a valid one. What people expect and what they regard as common sense means little, if anything, in science. If it were so, then we should have thrown out Einstein's theories of General and Special Relativity a long time ago, not to mention that weird Quantum Mechanics nonsense (That's sarcasm, folks). If people have trouble accepting or believing something in science, then it is not the fault of science. I, for one, find nothing about naturalistic evolution which offends my common sense or expectations. Scientists don't have to explain why intelligent design is not the most reasonable explanation. Intelligent Design advocates must supply some evidence, some testable examples, as to why they think that the products of nature MUST HAVE BEEN DESIGNED. To date, they have not done so. They have merely offered bad analogies and metaphors that appeal only to lay people. The laws of nature must act some way... they happen to act as they do. So what? Do you have any evidence that they could act any other way? You also mention "unsolved mysteries of evolution". Please state what those are. I'm not aware of any profound mysteries that in any way threaten the theory. I did not have atheistic tendecies when I learned of evolution. I was open minded, curious, and questioning. I, like you, went from a literal creation scenario to theistic evolution. The more I learned about evolution, and astrophysics, and cosmology, the less I saw for a creator to do, and the more unlikely his existence became. I studied the bible for answers, and realized that it offered none, and in addition was internally inconsistent, flawed, contradictory, and full of highly immoral and offending passages. You say also that "the mysteries of life cannot and never will be explained in naturalistic terms". What "mysteries" of life? This is more poetic than actual. If humans can replace hearts, clone mammals, and work at synthesizing life, I don't know what "mysteries" you are talking about. I have no doubt, based on past achievements, that humans will someday create life in a test tube. Just because something is not known, does not mean that it will never be known. That statement seems to be at the core of Intelligent Design. It ignores the entire history of science. I have no faith in the "naturalistic" explanation of life. Every discovery in the history of science has had a naturalistic explanation, even those that were formerly thought to have a supernatural cause. I see no reason why the evolution of life should be any different. Should the subtle and complex formulas of calculus cause us to deduce an intelligent designer of mathematics? I have no faith in math. I have no faith in chemistry, or geology, or astronomy. Things are as they are. You are right that each individual must decide for themselves what to believe. Everyone has that right. Then you go on to make some blanket statements about atheists. As a humanist, I do have an ultimate purpose for my life. I have assigned it to myself, and it is as real to me as any purpose that a believer has. The things I do don't have to matter ultimately, they only have to matter to myself and those I love. No, I do not think there is such a thing as ultimate morality. And if you look at the history of Christianity, you will realize that neither does the Church. The deeds that they condemn now are the same ones that they performed in antiquity. No institution in history has changed its moral stance as much as the Christian Church. Your straw man caricature of humanistic morals is rather offensive. Humanistic ethics are based on compassion and reason, and are far more moral than those based on the bribery of future reward or the fear of future torture. Would you want your child to do the right thing because he knew it was the right thing to do, or because he wanted a reward and feared a punishment? If your interested, What I Think of the Pope and What is Morality? are essays I wrote dealing with this topic. As an atheist, my existence is anything but "terribly bleak". It is full of adventure, love, fulfillment, wonder, joy and prosperity. I live for this life, not for some imaginary afterlife that will never happen. Anyway, I wish you as much. Please continue searching for your own answers. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Sir: This is quite the best article I have found on the subject of Evolution. Your comments about the creationists are right-on. These people have been my biggest educational problem for years. I teach Biology at the college level now, after having taught for 32 years in 2 high schools. I was raised in a Christian home and have attended and continue to attend church. I have in those years been associated with 3 Presbyterian churches, none of which ever preached a sermon, taught a Sunday school class or published literature that was anti-evolution; on the contrary, all have been very supportive of science. My latest connection has been in the teaching of a Sunday school class concerning Eco-justice and Christian Ecology. All of the source material( I can provide a list ) supports evolution and ecology as the only way Christians can act and be in agreement with the Biblical references to creation and the relation that humans should have with the earth. ( I can also provide a bibliography, spanning the century, concerning the proper relationship between science and religion ) It is about time some of the churches awakened to the realities of nature. Who knows how many sharp scientific minds have been turned off by the stance of some denominations and have refused to embrace Christianity. Keep up the good work! Yours, Warren Whitaker Chillicothe Oh. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Wow, what a
great letter! This is quite an enlightened man.
We need more like him! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I would like to know if anyone can name ONE SPECIFIC THING about evolution (one species evolving into another)that is a proven fact. While your at it name ONE piece of evidence that proves even ONE statement in the Bible to be false. Please be specific. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hey, great
idea. I'll take a stab at this.
One specific evolutionary fact: Are you looking for the fact that species are observed to evolve into new species? (also Some More Observed Speciation Events). Or are you looking for the fact that there are tons of transitional fossils, showing the transformation of species? Here is a one good example out of hundreds you can find on these pages:
This is an example witnessed in nature, not a laboratory (not that it makes much of a difference). Yes, we're talking about plants here. But it doesn't matter if we are talking about plants, flies, bacterium, dogs or humans-- the biological process is the same-- it makes no distinction. Remember that the shorter the lifespan of the organisms, the easier it is to witness evolution in action. There are hundreds of clear examples to choose from. You can look at Evidence for Evolution for more examples. ... One specific biblical falsehood: In at least three places in the bible it states that the earth has a "foundation" and does not move. "For the foundations of the earth are the LORD's; upon them he has set the world." 1 Samuel 2:8 (English-NIV) "Where were you when I laid the earth's foundation?" Job 38:4 (English-NIV) "He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved." Psalms 104:5 (English-NIV) This last one, by the way, contradicts: "He shakes the earth from its place", Job 9:6 (English-NIV), but that's to be expected. The earth has no foundation. It just doesn't. The idea of a foundation is analogous to building a house, and comes from the notion that the earth is flat, which the bible supports in numerous passages. The earth is not resting or sitting on any pillars or foundation. The evidence? I hope you don't need to ask. The earth is (obviously) is a sphere caught in the gravitational field of our star, passing through space at thousands of miles an hour. It does move! But the writers of the bible didn't realize that, because they couldn't feel the motion, and thought that they were standing on a flat world (Dan 4:11 NRSV), in some places square (Revelation 7:1), in some places disc-like (Isaiah 40:22, Prov 8:26-27, Job 26:10), resting immovably on a foundation. They thought God would even "turn it upside down, and scatter abroad the inhabitants thereof." (Isaiah 24:1 KJV) All of this is absolutley false. Specific enough? It's really hard to stop at just one. The problem is that you'll probably say that's an example of a metaphor, even though there's no reason to suppose that, and there's every reason to think they were speaking literally. So, in case you try to weasel out of that, here is another, one that is addressed extensively on this website. The bible speaks very explicitly about a global flood that covered all the mountains. The geological record speaks quite clearly that such an event never happened. The evidence is overwhelming. In addition to all that information, here is a new page about what we would expect to see if a global flood really did occur. But it didn't. The bible also states that there are winged creatures that go about on 4 legs (Lev 11:20-21). There aren't. See-- it's hard to keep it to just one. The bible also states specifically that rabbits chew their cud (Deu 14:7). They don't. Jesus states that there were some standing there listening to him speak who would still be alive to see his second coming (Mat 16:28)... obviously untrue. He also stated that the world would come to an end
during his generation: (Mat 24:29 NRSV) "Immediately after the suffering of
those days the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not
give its light; *the stars will fall from heaven*, and the
powers of heaven will be shaken. Then the sign of the Son
of Man will appear in heaven, and then all the tribes of
the earth will mourn, and they will see 'the Son of Man
coming on the clouds of heaven' with power and great
glory. (Jesus now says to his disciples that their generation will not pass away before the end of the world) (Mat 24:34 NRSV) Truly I tell you, *this generation will not pass away* until all these things have taken place. (Their generation did pass away, but the world didn't end) The evidence is the current existence of the world. I could go on and on. Ezekiel predicted Babylon would conquer Egypt and was wrong. It never happened, and can now never be fulfilled. In Luke 1:26, the angel who appears to Mary to foretell the birth of Jesus says that Jesus will be given the "throne of David", that he will reign over Israel. It never happened, did it? Here is another factual error. "The love of money is the root of all evil." (1 Timothy 6:10) This is obviously untrue, and a blatantly ridiculous statement. There are sources of evil other than the love of money. Racism, sexism, jealousy, pride, shame, hate-- all these things are evil and can drive someone to murder. I am sure you can think of more, if you try. Sorry, but hey- you asked for it. If you need more, let me know. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Could you
please send me an answer for this question?
What kind of habitat did the archaeopteryx live in? I would like this information for my Grade 4 project. From Hugh |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | All About Archaeopteryx |
Response: |
Archaeopteryx fossils are found in lagoonal sediments, but
it appears that the animals either fell into the lagoons or
were washed in by rivers. Material such as the seed fern
_Cycadopteris_ are also found as fossils. These have a
thick cuticle and sunken stomatal pits to reduce water
loss, suggesting a semi-arid climate. Other plant fossils
such as the conifers _Brachyphyllum_ and _Palaeocypais_ has
a tough cuticle and scale-like leaves, also to help stop
water loss.
The land immediately to the north of the Solnhofen area in the Late Jurassic probably contained semi-arid gymnosperm scrub and had seasonal freshwater ponds, but no trees. Trees would have been found further north still. _Archaeopteryx_ probably lived in the wooded areas to the north of the Solnhofen area and either fell into the sea while flying over it, or was washed in by periodic river flow. Chris |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I am not an overly knowledgable student in evolution. I've read that that science tends to disprove itself because one law in science states that something better cannot come out of something lesser. I am conducting a research paper and would like some feedback concerning reasons to and not to believe in evolution using science in both directions. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It is true
that you can't build a machine that produces more energy
than you put into it, and that energy tends to dissipate.
But the addition of external energy or the transfer of
energy from one part of a system to another can suspend
this process.
But biological systems use external energy to grow. DNA, by way of chemical processes, can grow more complex over time. The earth, as a system, receives energy from space in the form of sunlight and cosmic gama radiation, and therefore can increase in complexity. None of the processes which are responsible for evolution (birth, death and genetic variation) violate the processes of which you speak. They all can operate within scientific laws. Also, scientific laws are not like "laws" we are familiar with in everyday life that must not be broken. A scientific law is simply a human description of a physical phenomenon. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
science educator and I find your site very useful in
examining this "debate." You provide the world with a
wonderful set of resources already, but I would like to
suggest a section for other science educators. I have been
compiling material on the web to create lesson plans,
quizzes, projects, and activities for the science classes I
teach. Where there is a consdierable volume of information
on evolultion on the net, there is an obvious lack of
material directed toward educators. Could you please put
out the call to your readers for any educational tools
related to evolution to be included on your site. Thank you
very much in advance.
Jason Brauner |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The National Academy of Sciences publishes a book entitled "Teaching About Evolution and the Nature of Science". It is geared toward educators. HERE is where you can buy the book. They currently have it on sale for $15.96 (20% off)- that's a great price for a beautiful book... I'll think I'll pick up a few for my local public schools. Anyway, from that link you can also read the entire book online, including all the illustrations and photographs. Check it out. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I notice that much space is devoted to debating Christian views. Where can I read debate against Islamic, Hindu, or Buddhist beliefs? |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | When Hindu, Buddhist, African, Native American, Shinto, etc. Creationism attempts to bully the U.S. public school system into teaching their particular creation mythology, and upon failing that, proceeds to use scientific-sounding fabrications for the purpose of undermining the public's acceptance of evolutionary biology, then I suppose Talk Origins will address their arguments. |
From: | |
Response: | Actually, we would like to see more information about Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist beliefs regarding creation. This point is brought up in every six months or so in talk.origins. I am not aware of any major contradictions between the tenets of those faiths (or of some of their followers) and the conclusions of modern science, but that is most likely my own ignorance. We would welcome any commentary a reader might be able to make on the subject. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If you read
Daniel Dennett's book you will see that he says that
parents should be prevented from teaching their children
that evolution is not true. He also says that churches
should be turned into museums. I'm not asking you to defend
him, I just honestly don't understand why evolutionists
care about all this. As a believer in God, I do care what
you believe, because I feel it will have a consequence for
you. Why do you care what I believe? If you answer that you
don't care, why are you spending your time answering
questions on this web site?
It's interesting that you brought up morals. You left me confused - are we or are we not different from animals? At what point in the evolution of man did it become immoral for the ape/man to steal his neighbor's bananas? I did not say that Darwinism was responsible for the holocaust, I simply said that saying that is as intellectually honest as attacking all of Christianity because of the inquisition. Isn't it true that you have to believe in some form of Darwinism because of your naturistic point of view? Obviously if we remove God from the equation, something similiar to Darwinism has to be true - no matter what the evidence, or lack therof. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dear Bob,
Glad you responded back. I haven't finished Dennett's book, Darwin's Dangerous Idea, and I haven't come across those statements yet, so I can't comment on them. I certainly think that parents should be able to teach their children anything they want, be it that the earth is flat or at the center of the universe. As to why evolutionists care about what non-evolutionists think... Remember that not all evolutionists are atheists... there are plenty of Christians around here. What we care about is that a completely real, honest, factual branch of science is being publically misrepresented and attacked with non-scientific, fallacious nonsense and lies called creationism. Of course we are different from the other animals. But that does not mean that we aren't animals too. Our intellect is responsible for our morality. At what point did it become immoral to steal your neighbor's banannas? When someone decided that it was. On the Holocause issue, you said, and I quote: "Please don't say it's important to understand the facts about religion because of all the damage that believers have done over the years(the inquisition, etc) - I can make as good an argument that the Holocaust was darwinism in action - survival of the fittest." I don't think I was off base in assuming that you meant that you could back up the statement that the Holocaust was darwinism in action. That statement implies that darwinism caused the Holocaust. It sounded to me, and still sounds, as if you think you can and would make such an argument. Carl Sagan writes: "...the Darwinian insight can be turned upside down and grotesquely misused: Voracious robber barons may explain their cutthroat practices by an appeal to Social Darwinism; Nazis and other racists may call on "survival of the fittest" to justify genocide. But Darwin did not make John D. Rockefeller or Adolf Hitler. Greed, the Industrial Revolution, the free enterprise system, and corruption of government by the monied are adequate to explain nineteenth-century capitalism. Ethnocentrism, xenophobia, social hierarchies, the long history of anti-Semitism in Germany, the Versailles Treaty, German child-rearing practices, inflation, and the Depression seem adequate to explain Hitler's rise to power. Very likely these or similar events would have transpired with or without Darwin. And modern Darwinism makes it abundantly clear that many less ruthless traits, some not always admired by robber barns and Fuhrers - altruism, general intelligence, compassion - may be the key to survival." (Sagan, 1995, 260). But how can the Inquisition (and the Witch Hunts) be attributed to anything other than religious zealotry? And which religion was at the heart of this zealotry? Which religion's laws were directly used to bring about the deaths of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people? From what book did the requirement for the deaths of witches, blasphemers and nonbelievers come? I'll leave you to answer that for yourself. This is getting way off topic of this website, so I'll stop here. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Evidence of
Creation
1. The moon is receding a few inches each year. Billions of years ago the moon would have been so close that the tides would have been much higher, eroding away the continents. 2. Among other factors to consider is that all the ancient astronomers from 2000 years ago recorded that Sirius was a red star-today it is a white dwarf star. Since today?s textbooks in astronomy state that one hundred thousand years are required for a star to "evolve" from a red giant to a white dwarf, obviously this view needs to be restudied. 3. The amount of Helium 4 in the atmosphere, divided by the formation rate on earth, gives only 175,000 years. (God may have created the earth with some helium which would reduce the age more.) 4. Niagara Falls? erosion rate (four to five feet per year) indicates an age of less than 10,000 years. Don?t forget Noah?s Flood could have eroded half of the seven-mile-long Niagara River gorge in a few hours as the flood waters raced through the soft sediments.) 5. Ice cores at the south pole and Greenland have a maximum depth of 10-14,000 feet. The aircraft that crash-landed in Greenland in 1942 and excavated in 1990 were under 263 feet of ice after only 48 years. This indicates all of the ice could have accumulated in 4400 years. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | No Evidence
of Creation
1. False, probably taken from Walter Brown's incredibly bad analysis of the Earth-Moon tidal interaction. The current rate at which the Moon moves away from the Earth (confirmed by lunar laser ranging) is about 3.7 cm/year. The current average distance between the Earth and Moon is 384,400 km. If we assume (incorrectly) that the 3.7 cm/year rate of recession is constant over time, for 4,500,000,000 years, that's 166,500 km. Now 384,400 km - 166,500 km = 217,900 km. So the Moon would have been 217,900 km away, much too far to erode the continents away. But in reality, the recession rate would have been lower (not higher) in the recent past, as determined both by observation and theory. A proper analysis, such as that by Touma & Wisdom [Evolution of the Earth-Moon System, Astronomical Journal v108(5): pp1943-1961 (1994 Nov); Resonances in the Early Earth-Moon System, Astronomical Journal v115(4): pp1653-1663 (1998 Apr)] clearly show that the current recession rate is abnormally high, due to the peculiarities of the tidal response of shallow ocean basins and the arrangement of the continents. This is confirmed by G.E. Williams [Precambrian tidal and glacial elastic deposits: implications for Precambrian Earth-Moon dynamics and palaeoclimate, Sedimentary Geology v120:(1-4) 55-74 (1998 Sep)], who observes from the tidal rhythmite record that the rate of retreat of the Moon from the Earth over the last 620,000,000 years has averaged 2.16 cm/year, about 58% of the currently observed rate of retreat. 2. True & False. True that Sirius appears in several ancient records as a red star. False that Sirius is now a white dwarf; Sirius is a blue giant star (spectral class A1Vm, surface temperature about 10,000 Kelvins), with a white dwarf companion. It is possible for Sirius to have evolved from red to blue, but highly unlikely. The color of Sirius remains a minor mystery in astronomy, with the most common suggestion being that an interstellar dust cloud moving between us and Sirius might have caused the color change [The Stellar Field in the Vicinity of Sirius and the Color Enigma, J.M. Bonnet-Bidaud & C. Gry; Astronomy and Astrophysics v252(1): 193-197 (1991 Dec)]. 3. False. The abundance of 4He in the Earth's atmosphere balances quite well with the rate of outgassing from the mantle [Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism, O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees; Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) v101(A2): pp2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1)]. 4. Who Cares? You are right, Niagra Falls is probably not much more than 10,000 years old. The last period of ice age glaciation in the area of Niagra came to an end about 11,000 or 12,000 years ago. Niagra Falls is certainly not older than that. So what? Since when does the age of Niagra Falls constrain the age of the Earth it's sitting on? This is not a young-Earth argument, even though some deluded individuals (notably Kent Hovind) think that it is. 5. False. Sorry, wrong again. The famous Lost Squadron landed on a flowing glacier, not in a stable ice field. They were covered in a dynamic flow. Their situation is therefore quite irrelevant to the question if ice-layer dating. [Also See the Greenland Expedition's Lost Squadron webpage, and the Girl's Story webpage, Glacier Girl being the nickname for the one aricraft rescued from the ice thus far]. What we have here is another collection of typically brain-dead young-Earth arguments, collected blindly from the pages of typically brain-dead young-Earth creation "scientists" like Walter Brown, Kent Hovind and others. These are not "evidence of creation". They are evidence of the foolish carelessness of people who call themselves creation "scientists" so they can impress the easily impressed. So long as this is the best the young-Earthers can do, you can bet your money on an old Earth for a long time. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hello there,
First of all, I've really enjoyed reading through the various FAQ's and feedbacks and other articles here, and have found a lot of useful and interesting information. One thing I've noticed, is that this site tends to be very careful to seperate evolution from abiogenesis. I'm not really quite so sure you should be so ready to make a sharp dividing line between those two ideas. From what I gather, the main reasoning here is that abiogenesis is how life started from nonlife, and evolution more or less takes over at that point. However, I've also noticed that the point has been made here more than once that the line seperating life and nonlife is a very grey and blurry one. And on this point, I couldn't agree more. Being the a-life nut I am, the whole concept and definitions of life really interest me. So, if we agree to this view about a blurry life/nonlife boundary, it seems that the line seperating abiogenesis from evolution is equally blurry. Where does one stop and the other take over? Anyway, I think you see my point here. Any thoughts/comments/observations/etc wouls be appreciated :). -Dan |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | The origins
of life are an interesting and ongoing topic in biology,
and yes, they are relevant to Darwinian evolutionary
theory. However, Darwinian evolution was proposed and
developed as an in media res explanation of life -
how it changes and why, not where it started.
Some think that the origins of life is a "protoDarwinian" or "preDarwinian" process of evolution much like chemical evolution (which is not based around replicating entities as Darwinism seems to be). For myself, I think that at some point early in the prebiotic process, natural selection begins to take purchase, and the origins of living things is Darwinian. In other words, I think that natural selection operates even on non-living things, if they exhibit the right properties of reproduction and ecological interaction. It is for this reason that simulations on Turing machines can be called "Darwinian". In the abstract realm of information, these systems exhibit the right dynamics. But Darwinism is not founded on these systems, nor on the origins of life. Since the development of life from non-life is largely speculative to date (although we get more and more hard data almost with each issue of the relevant journals), tying Darwinism as a theory to the origins of life is to leave it open to easy "refutations" by the ill-willed. Since the evidence for the accuracy of Darwinian evolution on living things is so vast, it makes sense to not confuse matters by dealing with the technical and conjectural world of the first living things. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have
thought of an interesting thought experiment, but
unfortunately I have neither the time, nor the scientific
and mathematical background to pursue my idea. However, if
anyone else is so inclined: It can be assumed that the
Universe must be 6k-10k ly in radius if the literal
biblical interpretation is correct. Is it possible to
contain within that volume every observable star in a
static and stable configuration? Is any model which can be
developed consistent with the state of the observable
universe?
I would be curious to see the results.... |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | To you and
me, constructing that theoretical model would indeed test
the integrity of the creation hypothesis, and show it to be
impossible.
But not to creationists. They would sidestep the problem by stating, without any evidence to back it up (as usual), that the Creator made the stars, galaxies and intervening space and light from said stars and galaxies, in there present configurations. All this was done, presumably, to give the appearance of a very old, vast universe, and therefore to mislead scientists (and the rest of the rational world) to the spurious conclusion of a big bang that happened about 15 billion years ago. Kind of a strange thing to do for a God who is "a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he." (Deut. 32:4) Also, Numbers 23:19- "God is not a man, that he should lie..." Also it is said that "Every word of God is flawless." Proverbs 30:5. Are His actions not like His words? Something to think about... |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The
publishers of this site are true cowards. Your outdated
information and propoganda is a joke to those of us who
know the truth about evolution and evolutionists radical
truth supressing techniques. I speak in public classrooms
on creationism vs. evolution and you wouldn't stand a
chance agianst me or any 12 year old armed with the FACTS
about evolution conspiracys and lies and the REAL
archeological evidence that has smashed evolution into
atomic sized bits for 150 years. Come out from behind your
one-sided, editing defense shield web site and into the
public arena of a REAL debate, and you will look like the
fools that you are like every single evolutionist that
steps into the ring with creationist armed with the truth.
Evolutionists NEVER win debates in public according to even
the evolutionist side of the audiences. That is one point
in which I agree with Stephen J. Gould. Anyway, just
thought I'd say, "hi" to the side who looses to the truth
in every real debate.
Brad Donaldson |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi Brad,
Nice manners. Instead of spouting vague, unsupported claims, why don't you state some specifics? What evolution lies and conspiracies? It seems you have bought into the elaborate fabrication of creationism. Who is your mentor? I think debates ARE important... although they do NOTHING to advance science. Nor do they do ANYTHING to convert the true believer. But they do EXPOSE the lack of science in creationism, the dishonest tactics, and they do demonstrate to the public that real science has nothing to hide. Debates should be held. I have witnessed public e/c debates, and I am firmly convinced that they are a mistake. Debates should only be held on the web, where one side asks a question via email, it is posted to a webpage, then the other side answers it, and it gets posted on the page, and then gets to ask a counter-question, and so on. There are several critical reasons for this. For one, the evolutionist is usually a professor or scientist used to speaking to biology students or other professionals, not to pews full of believers. When an evolutionist answers a question from a creationist, he or she gives a technical, complicated explanation that the creationist and their audience CAN'T UNDERSTAND. It's way above their heads. I have seen this happen... as the evolutionist explains, the audience's attention starts wandering, and then they are lost. Then when it's his turn, the creationist steps up, thumps on his bible to wake everybody up, and gives his metaphoric rebuttal ("If the glove don't fit, you must acquit" type of thing), and the crowd goes wild. On the web, charts, graphs, photos and graphics can be used more easily, as can hyperlinks to various explanations and sources from experts. This may not solve the problem, but it is better. (A good education would solve the problem). Along that line, creationists frequently use this tricky debate tactic: They'll drop a quick, one-line statement which seemingly does damage to the evolutionist, but in reality, the statement poses no problem at all, but the answer is a long and technical one, and it is not possible for the evolutionist to answer it in the allotted time. I've seen this happen several times. The creationist throws in a lot of statements, each requiring a lengthy and complex answer-- and then claims victory because the evolutionist can't address them all. (Have you ever used this underhanded, misleading tactic, Brad?) But on the web, that wouldn't happen. In a web-based debate, evolutionists can go over every word with a fine-toothed comb, and not let the creationist get away with anything. An evolutionist could take a few days to properly research and respond. BUT, creationists realize this, and know that they only chance they have to look good is in a public debate, not a web-based debate. I have offered to engage in a web-based debate several times with noted creationists. But I have never been taken up on it. I want a no-holds barred debate, with NO restrictions on material whatsoever, NO restrictions on rebuttal length, NO restrictions on use of hyperlinks, and a five day rebuttal period. Some topics, such as politics, can be publically
debated. Why do creationists always insist on a public debate? If they will engage in a written debate, all of their offers carry heavy restrictions. Why, I wonder? Could it be that they are... cowards? |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | Judging by writing style, it seems likely that this is the same guy who used to pose as "Brad Donald" and "Bradley Donald." If so, his error-filled diatribes have been dismantled many times previously in the feedback area (e.g., the one at the top of the April 1997 feedback). It is interesting to note that he has forsaken making specific claims this time; perhaps he was tired of his errors being pointed out. If you want an open forum, "Brad," why not see how well your claims fly in talk.origins? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | On May 2, NBC is airing a movie about Noah's Ark. Have you heard how NBC is going to treat the subject? Is NBC classifyng the movie as fantasy or fact? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I do hope
that they're not re-airing Sun International Pictures' The Incredible Discovery of
Noah's Ark, which originally aired on CBS. The
"discovery" was a hoax to show just how bad Sun's research
was and how gullible the people behind Sun were. Sun and
CBS fell for the hoax hook, line, and sinker.
Considering NBC's airing of Sun's Mysterious Origins of Man, however, I have little faith in NBC's ability or interest in distinguishing real science from pseudoscientific twaddle. Real science, after all, doesn't generate as much advertising revenue as incredible claims. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jim Shepperd |
Comment: | Evolution is false. If it is true explain why there was no dust on the moon? Why there is human sheletons over ten feet tall? How come there are comets still in our solar system? Why we still have a mooon? Also please explain why there has been foud no missing links. Lucy was a sheleton of a chippanzie. The Piltdown man was a hoax. Radioactive dating tested a live mullesk at being dead for three thousand years. Explain. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | My
explanation?
My explanation is that you have accepted the faulty claims of creationists without adequate investigation. Your complete lack of scientific education and understanding has led you to accept those ludicrous ideas without even questioning them. Also, your faith in a literal intrepretation of the bible is so strong that you perceive real science as an attack on your beliefs, and are looking for "scientific" reassurance that your beliefs are still valid. Your beliefs (especially of the eternal afterlife) are so important to you, and you are so terrified of losing them, that you are willing to accept the nonsense that creationists spout without checking that any of it is factual. That's my explanation. |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Why is there
no dust on the moon? Hey, I can explain that. Just read my
article Meteorite Dust and
the Age of the Earth in the talk.origins
archive. The reason we still have comets is because
there is no reason why we should not. The reason we still
have a moon is the same, there is no reason why we should
not. Neither comets nor the moon provide any comfort for
the foolish notion that the Earth and/or the solar system
are only 10,000 years old. You have been fooled by the poor
arguments invented by people you trust but would do better
to ignore.
In fact, since you have come this far, it would do you good to actually read some of the archived material before embarrasing yourself by repeating other people's inane arguments. I recommend that you go through the Age of the Earth section, which archives a number of solid refutations of young-Earth carelessness |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Martin |
Comment: | Ken Harding wrote in one of his responses that evolution is as much fact as gravity. In over your head buddy! I can prove gravity exists. You cannot prove ape-man evolution exists. Variation exists. Different species of apes obviously existed based on the fact that different bones were found. BUT common descent is theoritical. Acccepted as a fact by you YES! Still only a theory. Common descent is the argument. The evidences are not 100% related - FACT! You can't even tell me how matter came to exist far less try to piece together a story that happened a long time ago. |
Responses | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | If you think
for a moment about what is involved in "proving gravity
exists," you will realize that Ken's analogy is fairly
good.
Imagine a person who doesn't like the concept of gravitation. That person could point out that gravitation can only be directly observed on a very small scale, and the rest is either inference or a "circular" assumption of gravitation. For example, our gravitation-skeptic could point out that we've only known about Pluto's existence for about 70 years, about ¼ of its supposed orbital period. If we haven't watched even one complete orbit, and we've never been there or sent instrumentation... how do we "know" that the Sun's alleged "gravitational attraction" plays a significant role in Pluto's movement? Other than the "assumption of gravitation," what reason do we have to even believe that Pluto orbits the Sun? Our "graviation-skeptic" could quite easily dismiss the concept of a general force of attraction between masses as a "mere theory" or even a weak inference. And, yet, in reality that very thing is considered a fact -- because it explains a wide range of data in many different areas and on many different scales, and because all of the data we can collect points that way (even though much of it is indirect). |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks
Chris.
I would also like to make a rebuttal. There is the phenomenon of gravity, which you can feel. It is a fact that you feel it, and that bodies caught in a gravitational field will fall towards the center. Then there is the theory of gravity. (Theory: a scientific explanation built up from observation, physical evidence and experiment). Einstein's General Theory of Relativity replaced the less accurate gravity theory of Newton, which was the first complete mathematical theory formulated which described a fundamental force. Newton's theory replaced the earlier partial theories of Kepler and Galileo. There is the modern theory of evolution, neo-darwinism. (Theory: a scientific explanation built up from observation, physical evidence and experiment). It is a synthesis of many scientific fields (biology, population genetics, paleontology, embryology, geology, zoology, microbiology, botany, and more). It replaces darwinism, which replaced lamarckism, which replaced the hypotheses of Erasmus Darwin (Charles' grandfather), which expanded the ideas of Georges de Buffon, which in turn expanded upon the classification of Karl von Linne. Neo-darwinism represents the state of the art in biology. Like it or not, universities and labratories across the world are engaged in research that explores evolution, not creationism. Then there is the FACT that species change- variation as you call it. There is a predictable range of genetic variation in a species, as well as an expected rate of random mutations. Creationists admit that a "kind" (an ambiguous, non-scientific term) can change into different species (i.e. a dog "kind" can evolve into wolves, coyotes, foxes, and all types of domestic dogs) but they insist that it must stop there. They give no reason for this fabricated limitation. They just can't accept macroevolution, because it contradicts the "truth" of the bible. But there is no limit to the degree that a species can change. Given enough time, a fish-like species can evolve into a amphibian-like species, an amphibian-like species can evolve into a reptilian-like species, a reptilian-like species can evolve into a mammalian-like species, and an ape-like species can evolve into the modern human species. The process (simply stated) involves the potential of many different types of individuals within a species, the birth of a great many individual organisms, and the deaths of those individuals whose characteristics are not as well suited to the total environment as other individuals of the same species. The deaths of these less well suited individuals allows for the increased reproduction of the better suited ones, and initiates a shift in the appearance and function of the species. Without limitation. Yes, evolution is a fact, as real as gravity. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangable with a scientific one. Even though you don't accept it, I would ask you for your explanation of the evolutionary process. Could you provide one? I think that it's you who are in over your head. I suspect that your understanding would be less than adequate. Just because you don't understand evolution does not mean that it did not happen. I also suspect that your denial of the fact of evolution has nothing to do with it being scientifically unsound... and everything to do with upsetting your literal interpretation of the bible. If Talk Origins is too complicated, I recommend my site The Evolution Education Resource Center. It is written for the general public. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Tim |
Comment: | What have you to say about carbon 14 dating and the errors that have been made using it? It seems to me that I have seen no proof that it is a valid and accurate way of dating things, as well as some other now common methods of dating things. Any imformation, links, or whatever would be much appreciated. ~Tim |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Errors? Such
as? The casual dropping of unsubstantiated statements like
that is an all-too-frequent tactic of creationists. Check
into what they say before accepting it at face value!
Radiometric dating is accurate. But don't take my word for it. Listen to the Affiliation of Christian Geologists in Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective: Radiometric dating--the process of determining the age of rocks from the decay of their radioactive elements--has been in widespread use for over half a century. There are over forty such techniques, each using a different radioactive element or a different way of measuring them. It has become increasingly clear that these radiometric dating techniques agree with each other and as a whole, present a coherent picture in which the earth was created a very long time ago. Many Christians are completely unaware of the great number of laboratory measurements that have shown these methods to be consistent, and they are also unaware that Bible-believing Christians are among those actively involved in radiometric dating. This paper describes in relatively simple terms how some dating techniques work, how accurately the half-lives of the radioactive elements and the rock dates themselves are known, and how dates are checked with one another. In the process the paper refutes some misconceptions prevalent among Christians today. (Click the link above to browse the full website). |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | I have to
say that the "errors" you mention are fictitious. I suggest
thet you explore the Radiocarbon Web, which
explains how radiocarbon dates are derived from the data,
and the corrections applied to account for known
variabilities. But 14C is used only for
relatively recent dating, maybe to circa 50,000 years ago
at most. The methods used to explain the multi-billion year
age of the earth are different. As explanations go, the web
site suggested by Ken Harding is as good as any. But there
are good FAQ files here as well, such as Radiometric Dating and the
Geological Time Scale by Andrew MacRae and Isochron Dating by
Chris Stassen. Off the web, I suggest the book
The Age of the Earth by G.
Brent Dalrymple; Stanford University Press,
1991. This 474 page book is the only book I know that
treats the topic in detail. It is written for nontechnical
readers, and goes into the details of the various
radiometric dating methods. This book is a "must read" for
anyone who is interested in knowing how we know the age of
the Earth.
I also note that, according to the feedback thingy, the last file you visited was the Fossil Hominids FAQ. Keep in mind that, since radiocarbon dating does not extend much past 50,000 years ago, there are lots of homind fossils that are just too old for it. They are dated by other techniques, capable of measuring older ages. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Saul Fitzgerald |
Comment: | I found your
website very informative. I have been studying the
creation/evolution discussion for the past few weeks.
Although I was raise up on the "gap theory" in church and
was taught evolution very vigorously in school I must
honestly confess that I did not believe it. Having reviewed
much of the information, discussions and rebuttals I now
have a clearer perspective. I have reviewed and discussed
with the young earth creationists their views. Having
weighed all the evidence at my disposal I (for the most
part) clearly agree with the basis tenets of the young
earth creationists. The unconfirmed, unreliability of the
dating methods coupled with no observable "hard" evidence
give me no compelling reason to believe the theory. The
only issue that remains is that of light travel through
space, but that does not concern the creation of life on
earth in a direct sense. My background is chemistry and
medicine. Do take care.
Saul |
Responses | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | I keep hearing these vague allusions to "unreliability" of dating methods, but for some reason nobody ever gets around to writing a cogent, direct, and detailed critique of my Age of the Earth or Isochron Dating FAQs. |
From: | |
Response: | You say you have weighed all the evidence, but I have the impression that the only evidence you have considered were YEC claims. Talk origins faqs clearly refute the attacks on radioactive dating methods. The subject is discussed in many web sites, including my own (which has links to other web sites which refute creationist claims point by point). This information is very easy to come by, if you are genuinely interested in investigating creationist claims. You admit that you have doubts about the creationist claim that the speed of light has varied, and well you should. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. Check out the t.o. faq on this subject, and additional information in the evolution web sites. |
From: | |
Response: | What, pray
tell, is the evidence which you have so judiciously
reviewed? And which tennents of creationism do you agree
with? Vapor canopy? Hydrosorting? Use of biblical
scripture? Unquestioning acceptance of human creation ex
nihlo?
What it appears you have agreed with is the catagorical rejection of evolutionary biology for non-scientific reasons, based on the acceptance of creationist's unsupported, evidence-free, used-car-salesman arguments. How sad that the intelligence you clearly have, based on your chemical and medical background, was not applied in this case. You take care as well. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is not
going to be brief, but please read on if you have the
time...
I just stumbled upon this site incidentally during a search, but I'm glad I did, because I often wonder at the glaring omissions apparent in popular debates on this subject. I read some of the introductory posts about the common scientific definition of evolution, which were educational, but still left me with grievous doubts. First of all, I do not understand the purpose of creationists in this argument at all, since their platform seems to be opposed to ANY sort of elucidation on the structure of the natural world, even if it does not threaten their stated beliefs. I don't see any reason to claim that God created the universe for some mystical purpose whose workings are forever withheld from us. Even if you accept this premise, there seems to be no logic to this anti-gnostic attitude. For example, if you can't hope to understand what God did in the past, or to predict what God will do in the future, what is the purpose of clinging to this religious doctrine? If faith does not open the door to understanding, then how does it serve its proponents? Secondly, it seems to me that scientists throughout history have adopted their own dogmatic views, as they are human beings and therefore prone to fear the unknown as the creationists appear to do. The fact that Darwinism has achieved such mass appeal should indicate the emotional nature of its foundation [i.e. that it has been championed, and its flaws conveniently overlooked, simply because it arose as the ONLY evidentiary voice of dissent against the ironclad hegemony of the Western religions and their anti-gnostic stance]. Although I am not a scientist by academic standards, I am certainly willing to educate myself in biology, and to make my own observations about the natural world. It troubles me that too many prominent "scientists"--who freely admit that they do not, obviously, have all the answers about the framework of the universe--are nevertheless quick to say what is and is not a "possible" or "plausible" theory. I have often heard the tenet that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof," but in my mind there is no aspect of nature more extraordinary than any other. Any specialist, no matter how well-versed by our modern standards, is merely examining small pieces of what is ultimately a puzzle which makes a mockery of our best efforts at unification. While I do appreciate the objectivity and precision of the posts I have read on this site, in particular the definitions of Fact and Theory, I found a major alternative viewpoint to be lacking, which seems to be held in equal disregard by evolutionists and creationists alike; namely, the idea of spontaneous conscious engineering on a cellular level. Although such a concept is difficult to prove by definitive standards, there is no shortage of empirical data that supports, if not confirms, this theory. The difficulty with this proposition to the scientific mind [I believe] is its very nebulous and mysterious nature, which raises more questions than it answers and overturns long-accepted notions that you would classify as Facts. I am aware that this is becoming a more popular opinion than it used to be, but I am still curious about the significance of the classical position on random factors, such as natural selection or genetic drift. Nature seems to be a bit more intelligent and deliberate in orchestrating symbiotic systems. Otherwise it would seem logically unlikely that many "curiosities" of nature would appear at all. Are chameleon reptiles, insects, or flowers whose design is specifically complementary to other creatures merely the product of randomosity? Maybe. But critical thinking would argue against such a statement. And the idea of "random" organization bears an uncomfortable resemblance to the mystical idea of an unfathomable God that we can never know. Other observations that contribute to this theory of orchestration, or cellular awareness, are found in the most pedestrian functions of any organism or living system. The brain, the limbic system, the piezoelectric structure of bones, the symmetry of the body, and the autonomic activity of each cell all indicate independent consciousness; the mystery of the whole cannot be found by analyzing the parts, at least not with our present methods. And where is the classification of hereditary memory, easily observed in animals but difficult to explain? Is behavior encoded in a gene sequence? If so, is it also subject to random drift? And, even further afield, what is the origin of life itself? The fractal structure inherent in nature implies order without what we call consciousness, an order that must at some point create life...unless evolutionists choose to call the protozoa God and start acting like creationists, the organic must somehow arise from the inorganic. I would like to see a little more consideration by biologists and physicists in this regard. Whatever one's opinion may be on these subjects, they cannot be ignored. And, as in quantum mechanics, the exceptions to the "laws of the universe" are proliferating so rapidly that we can't pretend to know the rules any more. If educated people continue to argue over theories amongst themselves, let alone trying to reach out to the indifferent public, we may find our species obsolescent. What is the use of squabbling over any theory when field research and applied logic yield geometrically increasing contradictions in every aspect of our previous perception? Your thoughts on this matter would be greatly appreciated. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | If the
function or goal of religious understanding is knowledge of
the natural world, it is a very poor methodology indeed.
However, I think that nearly all who have reflected upon
the matter would rather say that religious understanding is
of the non-natural - God/s, the afterlife, the
meaning or purpose of things, moral values, and the like.
It is true that scientists adopt views for all kinds of personal, social or ideological reasons, individually. But no view in science will survive for long if it isn't backed up by hard evidence and testing. If Darwin got his notion of natural selection from Adam Smith's "hidden hand" in economics, for example, so what? However, I'd challenge your view that Darwinism has mass appeal. In my experience, the views of evolution that do have mass appeal are the older progressionist view of Lamarck, Geoffroy or the reworkings of those views by Teilhard and company. These views of evolution are in fact incompatible with Darwinism. I'd also challenge your claim that the flaws of Darwinism have been overlooked. You cannot have much acquaintance with the literature if you think that. Readers of the New York Review of Books a while back will have seen that there are some deep internal criticisms made by evolutionary biologists about the shape of evolution. The Boston Review site will give you some of the flavor of these debates. Tests of plausibility in science are a bit more than personal choice. There are agreed standards, background information and a range of experimental and technical methods used to assess these things. The notion of spontaneous "conscious" engineering by cells of evolution sounds to me like the very old and mystical notion of panpsychism - the idea that the whole universe is in some way conscious. If you mean anything else by that, it certainly hasbn't come up in any scientific model of which I am aware. Metaphors aren't models. The rest of your post would be best sent to the talk.origins newsgroup forum, where it can be debated and discussed in detail. I must make one further comment. To the best of my knowledge, quantum mechanics doesn''t rapidly proliferate into numberless laws. In fact, as I understand it, QM is pretty simple, although, like any law, it has many complex implementations. There is no major explosion of laws of physics such that we do not know the rules any more. But there is a lot of hard work being done on understanding how specific cases (such as terrestrial biology) operate. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is a response to the "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" by Chris Colby. First of all, you defined evolution in terms of microevolution (the moth) which I agree totally with. Yes microevolution exists. Macroevolution on the other hand is completely unfounded. I have been trying to write a paper giving both sides of this debate, and so far, two weeks of research, I have been unable to find anyone who will give me a solid answer to how evolutionists believe we came about. I'm sick of the Big Bang, where did the matter in it come from? And why does everyone dodge the beginning of evolution. Someone tell me where it all came from. I would appreciate a response to this. Evan |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | I do
seriously doubt that you have done two weeks' solid
research. If you open up any standard undergraduate text in
biology, you will be presented with an account of
macroevolution. Or, you could go and read a book on the
topic - there are several in any university library.
The issue of the origin of the universe is nothing whatsoever to do with the theory of biological evolution. And the origins of life, while a precondition for evolution to occur, is nothing to do with the history of life since, which is what Darwinian theory deals with. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | BB |
Comment: | I was in your argument document against creationism. The comment was made about how people believe that all the different varieties of animals descended from those on the ark. Well, I don't know, but I think all of the varieties of animals we have today could more easily have descended from the animals on the ark than to say they all came from a rock. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | How do you
suppose all the varieties of animals descended from those
that were on the ark? What is the process by which it
happened? What caused it to stop?
No really, all the animals came from a rock. It was a piece of granite. It was about 9 pounds. It was gray with white specks. Don't you believe me? Actually, evolutionists don't say that we all came from a rock. But creationists REALLY DO say that we all came from dirt. [ref. Gen-2:7]. Does that make you feel any better? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Do to all the various comments covering creation, all I would ask is that you go to the creation evidence web site. This is run by a group of scientist that study all aspects of creation. Many of these men are very well known in the scientific community and include a number of individuals from NASA. If you are serious about this topic check out this site and ask your questions to this group. Of course, if your not really serious, this isn't for you. Creation Evidence Museum |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
scientists who write the articles for THIS website are
well-known professional scientists who are working in
fields related to biology and geology (and I know at least
one works for NASA). They are well acquainted with all of
the creationist claims, past and present. They are
really serious. Creationists are rarely trained scientists
at all. They're fundamentalists in lab coats.
NASA does not support creationism. Here is the NASA Origins page. See for yourself. I browsed the website you offered. It contained the names of Woodmorappe and Baugh, individuals not noted for their scientific acumen (or integrity). Click on the search button at the top of your screen and type in their names to discover what I'm referring to. The site you suggested offered nothing new. The same old fallacious claims, nonsense and lack of real science that has been the creationist mainstay for decades. Every claim of theirs is firmly laid to rest here on Talk Origins. All you have to do is perform a word search or browse the FAQs. On this site you will find an extensive list of links that connect you to creationist websites, including the one you submitted. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I find it very enlightening and disturbing that as an agnostic layman, I posted several questions/challenges to this newsgroup a few years back as to some apparently unexplained (by Darwinism) facets of evolution, hoping to get answers or create a discussion. Instead I was blasted out of the saddle with comments such as 'Here's another looney creationist.' Most of the hecklers claimed to be degreed scientists. I have not read nor do I ascribe to the creationist viewpoint. I was deeply saddened by this stance as I had always believed that scientists were supposed to be open minded and capable of critical thinking, not just parroting the party line. Apparently many evolutionists are as dogmatic as the creationists and are just as rigid in their mindset. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | How to be Anti-Darwinian |
Response: | This can be
true. Is it surprising? People who subscribe to an
evolutionary point of view represent much the same spectrum
of personality types and levels of expertise as the rest of
the world, more or less, and nobody needs a license to post
on USENET.
But notice that this means that those who post to talk.origins are not necessarily scientists either - for example, I'm not. The behavior of participants in talk.origins or any other forum is not the justification or disqualification of their views. What makes a view worthwhile or not in science is the evidence, formal structure, and usefulness of that view. Moreover, diverging from the "party line" is not necessarily evidence of an open mind. Very often (not always) the party line is the party line for good reason - because it has stood the test of time and investigation. Adopting a creationist stance is not a valid option in science for anybody. It may be that some varieties of anti-Darwinism are still valid. However, and I have said this before, many evolutionist-minded folk do tend to think that disputing some of Darwin, or even raising questions, is evidence of creationism, and to attack that view I have prepared an FAQ on Varieties of AntiDarwinism that you might find useful. Much of the problem lies in the volume of creationist-inspired stupidity (I use the word advisedly) that sees the same old canards repeated ad nauseum no matter how many times they are debunked. Tempers fray and patience wears thin. Many times, people get called creationist because they manage to hit a trigger phrase or idea, often unknowingly. Bear with us. We're only human. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Ben |
Comment: | Having read a lot of your feed back I kind of wonder about how reader you are to open up to new ideas. It sounds every time God is mentioned you make God out to be some impossible idea. What if God did exist? What if he did create this world? What if he made each specie individually with a specific design in mind? Would that change your idea, or would you hold fast to evolution? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Am I open to
new ideas? Sure. You got any? Most often, I hear the same
old stuff, over and over again.
A god of some sort may exist. If he did not want to be detected, he may have the power to resist discovery. So far, he's doing a good job of avoiding detection and leaving no trace of himself. Such a deity could not be disproven. However, specific (biblical) claims have been made that can be tested, and certain logical contradictions can show that certain varieties of gods are unlikely or impossible, like the mutual exclusivity of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence. (That is my opinion and does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the Talk Origins Archive. There are some Christians associated with this site). If a god did create life on this planet, he did so using evolution, in a way that looks completely natural, and he wiped his fingerprints off, leaving no trace. Evolution cannot be overturned with scripture, if that's what you mean. Evolution is a scientific theory that does not need to be held on to. The evidence either supports it or denies it... and right now it supports it very clearly. Many religions accept evolution, and believe that it was the process by which god put life on this planet. This post leads me to an interesting point. We are often accused of being closed-minded. We have closed off our minds to the Word, they say. But I for one am not close-minded. What would convince me of the existence of a deity? Unambiguous physical evidence. Something I could not mistake. Probably a personal, physical visit. So, I am saying that there is a chance I could be wrong. I think it's a slim chance at best, but I'm willing to say that the possibility exists. How about you? To all the fundamentalist creationists out there-- what would change your mind, and make you reject the idea of a literal interpretation of Genesis? Are you willing to say that you might be wrong? Or are you... close-minded? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Youre site is great. no complaints but one. it would help if the info on each subject was summarized for the lay person somewhere on that particular page. A lot of it is to technical and jargon filled for the lay person to follow. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | You are in
luck!
I have just got my pages up: "Evolution for Beginners". While it is not exactly a summary of every subject, it is a good overview of many subjects, written just for you! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Thought that
I might suggest a debate. The agreement can be found at
www.creationscience.com/debate.shtml. I would be very
interested in seeing the results.
Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I've seen
it.
I am not a "qualified" evolutionist, as I do not have a doctorate, so I could not engage in Walt Brown's debate. I have, however, issued a counter-debate, one without his restrictions and limitations. The best I can do at the moment is to rebutt his "Questions for Evolutionists". I am also working on rebutting Kent Hovind's quesions. Each of these lists, not to mention the both of them, involve a staggering amount of material, and are very time-intensive. Real scientists shouldn't be bothered with such trivialities. They have more important things to do than to bicker with biblical creationists. If you are interested in seeing the results of evolution/creation debates, here are the results of one debate, and here is another. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Evolution and Science: Redundancy or Oxymoron? What do you think. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | Actually, it's neither. Evolution is a physical process. Science is a human activity of knowing. Studying evolution (known as evolutionary biology) is a part of science. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Although the
transition between reptiles and mammals is fairly well
represented in the fossil record, I have problems with how
the transition from laying eggs to bringing full born
children happened. Platypuses and marsupials can probably
be seen as transitional animals, but the egg-shell could
not just disappear. Any good explanations here?
Best regards, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Actually,
the eggshell can just disappear. I'll cite a
post by Mel Turner from talk.origins in June of 1997:
(See Message-ID <6pf12s$2b2$1@news.duke.edu> on DejaNews.) Think of a species of snake that lives in an environment with lots of egg-stealing predators. Natural selection will favor species of snakes that protect their eggs in some fashion. One way might be to produce lots of eggs and hope that some survive. Another might be to hide them. Another might be to create thicker shells so the eggs are harder for predators to eat. Another might be to keep the eggs in the womb a bit longer so that they're not lying out in the open as long. Each of these strategies has costs, and the costs depend on the rest of the environment. For example, in an environment with lots of snake predators as well as snake egg predators, a mother snake that hauls her brood around with her for a long period of time risks slowing herself down and losing not just her entire brood, but her own life as well. She might be best off laying a lot of eggs, even though that is wasteful of her resources. On the other hand, if there are lots of egg predators but not many snake predators, her best bet is to keep the brood with her as long as possible. Over time, then, selection will favor snakes that keep their eggs for a longer period of time before laying them. After long enough, the eggs remain in the snake long enough to hatch before they are released. But think then: if the snake isn't releasing her eggs into the wild, why build up all that protective shell? After all, that takes energy and resources and weighs the snake down unnecessarily. Why not make a thinner eggshell? And so on. I'm sure you see where this is going. (In fact, we do see all of these variations, and more, in modern snakes.) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | [...] Darwin
frankly admitted: ?If numerous species . . . have really
started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the
theory of evolution.? How Complete Is the Record? However,
is the fossil record complete enough for a fair test of
whether it is creation or evolution that finds support?
Over a century ago, Darwin did not think so. What was
?wrong? with the fossil record in his time? It did not
contain the transitional links required to support his
theory. This situation caused him to say: ?Why then is not
every geological formation and every stratum full of such
intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any
such finely-graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is
the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged
against the theory.? The fossil record in Darwin?s day
proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained:
?The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species
suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by
several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the
belief in the transmutation of species.? He added: ?There
is another and allied difficulty, which is much more
serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging
to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom
suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. .
. . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may
be truly urged as a valid argument against the
[evolutionary] views here entertained.?
[...] |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I've trimmed most of La Velle's feedback down to the quoted bit about Darwin. The appropriate place for long discourse of that sort is in the talk.origins newsgroup, where one may expect a number of lively responses to all points within the complete essay. As to Darwin and the fossil record, I find La Velle's approach to be somewhat facile in nature. Take the "numerous species" passage, incompletely quoted by La Velle above. Let's see what the original said, shall we?
It can be seen that La Velle did not appropriately quote Darwin, even in the small snippet that Le Velle retained from the original passage. There is a difference between "theory of evolution" and "theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection". La Velle also failed to indicate by any means that Darwin actually had an answer for the objection that Darwin acknowledged. The complete passage shows that Darwin brings up geographical distribution and ecological factors as possible explanations for sudden appearance of species in the fossil record, and those considerations are part of the modern theory of puntuated equilibria. La Velle quotes again from the same passage in Darwin, but characterizes it as showing that the fossil record disappointed Darwin in "another way". How so? The quotes come from the same paragraph. The previous quote La Velle used can be seen to closely follow La Velle's later quote, and to be addressing the very same issue. I have elsewhere analyzed what expectation of proportion of transitional sequences can be derived from Darwin's commentary. As I have previously stated upon occasion, the existing links that we have in hand are far more problematic for literalist conceptions of fiat creation than "missing links" are for evolutionary biology. Wesley GG Simpson, The Meaning of Evolution, p.103. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | John Boggan |
Comment: | I've been
reading Keith Robison's
critique of Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and
also Behe's reponse to the critique. Robison only hints at,
and Behe completely ignores, some of the logical problems
with the mousetrap analogy. Behe makes the common mistake
of implying that (1) there is only one way to build a
mousetrap so that it works, and (2) that the mousetrap has
existed in its present form since time immemorial--i.e. has
always been comlex. Both are demonstrably false. The first
mousetrap was probably somebody's foot, or perhaps a thrown
rock. (As a child, I built my own trap from an old birdcage
with the door propped open, which caught a mouse but did
not kill it.) Man built a better mousetrap by trial and
error--the price of error being a plague of mice--just as
natural selection builds better complex systems by trial
and error (the price paid for error being quite effectively
high--death and/or failure to reproduce). Whether the
analogy uses a mousetrap, an airplane (jet? prop? glider?
kite?), or a watch, no complex system, man-made or natural,
appears abruptly in its full glory; each system has
developed from something simpler, and in many cases these
simpler systems are still around and observable, AND
FUNCTIONAL, just as simpler biochemical pathways and
simpler forms of eyes are found in the natural world. While
"intelligent design" in man-made objects and systems works
on an existing body of knowledge, natural selection works
to modify existing molecules, pathways, or body parts. It's
really not that difficult. For any "irreducibly complex"
system there is a similar system in another organism that
works slightly differently, or less well, or with fewer
steps. I only wish Robison had made the effort to find some
examples.
This is all just another variation on another favorite creationist subject, the so-called perfection of the eye. The common creationist question of "what good is half an eye?" should be answered, "I would rather have eyes that see half as well, than no eyes at all!" In fact, my own eyes are less than perfect, and I wear corrective lenses. And many organisms alive in the world TODAY have eyes that see half as well as ours, or less, yet these organisms are able to live and reproduce. The full spectrum from simple light-sensitive cells to full-blown focusing lenses and retinas can be found in living organisms today, and while this is an analogous, rather than homologous, example of progression from simple to complex systems, it does demonstrate that the intermediates--i.e., "half an eye"--are both functional and useful to the organisms that possess them. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | I agree with
your interpretation. Actually, all of these attacks on the
evolution of functional systems from less complicated
systems is a variant on the old principle of the medieval
scholastics: ex nihilo nihil fit, which the
creationist journal Ex Nihilo uses as its motto.
This is the principle, established a priori, that "nothing
comes out of nothing".
In this case, it is "nothing complex comes out of the less complex", and it is also established as a principle of logic, which it is not. The way in which anti-evolutionists define "complex" may make for a formally correct argument, but it has very little to do with the actual structure and processes of living things. "Functional" just means "something that contributes to the persistence of a system". If process A contributes to the continued existence of that type of organism, but process A', which is slightly different in its parts but may generate very different outputs, contributes even more to the continuation of those sorts of organisms, then A' will replace A, or perhaps even coexist with A. It takes a very sparse imagination not to be able to see that. Organisms have duplicates of genes that end up coding for slightly different proteins all the time. And those proteins can have similar but not identical roles in the life of the organism type. If that is too hard to understand, then Behe ought not to be a biochemist. I think that Keith did a good job deaing with Behe's logic and not getting caught up in the complexities of biochemistry, which would not be sophisticated enough to convince the specialists and would be too complex to help the nonspecialist, but perhaps some better examples could be found. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Kudos on an
excellent site. I feel that as time passes, the scientific
evidence for evolution only becomes stronger. On that note,
could you point me in the direction of any sites that would
have updates detailing new scientific discoveries that have
bearing on the evolution/creation debate?
[Feel free to email me a response. Although I love seeing my name in your feedback page, I would prefer to not have to wait a whole month for a response. It's fine to post my comments on your feedback page too, it's just that I am anxious to hear from you.] |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi,
Here is one site that has some fresh paleontology, Discovery Online. Here is another (this one is better) Science Daily. I'm sure someone else will put something up for you. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | As I read
Frank Steiger's article "Probability and the Second Law of
Thermodynamics" I was stunned to find a circular argument.
If I read correctly he was, in essence, using "life" to to
debunk the "creationist's" assertion that order cannot
arise from chaos. I quote '"All real processes go with an
increase in entropy." This statement is contradicted by the
fact that the growth of living things represents order
spontaneously arising from disorder.' At another point
Steiger says, "Creationists assert that since living things
eventually decay and form simpler compounds, the natural
tendency is for order to revert to disorder. This statement
is contradicted by the fact that seeds spontaneously grow
into flowering plants and eggs spontaneously form living
birds." It seems to me this is a circular argument. The
Creationist asserts that because life violates the second
law of thermodynamics God must exist. In other words God
specifically chose life to violate this law to prove that
life was created. If we were to go to Mars one day and
discover a steam engine I think we could safely assume that
someone or something created it, because it violates the
second law of thermodynamics. Steiger on the other hand
uses life to prove order can arise from disorder. I would
say that is a bit like me finding a steam engine on Mars
and saying this proves that order can come from chaos all
by itself. Now perhaps I'm missing something here, because
much of what he said sounded to me like gobble de gook. So
if you could demonstrate to me in plain language how
something other than life violates the second law of
thermodynamics I would much appreciate it. Now I am writing
this to try and understand the argument, not to argu.
Thanks, dave |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Nothing
violates the second law of thermodynamics, so your evident
belief that life does so is in error. The second law does
not say that order cannot arise from disorder, and in fact
does not even address the matter of "order" directly at
all.
The second law says that if a system that is thermodynamically isolated makes a transition from one state of thermal equilibrium to another state of thermal equilibrium, then a state variable called entropy will show a change that is greater than zero if the transition was irreversible, and zero if the transition is reversible. It is the definition of entropy that creates the link between the second law and the concept of order and disorder, but the link is ambiguous at best. In statistical thermodynamics, the entropy is defined in terms of the probability of finding the system in a given state. Probabilities are related to certainty and uncertainty, and so give an ambiguous connection to "order" and "disorder", which are not objective concepts anyway. The first thing to note is that the restriction that the system be isolated at all times, and that the entropy be measured while the system is in equilibrium is a hard restriction that cannot be passed over lightly. So in a strict sense, the second law does not even apply to any natural system since no natural system is truly isolated. But natural systems can certainly be "isolated enough" to conform over a characteristic time period to second law restrictions. Those systems are observed to obey the second law. The biosphere is not even approximately isolated, and is in a thermodynamic state far from equilibrium. Life processes are also very un-isolated, and very far removed from equilibrium. Since the biosphere & life do not meet the basic restrictions, the second law cannot be applied to them in its usual form in any case. This pulls the rug out from under the creationist argument and exposes it at once as a chimera. The correct procedure is to apply a form of the second law that is used in nonequilibrium thermodynamics. This procedure subdivides a given system into regions that meet the restrictions of equilibrium "enough"; it cannot make isolated subsystems. The entropy is then handled independently for each of the approximately equilibrated subsystems, with care to handle the flow of entropy between them. This methodology is quite complex in practice, but relatively straight forward in principle. But there is no indication that anything related either to life or the prcocesses of evolution violates any known thermodynamic law. Specifically, the statement the "all real processes go with an increase in entropy" is flatly false; it is in fact inconsistent with a proper statement of the second law. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great site. I find it invaluable when debating. This is a terrific place to get references from when creationists start shouting for some, thinking you won't find them. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | That was, after all, the original purpose of this web site, to serve as an archive for FAQs for the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup. I'm glad you found it useful. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I know this
may seem obvious, but the beliefs about our origins,
whether it be evoltution or creation, all comes down to
faith and nothing more. There were no human observers to
witness the creation of the world, nor were their any human
observers to witness speciation and gradual evolution.
Faith, faith, and faith. Evidence just strengthens faith,
doesn't prove it. One of my favorite chapters in Michael
Denton's book, EVOLUTION: A THEORY IN CRISIS, is the
Chapter entitled, Darwin to Dogma.
Thanks for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I have no
faith at all in evolution. (I also have no faith in
algebra, chemistry or astronomy). Evolution either stands
or falls by the strength of the evidence used to
substantiate it. Evolutionary biology relies on factual
data, physical evidence, molecular experimentation, and it
goes hand in hand with geology. I am constantly thinking
critically about evolution, going over the evidence, and
continually reaching the same conclusion.
Evolution is based on observational evidence. This is different from creationism, which selectively uses evidence to support its position. In other words, evolution comes from evidence, while creationism uses evidence to support an unverifiable, pre-existing source (the bible). Creationism is not science, because it relies completely on miraculous interventions (the flood and the creation itself, not to mention just about all the rest of the book)-- things that cannot be used in the formulation of a scientific theory. Since miraculous events cannot be tested, repeated, nor can the processes by which they operate be described, they must be taken on faith. Creationism is an expression of religious belief-- not science. There is a huge difference. The fact that all species alive today have descended from a common ancestor can be denied, but not refuted. We know it happens because we can observe it directly in short-lived species, and for longer lived species there is genetic and fossil evidence that is unambiguous. There is no other scientific explanation for the diversity of living species. Creationism IS NOT a scientific explanation-- it is a religious one, and a religious explanation is not interchangeable with a scientific one. If you have trouble fathoming the study of events that happened millions or billions of years ago, perhaps you should read further. Is paleontology to be doubted? Should archaeology be thrown out? Is geology a religion? Is all of history suspect? There are real reasons behind the science of reconstructing the past. My favorite analogy is forensic science. A man can murder someone (with no witnesses), and scientists can reconstruct the scene with such accuracy as to pinpoint the guilty person- with such accuracy as to cause that man to receive the death penalty. Evolution is much the same- reconstructing the past through examination of the evidence. Creationism does no such thing. Creationism has yet to produce any evidence. It's true that not every theory withstands the test of time and goes on to be considered a fact by nearly all of the scientific community, but evolution is one that has. Evolution is biology-- it has about as much to do with faith as does chemistry, geology, physics and math. Live with it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have found
the Talk.Origins Archive to be an excellent source for
information concerning the evolution/creationism debate.
These days you hear a lot of talk about Ron Wyatt who "has found Noah's Ark". Talk.Origins archive does contain a link to some site telling about this thing but you should also check out Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation at Wyatt Archaeological Research Fraud Documentation - it is a Christian site that tries to tell the truth about Ron Wyatt's claims. A lot of interesting scientific information there. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Thanks for the link. It should be noted that Wyatt's claims are debunked not just by Christians, but by several prominent creationists. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | After reviewing this and many other sites, I can't seem to find anything that explains where the universe originally came from. Where did the original SPECK off material originate? The very first atom? Spontaneous generation simply won't work, here... ~Tim |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Gee Tim,
your not asking for much, are you?
This site is concerned with evolutionary biology and geology, and not cosmology, so it's no surprise that you can't find the answers to those questions here. To pursue those questions adequately, you need at least a partial knowledge of particle physics, quantum physics, and general relativity. Unfortunately, these aren't subjects which you can assimilate in a few minutes. You should start by reading a few books. First, read A Brief History of Time by Stephen Hawking. Next, read The Whole Shebang, A State of the Universe Report by Timothy Ferris. Try ordering them at Amazon.com. That is, if you are really serious about pursuing this subject. You can try this link to a page I made that looks at this question. It may not be as definitive as you want, but that is the state of those sciences. The conclusions you seek have not yet been reached. You should also try this site. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Wow! You guys have A LOT of gall! You say in your title that you are exploring the creationist/evolutionist controversy - no, you're not! You've already made up your mind - there is NOTHING here which respresents the creationists viewpoints - only things pointing out how their wrong! You are not true scientists, or you would keep an open mind. Why don't you be true to your own work and title this site "The Evolutionists Arguements". Go on - be honest with yourselves for once. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Well, what would have us do? Withhold information that refutes creationist claims in order to create the impression that they are valid? What kind of honesty is that? Furthermore, I beg to differ with your conclusion that creationist viewpoints are not presented by evolutionists. Talk origins faqs and the numerous evolution web sites present the creationist positions in great detail. Creationists don't need our help in defending their point of view. Their numerous web sites, publications, and radio programs attest to that! BTW, I have noticed that creationists never present an objective defense of evolution. |
From: | |
Response: | And again,
yet another person who did not read the home
page or the welcome
message.
And the reader's assertion is clearly contradicted by even a cursory examination of this site. For one, we have a larger list of links to creationist Web sites than most creationist Web sites do. And quite a few of the articles, such as Glenn Morton's review of John Woodmorappe's Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study, John Brawley's Evolution's Tiny Violences: The Po-Halo Mystery, and our critiques of Phillip Johnson and Michael Behe contain direct links to rebuttals by the people whose work is being critiqued or their supporters. We want our readers to examine creationist arguments. We encourage them to do so. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Joel |
Comment: | First I am a Christian and many Christians do not believe in evolution Evolution, the begining of the population on this planet is just a theory and can not be proven. Even now none of your models fit the story that the fossil record provides. Colin Patterson is a senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History, which houses the world's largest fossil collection--sixty million specimens--confessed in a letter to Luther Sunderland, "If I knew of any [evolutionary transitions], fossil or living, I would certainly have included them."[in his book 'Evolution']. He later reaffirmed his prior statement His confession underscores the fact that the fossil record is an embarrassment to evolutionists. No verifiable transitions from one species to another have as yet been found. The fossil record in Darwin's day was very limited so in a way he had an excuse. Now more than a century after his death there is an abundance of fossils, and not one of them is a legitamite transition from one species to the next. There are about a quarter of a million species at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago where David Raup is curator. He says "...that even with a quarter of a million fossil species the situation has not changed much. We have even fewer examples of evolutionary transitions than we had in Darwin's time." As I said before it is common knowledge among the paleontologists but the public is unaware that no transitional fossils exist and the paleontologists are not speaking up. Of course 'Archaeopteryx' is the first one pointed to as evidence. However as Dr. Duane Gish points out that carefull examination of the 21 characteristics supossedly linking 'Archeaopteryx' with reptiles are genuinely birdlike. He says "Since creatures within each family, order, or class are so highly variable, it would be predictable on the basis of the creation model that animals in different orders and classes would have the some characteristics in common. Even humans share characteristics with reptiles. For example, we share in common the vertabrate eye. Among other characteristics, evolutionists emphasize that 'Archaeopteryx' had teeth, a long tail, and claws on the wings, which it is claimed, are reptilian characteristics, inherited from a reptilian ancestor. 'Archeaopteryx' did not have reptile like teeth, but teeth that were uniquely bird-like, similar to teeth found in a number of other fossil birds...unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots, while theropod dinosaurs, its alleged ancestors, had serrated teeth with straight roots. Furthermore, it should not be surprising that some birds had teeth, since this is true of all other vertabrates. Some fish have teeth, some do not. Some reptiles have teeth, some do not. Most mammals have teeth, but some do not(baleen whales). The long tail is supposed to be a reptilian feature, but, of course, some reptiles have short tails, while many have long tails. A number of modern birds have claws on their wings." Sunderland also points out, "The tail bone and feather arrangement on swans are very similar to those of 'Archaeopteryx'" in his book Darwin's Enigma. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Well, a lot
of Christians do accept evolution.
That Patterson quote is garbage- utterly worthless. See Patterson Misquoted A Tale of Two 'Cites' to read what the REAL quote says. This is just one example of hundreds of deliberate misquotes which are propigated by unscrupulous creationists. Are you comfortable associating yourself with such dishonest people? The rest of your post is just plain wrong. Here's why. The fossil record demonstrates unambiguously the continuous evolution of life. In the oldest and deepest levels of rock there are found no fossils at all. Above that are found the simplest forms of life- bacterial fossils and invertebrates. Then above that are found vertebrate fish, and above that more complex creatures. Within the strata that contain the most primitive reptiles, you find NO mammal or bird fossils- ONLY reptiles, fish and invertebrates. In the strata that you first find mammals, they are found to be small and rodent-like... NO large modern mammal types can be found. In the strata that contain Archeaopteryx, NO types of modern birds are fossilized. In the level of the Australeopithecene hominids, you can't find any Neandertals. Where you uncover homo erectus, there are NO modern human remains. It is very clear. There are no fossils found that conflict with our understanding of how life evolved over the ages. Sure, we could have more examples of transitions, and I'm all for putting more paleontologists in the field to discover them. But consider this- in the big picture, nearly every species is a transition to another. Crocodiles haven't evolved much in the last 200 million years, but that's rare to find a species so well-fitted that it does not change. In this sense, nearly every fossil ever uncovered represents a transition to another species, accept those species which resulted in extinction. The fossil record mirrors the genetic record. A biblical flood could not have genetically sorted millions of species in this way. Can creationism explain how the biblical flood sorted these creatures into respectively close layers via their DNA? It took humans thousands of years to come up with DNA comparison testing, but it took those muddy violent waters no time at all to sort species after species after species after species, all according to their DNA! Any scientific explanation for this? How about the common sense answer that all the fossils were not laid down in one big flood? Duane Gish is hardly an expert to comment on anything scientific. You should double check everything he says. Take the following examples: "Uniquely bird-like teeth"? Excuse me? As in... which species of bird? Name a species of living bird with teeth, please. Gish just shot himself in the foot with that one. "The long tail is supposed to be a reptilian feature, but, of course, some reptiles have short tails, while many have long tails." Okay, fine, but no living species of bird does have a long bony tail. That's the point! That's why it represents a clear transition. There is no living species of bird that has a long, bony, reptilian-type tail. Anyone who thinks swans have a long bony tail the length of its body similar to Archaeopteryx needs glasses. "A number of modern birds have claws on their
wings." You want to try again? You might research the material you lifted out of a creationist book (or website) a little better next time before wasting your efforts. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Euler Cheung |
Comment: | Dear Sir,
There is a mistake in your title: "Creationism" in www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ce/, NOT "Cretinism"! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The misspelling of "creationism" as "cretinism" is intentional there. See the introduction to E.T. Babinski's Cretinism or Evilution? for the explanation. (Cretinism or Evolution? is a semi-regular newsletter that appears on the Talk.Origins Archive courtesy of Mr. Babinski.) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Saul |
Comment: | Hello!
Very interesting site. I shall now explore what the creationist have to say. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Saul,
That's a great idea! It is very important to get both sides of an argument. You might want to check out the Center for Scientific Creationism's 20 Questions for Evolutionists, and the information of creationist Kent Hovind. Good luck. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In regards
to the popular radiometric dating used to date the age of
the earth, through my reading and studying, I have found
that the radiometric dating methods is full of flaws. For
example, I have read of a man by the name of Dr. Robert
Gentry of the Oak Ridge National Laboratories has found
that the rates of radioactive decay can and has changed in
the past. Radioactive decay rates in crystallized minerals
leaves minute concentric rings of discoloration known as
"radio helo's." Variations in the measures of these ring
diameters clearly indicates that decay rates have not
remained constant in the past. Without an absolutely
constant decay rate, how could one conclude, as many
evolutionists have, that the earth is 4.6 billion years
old?
In addition to radiometric dating, I have also found that when the element uranium decays into lead, which the half-life is around 4.5 billion years, the gas helium is given off. Now with this in mind if the earth is 4.6 billion years old as maintained by evolutionists, then it would be obvious to see that our atmosphere would be saturated with this helium gas being emitted from the decaying of uranium to lead. Since helium cannot escape the earth's atmosphere, then, if this is true, our atmosphere should be saturated with this gas, but its not. So, if our atmosphere is not saturated with this helium gas, then how could the earth be billions of years old with these facts in mind. To me, this is good evidence of the possiblity of the earth being a relatively young planet. In addition to the creation/evolution websites I have given you, I have also found another: |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Wrong on
both counts.
Gentry did not find evidence of variable decay rates. What he did find were halos which he claims are caused by the decay of extremely short lifetime polonium isotopes. But his evidence is ambiguous at best, for several reasons. For one, he is unable to tell the difference between what he calls polonium halos, and halos caused by the decay of radon, which has a much longer lifetime. This is consistent with the observation that his halos always manage to show up only when uranium is around to provide the radon. Gentry's "evidence" is weak and unconvincing, and has no bearing on decay rates even if it were true. See Evolution's Tiny Violences - The Po-Halo Mystery, here in the talk.origins archive; Polonium Halos and Myrmekite in Pegmatite and Granite, and The Geology of Gentry's "Tiny Mystery". Your statement that helium cannot escape from the Earth's atmosphere is a fairy tale. Of course it can, and it does. Helium escapes both by thermal process, as well as ion outflow along polar magnetic field lines. The rate of production and the rate of escape from the atmosphere are known to be in equilibrium. See Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism, O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees; Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) v101(A2): pp2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1). Your link to Creation Science is already in our list of other web sites, under the heading of pro-creationism. Radiometric dating works just fine, and there is no evidence of significant variability in decay rates to affect dating results. I have compiled a radiometric dating resource list, which includes considerable criticism of arguments from young-Earthers, as well as considerable detailed material on how radiometric dating works. I suggest you visit and browse. You might learn something. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I read one of your comments that said creationism doesn't have "science". However, most of the early scientists believed in a sovereign creator. Guys like Sir Isaac Newton, Ben Franklin, Matthew Maury, and numerous others. I believe on both sides you have to accept your belief by faith. No one saw creation, and no one saw us evolve from a rock. How can we say the one is "science" if the scientific method demands observation? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | What is all
this about a rock? Where are these people learning this
theory-- evolution from a rock? Not from us. That is called
a straw man argument, people.
Sure, most early scientists believed in a creator in different forms-- they had no reason not to. They had no plausible alternatives. Benjamin Franklin was a deist who rejected Christianity (as was Thomas Jefferson). You are right- there were many important god-believing scientists who contributed major findings... BUT they did not use their religion in formulating their scientific theories! That part is of the utmost importance. Can you imagine Isaac Newton explaning gravity by vague miracles and by quoting scripture? He knew the difference between science and theology. Creationism does not follow the scientific method. Never has. Why do less scientists believe in a creator now than in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries? Well, back then no one had yet proposed a viable alternative to the creator hypothesis. A satisfactory naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life had not been proposed. The origin of the universe was even a bigger mystery. Things are different now. There are scientists today, even evolutionists, who believe in a creator. So what? If they disregard scientific methodology, and let their prejudices and secret hopes rule over their interpretations of evidence, and use scientific-sounding arguments and fabricated observations to support their biblical literalism, then they are no longer practicing science. But if they remain objective, and accept what the evidence implies, no matter how disconcerting or damaging to their pre-existing theology, then they have maintained their integrity. Evolution has been observed. The mechanisms are well described. No scientific or educational institution doubts the occurrence of evolution (except those with a competing religious dogma to protect). There is every reason to accept evolution, and no good reason to reject it. The fabricated, mistake-filled "evidence" of fundamentalist creationism that is supposed to "overturn evolution" does no damage to evolution, no matter how loudly they shout it. Creationism requires faith because its processes are unknown, and no theory is offered to explain those processes. Evolution requires no faith because its processes are well known. The explanatory theories hold up, time after time. The evidence, both fossil and DNA, appears exactly as we would expect it to, if evolution is true. Creationists, in their egocentric desperation not to be lowered to the level of animals, stick their fingers in their ears and squeeze their eyes tight-- willfully ingnoring what the rest of the world knows to be true. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Great Site!
I have read many comments about the religious beleifs of
scientists, but have yet to see a study to support them. Do
you know of a study which lists the religious beleifs of
scientist and their particular field?
Thanks, Patrick |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | See Nature,
Vol 394, page 313, 23 July 1998. Apparently disbelief in
God among leading scientists surveyed in the National
Academy of Sciences USA is around 65%, rising to 79% among
physical scientists. Mathematicians had the highest rate of
belief in God at 14%. Biologists had the least, and
physical scientists were slightly less agnostic than
biologists. This percentage hasn't changed much since 1914.
However, the authors of the study, and those who preceded them, make the explicit point that "You can clearly be a scientist and have religious beliefs." But they go on to say that you will not likely be a "great" scientist. I think the methodology is flawed, because the questionairre must ask a vague question ("Do you believe in God?", or some similar question) and they are drawing an exact conclusion. It would have been better to ask something that is a little less culturally relative and a bit more unambiguous, but that's just my opinion. The point is that from a purely philosophical perspective, there is no direct contradiction between believing in God and doing science. It is even likely that being a "great" scientist (ie, succeeding) involves having a certain amount of hubris that sits uneasily with American religious traditions. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I'm writing from the creation point of view and a humble and limited scientific knowledge. What i mean is I know enough to base my beliefs, and am still learning. Even so, I'd like to commend the maintainers of this page. I'm doing a research paper on this very subject, so the information posted here is very helpful. I hold to the belief of creation for a number of reasons. Mainly because, of course, a detailed account is given in the Bible. And given that the Bible has been proven correct on a number of areas dealing with some form of science, and because the bible itself has proven reliable in the past, I'm inclined to stick my interest there. I can give a few ex.'s in this limited space. Take for example the issue of the Flat Earth. Long before science proclamed it, the bible depicted the earth as round in a number of places. Another area is sanitation. Procedures recorded in biblical times are such that are standard use today. I could go further, but space limits me. I'd greatly be interested in your response. I don't challenge all the facts I've read, but the clencher is that they could support either side. The question is, which has the most solid backing? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi,
You brought up an important point that has been on my mind recently. You mention your position is based on you beliefs. It seems, based on my experiences with people of you position, that belief implies an unconditional, unquestioning acceptance of specific sources (the bible, and what is told to them by their church leaders and/or creationists). To have strong faith, to accept what you are told without questioning or doubt is hailed as virtuous. To doubt or question is derided as sinful, and you are told that it harms your chances of salvation. (How welcomed would a constantly doubtful, questioning skeptic be in your church?) You (and all creationists) should understand something about the way scientifically-minded people come to accept an idea as true. We accept things as true, not based on an automatic assumption of truth, but after careful consideration of all evidence, weighing all sides of an issue, after skeptical criticism and asking a lot of questions of all positions. In our circles, people who exhibit "blind faith" are regarded as credulous and naive, and those with a healthy dose of skepticism are considered careful and judicious. We think differently, you and I. So, when creationists accuse us of willfully turning our backs on God, we have in fact made an informed decision based on a careful skeptical scrutiny of all the available evidence, and have come to form an honest opinion. Belief for us is not a matter of choice. We don't believe as we will, we believe as we must. I could, for example, proclaim that "I believe everything the bible says", ten times every day, but I would be lying, and any god that did exist would know that. My opinions are not a matter of choice. If you wish to change my opinions, provide the evidence that will do so. What if my understanding of the world is wrong? Well, to quote Ingersoll:
You, self-admittedly, have limited scientific knowledge, and hold to the "belief" of the creation "mainly because, of course, a detailed account is given in the bible." But the bible is not evidence, because it cannot be externally verified. Geology does not support the notion of a worldwide global flood, and an earth age of around 6,000 years. It just doesn't. I would recommend that you increase your scientific knowledge. Question everything, whether evolution or creationism. The bible nowhere supports the idea of a round earth. It speaks several times of situations that can only be explained by a flat earth, such as climbing to the top of a mountain and seeing all the kingdoms of the earth at once. It mentions "circle of the earth", but a circle is not a sphere, and this is based on the Babylonian idea of a flat, circular earth, like a pancake. The bible has many factual errors, is internally inconsistent, and is historically suspect. I don't say this to be aggressive or cruel; it's based on evidence. I don't use evidence to support my position. My position is formed from the evidence. Just like creationism uses [fabricated] evidence to support its biblical position, and evolution is formed from observational evidence. No, the facts don't support both sides. Creationist "facts" aren't facts. They are a bunch of willful misinterpretations and fabrications. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Maxwell |
Comment: | General Administration of this site seems too slow and bureacratic for a site of its calibre. It's like everyone in the commitee is a snob. You don't reply important letters, you review things after a week or two, you update lets say after every 6 months and nothing ever gets done in this place. I don't intend to be rude but who is responsible ? |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | Isochron Dating |
Response: | I'd
recommend that "important letters" be submitted to the
relevant FAQ author(s) directly, as this will result in a
quicker response. Most FAQs on this site have author
contact information. (In my opinion, though, the best of
the feedback submissions are answered; it's the lame ones
that are either edited out or else put in without comment.)
The delay between feedback submission and posting is an unfortunate necessity. Submissions must be held open long enough for several folks to find time to review them and pick out ones matching their expertise/interest. Since these folks are answering feedback in their free time without compensation, it's reasonable to give them a little while to get around to it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Chris Brown |
Comment: | I would like to know what you think about the infamous "Dr. Dino" site. As I was browsing this hilarious site, I noticed him call evolution a "religion." What do you think about this? He also goes on to refute evolution by quoting the scriptures and by taking "time" out of the equation of the theory of evolution (and then describing the evolutionists as crying babies. huh?) I don't understand where he's coming from, do you? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dr. Dino,
a.k.a. Kent Hovind, is well known here.
I think the only ones who understand where he's coming from are him and his followers. You can find out what I (and others who contributed) think by visiting my rebuttal page in progress: The Wild, Wild World of Kent Hovind. It's a hoot. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The
definition of "Creation Science":
An effort by the arrogantly ignorant, to indoctrinate the intellectually gullible, in the mythology of the patently absurd. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | Hmmm...
Permission to use that in the Talk Origins glossary as the official definition? Just kidding. |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | It needs to
be snappier to achieve Wildean wit status. How about
The indoctrination of the gullible, by the ignorant, in the absurd? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I found the
statement below on this site and felt compelled to respond
to it.
"Instead, we are saying that evolution is backed by over a century of observation and experimentation, and that no other theory seems to be consistent with all of the evidence we see. Science does not deal in proof, but in evidence, and the evidence is solidly in favor of evolution as the explanation for the diversity of life on Earth." There are great claims made in favor of evolution on this site. The idea that evolution has more evidence to support it is laughable. It makes great claims without providing the evidence. Only statements that "the evidence exists" and since these statements are made asthough fact, many don't question them. The tone and implication is that if you have a grip on the realities of science, then evolution is obvious. I would like to submit the following evidence and I would be very interested in your reply. Is It Scientific? If a spontaneous beginning for life is to be accepted as scientific fact, it should be established by the scientific method. This has been described as follows: Observe what happens; based on those observations, form a theory as to what may be true; test the theory by further observations and by experiments; and watch to see if the predictions based on the theory are fulfilled. In an attempt to apply the scientific method, it has not been possible to observe the spontaneous generation of life. There is no evidence that it is happening now, and of course no human observer was around when evolutionists say it was happening. No theory concerning it has been verified by observation. Laboratory experiments have failed to repeat it. Predictions based on the theory have not been fulfilled. With such an inability to apply the scientific method, is it honest science to elevate such a theory to the level of fact? On the other hand, there is ample evidence to support the conclusion that the spontaneous generation of life from nonliving matter is not possible. “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task,” Professor Wald of Harvard University acknowledges, “to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.” Not All Scientists Accept It Not all scientists, however, have closed the door on the alternative. For example, physicist H. S. Lipson, realizing the odds against a spontaneous origin for life, said: “The only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject a theory that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.” Chandra Wickramasinghe, professor at University College, Cardiff, said: “From my earliest training as a scientist I was very strongly brainwashed to believe that science cannot be consistent with any kind of deliberate creation. That notion has had to be very painfully shed. I am quite uncomfortable in the situation, the state of mind I now find myself in. But there is no logical way out of it. . . . For life to have been a chemical accident on earth is like looking for a particular grain of sand on all the beaches in all the planets in the universe—and finding it.” In other words, it is just not possible that life could have originated from a chemical accident. So Wickramasinghe concludes: “There is no other way in which we can understand the precise ordering of the chemicals of life except to invoke the creations on a cosmic scale.” As astronomer Robert Jastrow said: “Scientists have no proof that life was not the result of an act of creation.” Yet, even assuming that a first living cell did somehow spontaneously arise, is there evidence that it evolved into all the creatures that have ever lived on the earth? Fossils supply the answer and one of my next posts will consider what the fossil record really says. Evolutionists past and present comment on the origin of life “The hypothesis that life has developed from inorganic matter is, at present, still an article of faith.”—Mathematician J. W. N. Sullivan “The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the unabridged dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop.”—Biologist Edwin Conklin “One has only to contemplate the magnitude of this task to concede that the spontaneous generation of a living organism is impossible.”—Biochemist George Wald “An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle.”—Biologist Francis Crick “If one is not prejudiced either by social beliefs or by a scientific training into the conviction that life originated [spontaneously] on the Earth, this simple calculation [the mathematical odds against it] wipes the idea entirely out of court.”—Astronomers Fred Hoyle and N. C. Wickramasinghe La Velle Goodwin |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I found this
feedback and felt compelled to respond to it.
The constant assertion that evolutionary science falsely claims to have evidence, but only makes statements such as "the evidence exists", is rather disappointing. This is like Mr. Goodwin standing outside on the steps of the main branch of the New York Public Library, and saying "They say they have books in there, and since these statements are made as though fact, many don't question them". Until you actually GO INSIDE, you will never know if there is evidence. Instead of blindly believing in the creationists claim that there is no evidence for evolution, you should question THEIR claim. This goes for everybody who says there is no evidence for evolution (because we get this a lot): On the top AND bottom of every page on the Talk Origins Website, there are links directly to "Browsing" the evidence for evolution, and "Searching" the website on ANY topic... just type in a word. TRY IT SOMETIME. Of course, all of the information on this site is biased, because it is all written by (gasp) scientists... professionals who just happen to be working in fields related to biology. Most of your (long) feedback message is mere parroting of old creationist objections. Did you just buy a book and get fired up? Or did you come across one of their websites? Until you know what research HAS been done, it's rather pointless to throw up baseless objections to it. Such quotes you give are appeals to authority. Since many or most of them are probably quoted from some creationist apologetic like "The Handy-Dandy Evolution Refuter" or "The Collapse of Evolution" or the like, the accuracy of the quotes should immediately be suspect. Creationists are NOTORIOUS for misquoting and quoting out of context. Their quotes always need to be verified. Even if the quotes are accurate, they are the opinions of people. Some of them are rather old, too, and have no bearing on the current state of the sciences. Such opinions provide no facts, no results, no real support for your position, they are merely human biases. Physicist and mathematicians are about as qualified to speak on evolution as a garbage man, (UNLESS they are schooled and familiarized in evolutionary biology and its related sciences). |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Ann |
Comment: | I loved your website i can always find just what i need. you're a life saver!!! This is the ONLY site i could find with anything on creationism. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I would recommend to this and all readers that you make use of the search feature on the Talk Origins Archive. At the top and bottom of every page is the search button. If there is ever anything you need an answer on, that is your quickest route to information. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Hi my names Anthony, I agree with alot of what you present and I don't understand why alot of christians have trouble exepting scientific proof or fact. I'm a loyal christian and I've studied the bible and I find no contradictions with the bible and science.... I believe that some things in the bible are meant to be symbolic. I disagree with there not being a creator because even with gravity the chances are still to high. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Anthony,
The reason why certain "fire and brimstone" type of Christians refuse to accept scientific findings is because they need a literal Adam and Eve to support their notion that all human beings are born totally depraved with Original Sin, and therefore in need of Salvation through Christ-- in fact, that was the whole reason for the crucifixion. If you replace Adam and Eve with Homo Erectus, the idea of the Fall of Man and Original Sin is a little hard to reconcile. As far as the idea of a creator, you are free to believe what you like. But this is not an area for science to enter. You are perfectly entitled to your opinion. Here's mine. To quote Carl Sagan in Pale Blue Dot, p. 57:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | You have a
very interesting site. However your sites does not mention
anything, such as evidence, questions, etc that go against
Evolution. Now to answer my question, I expect it. How does
DNA put itself together? Which evolved first the immune
system or the need for one. Why did the first cells
reproduce, what with, and why is there genders? Why is
there no true recorded evolution taking place today? Why
can we prove Evolution when it is a theory? If it is a
theory than why is it the school system?
Here's another section to answer the "unaswerable" questions. Noah’s ark was built only to float, not to sail anywhere. Many ark scholars believe that the ark was a "barge" shape, not a pointed "boat" shape. This would greatly increase the cargo capacity. Scoffers have pointed out that the largest sailing ships were less than 300 feet because of the problem of twisting and flexing the boat. These ships had giant masts on them and sails to catch the wind. Noah's ark need neither of those and therefore had far less torsional stress. Many animals sleep, hibernate, or become very inactive during bad weather. The large mountains, as we have them today, did not exist until after the Flood when "the mountains arose and the valleys sank down" (Ps. 104:5-9, Gen. 8:3-8). People choose to not believe in the Flood because it speaks of the judgment of God on sin (2 Pet. 3:3-8). Over 250 Flood legends from all parts of the world have been found. Most have similarities to the Genesis story. Noah lived 950 years! Many Bible scholars believe the pre-Flood people were much larger than modern man. Skeletons over 11 feet tall have been found! If Noah were taller, his cubit (elbow to fingertip) would have been much larger also. This would make the ark larger by the same ratio. There is more evidence for a world wide flood: Bent rock layers, fossil graveyards, and poly-strata fossils are best explained by a Flood. Sedimentary rock is found all over the world. Sedimentary rock is formed in water. The flood also explains the lack or evidence of erosion for each sedimentary rock layer. The flood explains the mix matched fossils through out the world. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | DNA does not
put itself together. There's a complex arrangement of other
molecules, such as helicases, gyrases and polymerases that
replicates DNA in a modern (eukaryotic) organism.
An immune system by definition is the system that maintains integrity between the self and non-self. Without a self (that is, an integrated multicellular organism), there can be no immune system. All organisms have some defence mechanisms against predation or parasitism, even single cell organisms, and when multicellular organisms are about, and they evolve, it follows that these mechanisms will be optimized. The first cells reproduced by a process known as fission, that is, dividing down the middle after duplicating all the internal machinery. Genders occur in some single cell organisms (eg, algae and some bacteria). They do this by alternating in the way they contribute genetic material. The need for genders has something to do with the evolutionary stability of the species. Clonal species are short-lived, probably because sex stores more variation than clonal lineages can, and so sexual species can adapt more quickly to environmental challenges. "True" evolution is observed all the time. The most recent nice example is the evolution of luminescent suckers on a deep sea octopus. Happening now at a benthic shelf near you. Why is the theory of electricity taught in schools? Why is the theory of gravity? Why is science (a collection of theoretical explanations) taught at all? Go figure. All these, and the rest of your "objections", are dealt with in the appropriate FAQs on this site. Go to the search button below and type the key words. You'llbe amazed... and educated. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | IF evolution is so true, I would like somebody to explain to me a few things. In Genesis, it states that God took one of man's ribs and made woman. Now, if you count the number of a man's ribs and compare it to that of a woman, you will see that men have one LESS rib than women. My question is, if we really evolved from apes, then how come male apes don't have one less rib AND how come none of the fossils (Homo erectus, "Lucy", etc...) show this variance? My second question is.... Human beings, in fact, are the only mammal in this world who have this "desire" to find out where they came from. No other mammal does this. Why, if we evolved from a common ancestor, are we the ONLY ones who have this desire and, in the line of evolution, where did this desire come from? Third.... I find it absolutely hilarious that "evolutionts" accuse "creationists" as taking the bible too literally. Why is this funny? Well, read many of the articles on the internet by "evolutionists" (For example, "Problems with a Global Flood") and you will see the authors taking Noah's Ark a "little" too literally. They bring up the fact that over 16,000 animals would have had to be brought upon the ark. Come on, do you REALLY think that "all" of the animals that exist today, existed then? Use your brain..... |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Dear
Anonymous,
You admonish us to use our brains, but I would recommend that you do the same... Your first point: You should know that the idea that men have fewer ribs than women is an ignorant myth. That blows the credibility of your whole message. Please do some research. "Humans normally have 12 pairs of ribs, with one pair extending from each of the thoracic vertebra. The vertebrae are the 33 individual bones that comprise the backbone, or spinal column. The upper seven pairs of ribs, called true ribs, are connected to the breastbone by the cartilage at the front of each rib. The remaining five pairs are called false ribs. The upper three pairs of false ribs are attached to the backbone, with each rib connected to the cartilage of the rib above it. The last two pairs of false ribs are called floating ribs because they are attached only to the backbone, and not to the breastbone or any other rib." "Rib," Microsoft® Encarta® Encyclopedia 99. © 1993-1998 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Your second point: Your second point is meaningless. Humans are the only species (that we can confirm) that have the cognitive ability to wonder about our origins. There is no evidence that this cognitive ability occurred by any other means than biological evolution. That we have a desire to know our origins has absolutely nothing to do with either proving or disproving the theory of evolution. Your third point: Such articles as you describe are used to show the absurdity of a literal interpretation of Genesis. That's the point! Those articles are aimed at biblical literalists... if you aren't a literalist, then the article isn't for you. At the current count, there are at least 10 million species on earth. For evolutionists to insist that creationists take into account the loading of a mere 16,000 onto the ark is not an unreasonable demand. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | What is the name of a baby Zebra? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | A Zebrette?
Actually, it's a "foal", just like a horse, since Zebras
and horses are in the same family.
See "Little Creek Exotics: Zebra" for a simple overview, the "Zebra Home Page" for a detailed overview of zebras and links to more detailed information about zebras and other odd-toed mammals can be found from "Odd-toed Hoofed Mammals". Alternatively, do a web search on the term "zebra equus". |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | BB |
Comment: | I believe in creation and evolution. However, evolution I think is confined to micro-evolution (genetic). Macro evolution is a bit too much. To say that a species can become another hasn't happened in the history of man. To say a certain species can mutate into another is a bit far fetched. Mutations don't help a species either. Mutations, being a mistake in the DNA code are hindrances. For a cow to have six legs does not make it a "better" animal. I also have some questions about evolution. Where does beauty fit in? Why are there carnivores? Why didn't they just stay into one animal? Why is there variety? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Your position on evolution is an uninformed one. None of the information you wrote is correct. Your questions show that you are open to finding out- I suggest you try my page Evolution for Beginners, and see if that doesn't clear things up for you. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have read with interest the arguements for both an old (4.55by) Earth and a young (6k) Earth and think the fundamental reason why both are incorrect is that neither group have a very clear,logical and scientifically acceptable theory for exactly how the Solar System (and the Earth) were formed in the first place. If this is clearly understood the fallacies of ALL the arguments for a very old Earth become apparant as do the fallacies for a very young Earth. I believe the theory that I have proposed in my book BEFORE THE FIRST DAY (isbn 1-874367-83-3)is the best theory for the Solar System that has ever been proposed. It answers all the scientific problems but it is not likely to be approved by mainstream science because it also happens to give acceptable scientific answers to ALL the FAQBNA questions directed to creationists. I am a seeker of the truth and believe have found it in science as well as in scripture. But prejudice will probably prevent some evolutionists and some creationists from being open minded enough to accept that the truth can be found in science as well as the Bible. I challenge any evolutionist or creationist to find a single scientific inaccuracy in my book. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
I'll take you up on that. I'll bet I find an inaccuracy within one week of when you send me my copy. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | "Cretinism"
is a thyroid condition. I think you mean "Creationism."
The so called "Theory of Evolution" is NOT a theory at all. Read up on the Scientific method and you will see how a "theory" is formed: 1. Make a hypothesis (put forth your idea) 2. Conduct scientific experiments that support your hypothesis. 3. If you can support your hypothesis with reproducible results, you now have a theory. Note that evolution supposedly takes millions of years, it is impossible to test it. Thus, by definition, you cannot have a theory. You have a religion. To believe in evolution, you must believe blindly, since there is still NO evidence to support its validity. There is, however, volumes to refute it. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | To begin
with, the reader raises a contradiction. The reader says of
evolution, "it is impossible to test it." Yet in the same
paragraph, the reader says that there are volumes of
evidence to refute it. To refute something means of course
that it must be tested and thus testable. Which is it then,
refuted by the evidence or
untestable?
Of course it can be tested. What, precisely, does the reader believe that evolutionary biologists have been doing for the past century? Just sitting in their offices, twiddling their thumbs? No one has witnessed the life cycle of a star. Yet we understand how a star is born, lives, and dies. We know this from looking at millions of stars in various stages, comparing and contrasting them, and applying what we know about physics to the results of our examinations. No one has been inside an erupting volcano. Yet we understand the geologic processes that cause them to form and why some slowly spew forth lava while others explode catastrophically. We know this from examining many volcanoes, both active and long-extinct, looking at the cores of ancient volcanoes whose exteriors have eroded away, and applying what we know about geology to the results of our examinations. Similarly, although no human has lived for millions of years, the processes of evolution leave behind plenty of evidence to be tested. We can compare and contrast the features of living organisms and see that they fall into a nested heirarchy of characteristics. (This was known long before Darwin, by the way.) We can examine the fossil evidence of different ages and see how skeletal structures have changed over time. We now can compare particular DNA sequences and immunologies and fetal development in a variety of creatures. We apply what we know about biology, about genetics, about cell development, and so on, to the results. If the theory of evolution was false, it would have been disproved over a century ago. There were more than enough tests performed and evidence collected by the days of Herbert Hoover, The Great Gatsby, Al Capone, and Prohibition for there to be no significant doubt in biology that the theory of evolution accurately describes the diversity of life on Earth. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I think both "crationists" and "evolutionist" have moved out of the arena of "conventional" science. By definition neither group was present during the events contested. On certain types of authority creationists maintain that the things we see are made, but what adherent of evolutionary theory can demonstrate how the first living cell ever came to be? I mean, there are loads of conjecture and postulation, and plenty of that aimed at people who have to take these matters on faith anyway, but is there anyone who can demonstrate, expeimentally, biogenesis. I was always lead to believe that theory, to be valid, had to be demonstrated by experimentation which could be independantly verified(I'm sure you've heard this all before) I personally have never seen this level of scientific proof in relation to origins. Perhaps there is more going on than meets the eye. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
We don't ask that astronomers re-create supernovas in the lab before crediting them with doing science. (I would hope that they would content themselves with observational techniques.) Evolutionary biology as a field of research is not dependent upon the truth or falsity of abiogenesis. Whether the first self-replicator at the base of the tree of life appeared due to self-organization of chemicals or through direct intervention of an intelligence makes no difference to the history of life that followed. Over time, non-evolutionary creationism becomes more and more like evolutionary biology. The theological principle of plenitude was an early casualty of the fossil record. Plenitude meant that extinction was not a real phenomenon. By the time of Smith and Cuvier, it was apparent that extinction was real. Then there was the principle of special creation, or that each species was the product of a separate creation event. Nowadays, anti-evolutionary creationists adopt some evolutionary change as being consistent with their stance, but only to the point where larger-scale transitions are not overwhelmingly documented. Where "kind" or "baramin" is described, it tends to sound like a "clade" from evolutionary biology. Anti-evolutionary creationists today hold out for a multiplicity of "kinds", but as time goes by, expect to see the number approach the evolutionary asymptote of one. Evolutionary biology includes direct observation of many phenomena. We can see small-scale adaptation happening, such as beak morphology changes in Darwin's finches and antibiotic resistance in bacteria. We can see speciation happen, both in the lab and in the wild. Indirectly, there is evidence of many more phenomena. The fossil record shows that processes of adaptation and speciation took place in the past, as well as providing evidence of higher-level transitions. Sequence comparisons in modern organisms reveals a pattern of relationships that would be expected from common descent. The existence of a canonical genetic code for all life on earth is another strong evidence for common descent. Theologically, if a creator is responsible for the origin and diversity of life on earth, one can make a couple of inferences from the evidence. If that creator did not use evolutionary processes as a method of creation, the creator went to a lot of effort to make the result look just like it was done via evolutionary change. Many people object to such a concept, for such a creator appears to have engaged in deception. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'm really
impressed by this site. I'm a 16 year old in the tenth
grade. I'm writing a term paper on this very subject, and
I've been looking for a good place to get such information.
I'd like to know if, however; during your discussions, you
ever take the Bible into serious consideration. Granted you
may provide valid arguments, but also bear in mind the
Bible isn't just a book full of stories. It's been proven
in the past, through archeology, to have prophesied certain
specific events in history down to a "T". Things like the
rise and fall of Alexander the Great, foretold years, maybe
centuries before it occurred. Even further, the simple fact
that the Bible has survived into our culture speaks
volumes, if you knew how much it went through over the
years. I don't mean to digress, but my point is: Technical
science aside, and applying simple logic, wouldn't one give
the Bible even a little credit that maybe there's more to
it than meets the eye? There are many more examples i could
give, but space limits... Maybe you have taken it into
consideration. I'd really like a response to this and
further questions. Do you consider the bible factual and
include it when you base your opinions? One of many
questions i have.
J. Boykins |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The reader
does us a disservice to think that we haven't
given the Bible much thought. A number of those who have
contributed to this Web site, including those who respond
to these feedbacks, are devout and practising Christians.
Others have invested a good deal of time in the study of
many religions, including the various sects of
Christianity.
One of the primary critiques that I personally have of creationism, in fact, is that it is not just poor science, but also poor theology. Biblical literalism is a relatively recent doctrine in Christianity; certainly it does not reflect what the majority of serious Christian thinkers have espoused over the past two millenia. One must take into account that many events described in the Bible were not put down on paper (or parchment) until sometimes decades or centuries after the fact. Other portions of the Bible are clearly allegorical, and were understood to be so by the people of the times in which the stories were first being told. I invite the reader to undertake a fuller examination of his faith in order to come to a richer understanding of it. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The
publishers of this site are true cowards. Your outdated
information and propoganda is a joke to those of us who
know the truth about evolution and evolutionists radical
truth supressing techniques. I speak in public classrooms
on creationism vs. evolution and you wouldn't stand a
chance agianst me or any 12 year old armed with the FACTS
about evolution conspiracys and lies and the REAL
archeological evidence that has smashed evolution into
atomic sized bits for 150 years. Come out from behind your
one-sided, editing defense shield web site and into the
public arena of a REAL debate, and you will look like the
fools that you are like every single evolutionist that
steps into the ring with creationist armed with the truth.
Evolutionists NEVER win debates in public according to even
the evolutionist side of the audiences. That is one point
in which I agree with Stephen J. Gould. Anyway, just
thought I'd say, "hi" to the side who looses to the truth
in every real debate.
Brad Donaldson |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Debates are not mechanisms of finding truth. For scientific inquiry, scientists rarely engage in debates with each other, and when that is done, it is usually for pedagogy, not as a means of deciding between hypotheses. Objectivity is not a matter of revelation. Humans have wrangled over how to approach objectivity, and in the sciences the preferred mechanism has been publicly disseminated written exchanges, where scholarship and careful evaluation by the community of interested researchers helps in the refinement of techniques and hypotheses. It is a cumbersome and imperfect method, but one which seems to work. Our knowledge is not static, so the issue of timeliness of information is of real concern. Most of the essays in this archive include contact information for the author or authors. Specific criticisms cocnerning outdated material should be brought to the attention of the author of the work in question. Some time ago, I received word that the ICR had corrected some errors in their "Brainwashed" pamphlet that is the subject of one of the essays here. I made sure that the new information got to the author, and that information is now part of the essay. I haven't done a debate on the topic of creationism, but I have presented at a conference concerning naturalism and theism. I readily admit that I am far better at written exchanges than at coming up with just the right phrases on the spot and in real time. I don't view that as a big drawback, though. Being careful and paying attention to details in a written exchange can reveal far more than one can hope to do in a debate format. I invite Brad to come over to the talk.origins newsgroup and try his hand at written exchanges with the evolutionists there. It might make for a nice break from all that talking. I would be interested in learning what Brad thinks about the second Gish-Saladin debate. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Lucy Palmer |
Comment: | Dear T.O. I
am a undergrad reading Zoology in England and I would just
like to thank you for a very interesting and useful
website. I have been involved in a creationist vs.
evolutionist debate with a JW friend for about two years
now and many of the FAQs have given me some good ideas for
future arguments. I've also looked at some of the
creationist websites and it seems that their 'scientific'
ideas range from the faintly plausible to the utterly
ubsurd. Could you recommend any other websites that could
help me refine my arguments?
Keep up the good work. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Just trip on
over to our Other
Links section, where you'll find a staggering array of
links to sites on evolution, creationism, and more.
We are glad you found our site helpful. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | Let's see how you deal with A.E. Wilder-Smith without all your sophistries! |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Last I checked, A.E. Wilder-Smith was dead. If there is some concept that Wilder-Smith left behind that the reader finds of interest for discussion, he should post it to the talk.origins newsgroup. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I find the
evolution and creation issue to be quite fascinating.
Although, I am in agreement with the young earth model. The
reason being is that for example, when you have the
radioactive element Uranium, which decays into lead, while
this process is going on, helium gas is given off in the
process. Now if the age of the earth is 4.6 billion years
as foretold by evolutionists then how come the present
atomosphere is not saturated with this helium gas? Since
helium can't escape the earth's atmosphere, it would simply
accumulate and a billion years is a sufficent amount of
time for the helium gas to build up. Since there is not an
over-abundance of helium gas in the atmosphere, this would
be pretty good evidence for a young earth.
Thanks for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field |
Response: | Helium does
escape from Earth's atmosphere; all of the atmospheric
gases can escape. Helium does so more efficiently than most
because it is lighter. It has been argued by some
creationists that there is not enough helium in the
atmosphere for an old Earth, because it escape
inefficiently. But their analysis is poorly done, and
ignores the escape of ionized gas along magnetic field
lines. See the attached abstract for the paper by
Liesvendsen & Rees. Their model shows clearly that once
ionization is taken into account, a balance equilibrium
between helium into and out of the atmosphere is easily
obtained.
Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism By O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees Journal of Geophysical Research (Space Physics) 101(A2): 2435-2443 (1996 Feb 1) Abstract: We have computed global He+ escape fluxes for a range and a variety of diurnal, seasonal, universal time, and solar activity geophysical conditions. We average over the short-term variables and compute the globally averaged escape flux for a range of cutoff latitudes, which separate regions of open and closed field lines, during one solar cycle. The global escape flux averaged over a solar cycle was computed, and we find that a cutoff latitude of about 60 degrees or lower is sufficient to balance the outgassing from the Earth's crust. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I read much
of your article entitled "Introduction to Evolutionary
Biology" I would like to quote this article briefly. "Some
biologists feel the ..." "Others think the ..." "Many
biologists think speciation is key..." "Other biologists
think major evolutionary change can ..." "Some biologist
believe species are programmed..." "The K/T event was
probably caused..." "The first replicationg molecules were
most likely RNA." Then you follow up all these proven facts
with an attack on the theory of Special Creation.
"So-called 'scientific' creationists do not base their
objections on scientific reasoning or data." You stated
that "scientific creationists do not have a testable,
scientific theory to replace evolution." I appologize for
not being a scientist, but what is the testable scientific
proof for evolution as a theory of origins?
I am willing to submit to you a testable theory to replace evolution. God created space, time, matter and all forms of life in 6 days. On the seventh day, he created the first law of thermodynamics. Later, when sin entered the world, he created the second law of thermodynamics. Since that time, there has been no changes in speciation. Test this theory. Show me the error of my ways. You can contact me by email at keithcox@goodnews.net Thank you for your time. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Sure,
biologists think certain things. What makes them think
these things? Evidence, experimentation, and existing
knowledge. Much of what we know as evidence for evolution
can only be realistically interpreted one way- as descent
with modification. To be blunt, the "testable scientific
proof for evolution" that you request probably is beyond
your capability to understand it, unless you have had 10 to
12 years of college biology and geology. Part of the
difficulty in getting evolution across to the public is
overcoming this obstacle- putting evolutionary science in
terms that most average people can understand.
The testable evidence for evolution fills this website. Click the button at the top of the screen that says browse, and start browsing. You submit a testable theory to replace evolution? How is any of that stuff testable? If you can't test something, you must accept it on faith, and then it is not science in any sense of the word. Where is your physical evidence of your so-called theory? You have, in fact, done no better at providing a creation theory than all the creationists since the beginning of history. Plus, creationists use those phrases just as much, if not more, than evolutionists.
Except when creationists use such conditional phrases, they don't bother to state the evidence that leads them to those conclusions... maybe because there isn't any?? So criticizing real scientists for the use of phrases like that is inappropriate if creationists can do the same thing, with a total lack of accountability. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Evolution has never and will never be fact. Evolution is just a theory from scientist who think that was how the earth was created. I have one question, if things did just happen and evolved why aren't things evolving know. The earth is so uniqe and so perfectly made there is NO WAY that it could of just happened. The real creater is God Almighty, now lets give him the praise he deserves for creating this beautiful earth. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi Victoria.
I understand that subjects like biology, geology and the like can be very complicated and technical, and sometimes pretty boring too. Reading up on these topics can seem like too much to handle. Talk Origins attempts to be brief and simple, but sometimes it too can be too complicated for the average reader. You might try my web page, Evolution for Beginners. It has very little technical terminology, and is written for the high-school level reader in mind. |