Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In my mind the theory of macroevolution is far from proven in that the fossil record is almost void of any substantial evidence.Common sense leads me to believe that if macroevolution was taking place, the fossil record would be rich with proof,instead we find only rare and debatible fossils.Maybe we should spend less time conjuring theories and more time examining the evidence. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | In your mind... okay. So, you are a paleontologist who has thoroughly examined the fossil record and come to the conclusion that it contains no evidence of speciation? Are you aware of the evidence of transitional fossils at all? Or did you just accept what some creationist, lying to save souls, wrote in a book or on a website? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I enjoy this
website very much. I have some creationist acquaintances
and love arguing with them. I get many of the arguments
that I use from this site.
I would be interested in getting your opinion on something that occurred in my son’s High School biology class. The teacher had the students participate in a formal debate over the creationism-evolution issue. My son, who believes in evolution, was chosen, despite his objections, to lead the creationist arguments. Somewhat to his chagrin, and to mixed emotions on my part, his side won the debate (his team’s major point being, somewhat predictably, the ‘absence of transitional fossils’). I think that the debate was a good idea - I even helped my son prepare his side of the debate. However some people would feel that allowing creationist ideas into the classroom, even to this extent, is a mistake. What do you think? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | All that is
science should be allowed in a public school science
class. This includes creationism... that is, if they
had any science. But if they do, I have never seen it.
The idea that there are no transitional fossils is as false as saying there are no fossils at all. Your son won his debate with a lie. Similarly, the rest of creationism's anti-evolutionary agenda is equally devoid of facts. This situation was, sadly, a creationist ploy to slip religion into your son's science class. They apparently succeeded. It would have been different had the creationist side presented positive support for special creation... but they have none. Had they gone in with the Vapor Canopy hypothesis, your son's creationist side would surely have lost. But since they come in with only negative arguments, attacking evolution with lies, is the outcome really any surprise? Also, do you think the students came up with all these creationist arguments by themselves? If you feel inclined towards activism, you might contact the teacher, principal, superintendent and school board (in that order), to inquire about this situation. You might also contact the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) representative in your area. This was an intrusion into the public school system by Fundamentalist Christianity, and has succeeded in eroding those kids' confidence in real science. I see it as a tragedy. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just wanted
to say thanks for the easy access to LOADS of info on
evolution, creationism and the argument between the two. I
regularly participate in an internet creation/evolution
debate on another site, and have found your site invaluable
for providing references and information to back up
arguments. Your site is so often quoted and so thorough
that the creationists have taken to demanding it not be
used as a reference due to its "bias." I've already
discovered that a search for information on evolution or
creation in any good search engine will yield results at
least 50% of which are pages on your site, so I'll have to
continue using it as a reference.
I have only found one question your FAQ's do not answer. There is a species of sea slug which feeds on the anemone and is unharmed by the anemone's explosive poison barbs. In fact, the slug digests the unexploded barbs and passes them outward to its skin, where it uses them for its own defense. The creation camp insists such a mechanism could not have evolved, and I have been unable to find any evolutionary thought on the subject. Once again, kudos on an outstanding site. Philip Barbee |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Thanks for the kind words. As to "bias", the archive is careful to state precisely what viewpoint is stored here. In addition, the archive's list of links is extensive and includes a large number of links to anti-evolutionary sites. One might ask those who claim "bias" to substantiate an actual and specific inaccuracy, and also to compare and contrast the number of links their own preferred WWW sites make to sites giving opposing viewpoints. I think that you will find thatyour correspondents will do quite poorly in responding to both questions. I have discussed the "sea slug" example before. See my post at DejaNews for discussion and some references. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am neither
a creationist (as in 6days), nor an evolutionist.
It is inevitable to any mind, both versed in Science and Scripture, to come to such a conclusion. Firstly, evolution has failed to explain all the gaps in the fossil record. They had to come up with a "Punctuated Equalibium" theory to explain these ubiquitous holes. (When the climate changes, then, suddenly, the species modify their own DNA to adapt--usually in 10 to 20 generations.) We Christian would call that creation or God; evolutionist call it _______, well don't really know, but would like to gloss over that one. One the other hand, it baffles me as to why would any Christian take Gen 1 and 2 any more literally than Daniel or Revelation. Did the cows in the king's dream that Daniel interpret actually eat eachother? No. Likewise, Genesis , also, had to be prophesy because Man wasn't here on the planet during creation. Most prophecy was given in parables; Jesus spoke in parables--because he wanted man's heart, not just the mind. Jesus could have come to earth and given man the knowlege of germs, saving billions of lives, instead he taught love and faith in one person at a time. That childlike faith, hope and love is the key to mankind's survival Genesis is a parable telling us that 1. Creation was "willed" into being by something more pervasive than this reality (There were many geological periods before man--who represents a small percent the spectrum of history.). 2. woman and man need eachother--are superior to animals--also, females (from man rib, close to the heart)are really one flesh with man 3. in the garden man was ONE with god all was in harmony, but man learned to become materialist --thus became more intelligent--thus was able to destroy the planet and fell out of sync with God and the creator 4. the second tree in the garden was Jesus, and faith in him, would make man One once again with God and creation--Because Jesus took on himself the sins of mankind. www.bigshoestofill.com |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
I only wish to comment upon the mention of the theory of Punctuated Equilibria made by the reader. The description given above is a caricature that is false in many respects. I suggest that those interested in learning more about Punctuated Equilibria will visit my PE FAQ and read the original papers that I reference there. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Here are a few questions and comments: (1) How did these ice sheets 'advance and recede' over flat ground or uphill? Ice only advances (flows) downhill. (2) Concerning humans living contemporaneously with dinosaurs: Have you ever noticed the legends concerning dragons? What do European depictions of dragons look like? What do Chinese dragons look like? ...um... can you say dinosaurs? How could Europeans and Chinese 'imagine' and revere similar and amazingly dinosaur-like creatures? (3) Considering that thousands of exhaustive studies have turned up no convincing evidence that a BEHAVIOR learned by a parent organism can become encoded in the genetic material it passes on to its descendants; how then do certain survival skills necessary for 'selection' thrive when a parent is lost? (4) How does 'evolution' arrive at such creativity for land vertibrates and yet restrain itself to those with four legs? This design may be optimal for running on land, but that would not explain why fish also have four limbs, or fins. (5) Many have disputed that there wasn't enough time for evolution to take place. How much time would it take for a fish-like creature to evolve from being an ocean dweller to become a land-vertibrate and then return to the ocean, such as whales and dolphins? (6) How does 'evolution' and 'natural selection' account for the strange occurance of marsupial versions of dogs, mice, flying squirrels, etc. which are otherwise very similar to their placental cousins? (7) According to Jan. 1999 issue of Discover scientists have found evidence for a deluge of some sort occuring in the Black Sea approximately 7,500 years ago. Their assumption is that the melting of glaciers caused the Noah's Flood myth. This begs the question; why are there HUNDREDS of very similar global flood stories from around the world, but NO stories relating huge, advancing, earth-smothering glaciers? This is only a sampling of questions of those who dispute current explanations given by scientists. More questions abound concerning recent discoveries in cosmology and physics. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | 1) Perhaps
one of the geologists around here can answer that. Glaciers
apparently do advance and receed, regardless of hill or
valley. So what?
2) It is rather irrational to conclude that different reports of dragons indicate contemporary existence of dinosaurs, when a far more reasonable explanation is that people all over the globe have unearthed their huge skeletons. The discovery by primitive people of dinosaur skulls and bones is the explanation. 3) This question indicates that you don't know how natural selection works. True, behavior learned by a parent does not become encoded by the genes. Certain learned behavior in say, primates, MUST be passed on by the parent directly to the offspring by teaching. BUT certain behaviors are not learned, but are a result of "brain wiring". These behaviors are subject to selection- gazelle that leap when they run are more likely to survive and leave more offspring than those that do not leap when they run- hence after a time all gazelle will leap when they run. Gazelle do not "teach" this behavior to their young-- it is "hard-wired" in the brain. A gazelle separated from it's mother will leap anyway. 4) Strange you should ask that question... the fact that all land vertebrates have (or had) 4 legs is one of the indicators that all land animals evolved from a single vertebrate species that came out of the ocean. Thank you for pointing that out. 5) Rather a pointless question. It may have taken 50 million years, or 150 million years, I don't really know. I could look it up if I was interested enough. But I'm not. The point really is, with those who dispute that there isn't enough time for evolution to take place, is that they claim the world is less than 10,000 years old-- a blatantly ludicrous and unsupportable notion. Whatever the length of time it took, it clearly happened, and there is plenty of time during the duration of the earth's existence for it to occur. 6) It accounts for it by the simple fact that nature is parsimonious (works economically), and that similar body plans are likely to arise in similar circumstances throughout the world. But why would a supremely ingenious designer make marsupial and placental versions of the same type of creature? 7) Glaciers are slow, creeping things... not the sort of terrifying, catastrophic event that makes for a good flood myth. There are indeed hundreds, if not thousands of flood myths from around the world. But they are all different, some so different that they cannot be connected at all to the Noachian flood. And then there are the notable absences of flood myths from major cultures-- Chinese and Egyptian, for example. A global flood never happened. This so-called "sampling of questions of those who dispute current explanations given by scientists" represents the kind of non-scientific, not-so-well-thought-out thinking that forms the basis of creationism. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I think that your title is quite misleading. You cannot claim that you are "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" when you are working with a biased approach. Maybe you should hire some actual creationists, not an occasional one who misquotes or repeats incorrect data. Someone like Steve Grohman. I hope you have looked into something like that. Creationism includes no more faith than evolutionism. Take some advice from your collegue Eugenie C. Scott, who wrote in his article "Monkey Business" from The Sciences, January/February 1996, "If your local campus Christian fellowship asks you to 'defend evolution' please decline...you probably will get beaten." He is not alone. Why haven't you accepted Ken Hovind's challenge? Why don't you debate him? If you are so sure that you are right, why don't you have the guts to debate him? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | First,
Eugenie Scott is a woman, not a man. Second, the
implication seems to be that Dr. Scott is saying that
evolution can't be defended and creationists have better
arguments. The article that you cite makes it quite clear
that that is not her position.
As for Kent Hovind's challenge, I have already written a detailed examination of his offer and shown why it is a fraud, in response to a feedback letter last September. I will reprint it here: First, to the issue of Mr. Hovind's $10,000 challenge for anyone who can "give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution". There are many such challenges that circulate among creationists; all are cleverly worded so as to avoid any possibility of having the challenge met. Of all of the monetary challenges of this sort I have seen, Hovind's is the most blatantly unmeetable. To begin with, he defines "empirical" as "relying or based solely on experiment and observation rather than theory". And rather than defining evolution as biologists define it, he adds several superfluous and even irrelevant statements to the definition. He ends up with the following definition of evolution: 1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Matter created life by itself. 3. Early life forms learned to reproduce themselves. 4. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms It is clearly impossible to offer empirical evidence - that is an expirement or observation - that shows that "time, space and matter came into existence by themselves" or that "matter created itself out of nothing". The event is over and cannot be observed, nor can the creation of matter be reproduced in a laboratory expirement. Historical science rests on inference, not direct observation. To make things worse, Hovind sets up an incredibly absurd standard by which to judge such evidence even if it could be offered. He says that in order to collect the $10,000, one must "prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the process of evolution (option 3 below) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." He reinforces this in his challenge when he states, "As in any fair court of law, the accuser must also rule out any other possible explanations." So not only must one show evidence for this invalid definition of evolution, one must prove that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE way it could have happened. I would suggest that there is no statement that could be made about any historical event whatsoever that could even hypothetically meet such an inflated and nonsensical standard of proof. Gravity cannot be shown to be the "only possible" way that the planets stay in their orbits - it is of course possible that they are held in their orbits by angels, devils or invisible orange leprauchans. There is ALWAYS a hypothetical alternative that can be offered to any proposition. Lastly, he provides no details on who the "committee of trained scientists" are that would judge this pointless effort should someone be foolish enough to take him up on it. In short, Hovind's money is quite safe - he designed the challenge to insure that this would be the case. I would gladly make a one million dollar challenge to Mr. Hovind if he could prove ANY historical claim within the boundaries of such criteria. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just read
some of the comments, and you write that there are NO
fossils found out of order. But I thought it was a
well-known fact that fossil records are OFTEN found out of
order, and in fact top paleontologists agree that it is so!
Humor me!
cheers, John Toh |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Here's the
problem, John.
You wrote: "I thought it was a well-known fact that fossil records are OFTEN found out of order, and in fact top paleontologists agree that it is so!" What makes you think it's a well-known fact? You read that information from the likes of Henry Morris, Kent Hovind, and the hoard of other popular creationists, who do no research of their own, but simply read each others' books and material. I won't humor you. I ask you for proper scientific references to support your assertion that fossils are OFTEN found out of order, and that "top paleontologists" agree that it is so. What you might find, if indeed you are brave and studious enough to check, is that there are no such instances or expert's statements. It is yet another example of a creationist falsehood that has been perpetuated. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | We may change by growing older and taller but please how do you get us from changing from a little organism. I've herd we come from monkeys. If so how come monkeys are not changing now. they start as a monkey and die as a monkey. Read the bible and get your answers there. One of these days you will ALL meet your creater. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | One of these
days you will meet a spell-checker.
Seriously, you are asking us for the entire history of life from micro organisms to human beings. That is a bit too much information for the Feedback section to handle. You can find it throughout this website, by clicking the "Browse" button. You might also try my site for the scientifically impaired. A few things that might surprise you: Humans did not evolve from monkeys. We don't know that monkeys aren't changing now... they probably are. Evolution does not stop, because environments are in a state of continuous change, and DNA is subject to genetic drift. Also, individual organisms do not evolve- you are right that they remain as they are born; but species do evolve. Something else that may surprise you: many of us have indeed read the bible, and some of us are Christians. I hope you will read up on the subject and find out just how solid it actually is. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am responding to the survival of diseases during the flood. Diseases could have survived in the animals and also in the men and women who were aboard the Ark. They would have been immune. When Europeans came to colonize America they brought their diseases. The Europeans were immune and the native Americans were not which caused the death of thousands of the natives. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I'm afraid
the reader has confused me. If, as the creationists say,
there was a global flood killing off everything but Noah
& Co., and if, as the reader says, the Ark occupants
were immune, then who could they have transmitted the
diseases to? In other words, who are the "native Americans"
in this scenario?
(Not to mention the problem of who had the tapeworms.) |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is a problem in evolution which has bothered me for some time. Why isn't evolution being observed in the present with living transitional fossils. Shouldn't the "missing links" for each species still be alive? It seems that there are not any credible transitional species or fossils - how can that be if you say that evolution is still occurring? Shouldn't the species that humans evolved from still exist? If evolution is occurring now, it seems only logical that those transitional creatures (Homo erectus, etc) would exist now. There isn't even fossil evidence for them. (You know that Lucy was a hoax - the knee joint proving her to have walked upright was found over 2 miles away from the main fossils in a different strata 200 feet below.) I would appreciate answers to these questions, as well as this one. Where in the world does the entire geological column of strata exist in the world outside of textbooks (Lyell's diagram)? I was informed that the Grand Canyon only has about three different strata. Thank you. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It isn't a
problem in evolution. Evolution IS observed in the present
with living species. People hear the word species and think
"lions, tigers and bears." But species can be fruit flies,
or daffodils. Look at Observed Instances of
Speciation, and Some
More Instances of Speciation.
And NO, the "missing links" (transitionals) for each species SHOULD NOT still be alive. No, the species that humans evolved from should not still exist. You need to get your facts straight. Lucy is not a hoax. That is a falsehood perpetuated by creationists, who think it is okay to lie in order to "save souls". Look at A Creationist Exposed, Missing Supernova Remnants as Evidence of a Young Universe? A Case of Fabrication and Creationist Whoppers. As to your strata claims, they're just nonsense. You were lied to. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I more or less accidentally blundered into this site, was momentarily interested in the possibility of an informative and intellectual content, read a half dozen previews replete with innuendo, pejoratives, emotional bravado, etc., and decided to leave forthwith. No bloody wonder students in droves are voting with their feet AGAINST the "orthodox" sciences. Most of those who challenge orthodoxy are able to do so with polite and methodical reasoning. Meanwhile orthodoxy enlists the aid of Randy the Magician to bulwark its case... when emotionality seems insufficient. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: |
Here's a sample of the "polite and methodical reasoning" employed by Ted Holden, who is prominently mentioned in the page last accessed by the reader.
-- Ted Holden |
From: | |
Response: | I just had
to insert something here. Science is not "orthodox". It is
a consensus of educated opinion based on examination of
physical evidence and test results. It is repeatable,
predictable, and in accordance with established laws of
physics. It is guided by reason and experience.
There is only science, and non-science. There is no "orthodox" science and "unorthodox" science. If students leaving science in "droves", then they are heading toward psuedoscience and "new agism", with which you are apparently acquainted. James Randi's efforts are to impose genuine scientific conditions on the claims of mind readers, spoon benders and other supernatural claptrap. If his million dollar reward is not sufficient to make them submit their "powers" to scientific tests, what will? |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | If you are going to try to print FACTS, print facts not lies. The NEbraska man was proven in the lab to be a pigs tooth, not a human tooth. Get your facts straight and quit printing lies. By the way, since you believe in evolution, why do we have laws in the United States. Evolution teaches that there should be no laws. Therefore, everyone should be able to kill each other. RIght? Only the strongest shall survive? I don't think so. Read the bible. All your answers are in there. Quite wasting your time looking for something that is not there. THe "evolution" religion. One of us is right. We'll see who is in the end. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Did you
actually read the
article?? Or are you just parroting what you read
from the scientifically-illiterate creationist literature?
No one lies here.
I don't know where you get your information, if you think that evolution teaches that there should be no laws. More emotional creationist claptrap to scare their followers with. You should start reading some correct, honest and scientific material, not creationist propaganda, which is none of the above. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | There is
evidence of white moths turning into black moths, but that
doesn't explain how the moth could have evolved in the
first place. To say that the fossil record is in tune with
Darwinism isn't true.Let's start with the Cambrian
Explosion. A smooth stasis of prokaryotes and eubacteria,
then at about 600 million years ago...BOOM! 15 to 20
fully-formed hard- shelled fossils.(Why am I not suprised
to not find that in the report?)No transitions.Looks more
like saltation(a biological impossibility).If the fossil
record is so much in tune, why are evolutionist like David
Raup, curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in
Chicago stating: "We are now about 120 years after Darwin
and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly
expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil
species, but the situation hasn't changed much. . . . We
have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we
had in Darwin's time." I read that in 1953, the Piltdown
man was declared a fake. If a skeleton can be created, I'd
be interested to know how real the other skeletons
are.Pithecanthropus erectus "evolved" from a femur, three
teeth, and a skullcap found fifty feet away. I'm not
impressed.An yet its these skeletons that are pushed onto
us as all the "proof" of evolution we need.Me thinks there
is an unscientific zealousness to prove evolution,
regardless of no real empirical data. Is there any fossils
of grown giraffes with short necks.How about fish with
feet?I think the real nail in the coffin comes from Micheal
Behe's "Darwin's Black Box." There is absolutly NO WAY for
a complex organ to gradually evolve, such as the eye.
I'm not writing this to ridicule evolution,because there IS a piercing logic to it. I can understand why someone would BELIEVE in it,but there is NO EMPERICAL EVIDENCE FOR IT. Therefore you have no basis to ridicule beliefs that have more scientific standing then your own. It's purely philosophical, and is only dead fat added to real information. Don't use the structure or the overall broadness of this letter as an ideal example of how dense the creationists knowledge of evolutionists is, because I'm only a laymen who finds it hard to believe that colorful imaginary illustration, vauge imaginative stories(used to unconvincingly explain away the immense difficulties and impossibilities of a pure chance theory), and unscientific eagerness to adopt by bigname scientists is all I need to have pure confidence in an outrageous theory that requires outrageous proof.(Which there was none provided.) -------I'll end this letter with an authority that's much higher then my own. Romans 1:18-25, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yes, it
does. The same process that makes a white moth a black
moth, in tens or hundreds of years, transforms a non-moth
into a moth after a few million years. You should have a
look at my
Evolution for Beginners Page.
The fossil record does indeed support evolution. In fact, there is no other rational explanation for the fossil record. The flood hypothesis surely does not work. Click on the seach button at the top or bottom of your screen and type in "Cambrian Explosion" and please get educated. As far as the quotation from David Raup, please state the source. One must be extremely careful in accepting any quotation offered by a creationist, as they routinely lie, fabricate and twist, as I myself discovered. Also see Creationist Arguments: Misquotes for more creationist misquotes. If Raup says the following (1983, p.157) it is unlikely that he said or meant what you claim. "[t]he practicing paleontologist is obliged to place any newly found fossil in the Linnean system of taxonomy. Thus, if one finds a birdlike reptile or a reptilelike bird (such as Archaeopteryx), there is no procedure in the taxonomic system for labeling and classifying this as an intermediate between the two classes Aves and Reptilia. Rather, the practicing paleontologist must decide to place his fossil in one category or the other. The impossibility of officially recognising transitionary forms produces an artificial dichotomy between biologic groups. It is conventional to classify Archaeopteryx as a bird. I have no doubt, however, that if it were permissible under the rules of taxonomy to put Archaeopteryx in some sort of category intermediate between birds and reptiles that we would indeed do that." As far as Piltdown Man, for the thousandth time, it was evolutionary scientists, not creationists, that uncovered that unscrupulous hoax. Science weeds out mistakes and frauds. For Pithecanthropus, see Creationist Arguments: Java Man. The necessary rebuttal is far too extensive to include in feedback. What is typical here is that you throw out statements like "what about giraffes with short necks" as if you think that is a problem. If you were truly interested in finding out (which you obviously are not), you would have done a simple search. Here is the answer, found by clicking the search button and typing in "giraffes": Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe. I'm tempted to say quit wasting our time, and find out for yourself, but I won't. Micheal Behe's book is a worthless argument from incredulity, and is dealt with in several places, such as Behe's Empty Box. There is overwhelming evidence for evolution. The fact is that most of it is not easily accessible or understandable to the general public. Fortunately, there is the Talk Origins Archive. But you must do the research. I snipped your long bible quote. People can look it up for themselves. This is not a theology website, and there are many Christians who support and research evolution. And I don't need to be told again how wicked I am for accepting what reason tells me. The implication of that passage is completely false, naive and insulting. If you wish to discuss it, email me, and I can be more candid. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | your evolution theory does not make sense. not one bit. why is it not happening now? for example, why dont people in colder regions grow thick coats of fur to keep warm? also, if nothing created the existing man and all of the universe, where did it come from? how did it get here? and if you say the big bang, could i put dynamite in a forest and make a house? if you say it cannot happen then you are also saying that what you beleive cannot happen, because the dynamite in the woods theory has more variables than your big bang and evolution theory. your theory adds up to nothing. the original darwinian theory was that if a flock of certain birds migrated to another island or region and they had to change what they ate or where they made nests. the enviroment around you does change how you act, eat, speak, live, and everything, but it does not make you grow wings....."truth is not what you believe, but what is real." you cannot prove that evolution is real. in no possible way. how long will you live a lie and believe trash that cannot add up or make sense? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hi there
Kasey,
If the theory of evolution does not make sense, then perhaps you might try browsing through this website. Why do you think evolution is not happening now? It is. Are you aware that it takes a LONG time for evolutionary changes to manifest themselves in long-lived species (like large mammals)? You won't see any humans growing thick fur coats in cold regions (not unless you live 100,000 years). But humans don't need to evolve fur because we can wear coats and live in warm houses, so there is no selective pressure to have fur. We won't die without it. This, and the rest of your whole post, indicates that you don't know enough about evolution to be arguing against it this way. You are wrong about the original darwinian theory, and wrong about the modern theory. You need to do some research. It must feel good knowing how right you are, and that tens of thousands of scientists and professors are all wrong... how'd you do that? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The flat-earth society is full of moronic deluded misguided individuals. Do these people not see pictures we have taken from space. I mean, what the hell do these peple think that is; a big superball or a piece of cheese. And how do they explain that when you travel east, there will always be more earth? You cannot reach the end. And if the moon is only 32 miles across, how did astronauts travel over 100 miles from there landing craft? It's not a government conspiracy. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | We agree with you completely. You should take down their address and relay your opinions to them directly. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | All of the questions that you have posed to creationist have been answered. Most were answered many years ago. I am surprised that you havent ask the old evolutionist standby "Where did Cain get his wife?" which has been answered a million times. The problem is that you and other evolutionist are not listning. Do you really believe that you can stump informed creationist by asking rehashed questions or are you attempting to decieve young or uninformed people into thinking that creationist do not have any answers. If this is not the case then you are simply unaware of what the creationist have been saying all these years. Evolutionist many times present themselves as scientists and evolution as science when in fact they are philosophers and evolution does not even qualify as a scientific theory by sciences own standards. Evolution is not an intity. It has no substance and therefore no creative force. It has to be randomness so it is not a process. What is it then? It is mans attempt to muddy the waters about God. It is the atheist religion. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Hmm... then
what did all the carnivores eat when they got off the ark,
besides all the herbivores?
I think the best way to answer this one is by letting others do so. "Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible often not really meaning what it says." J.S. Bullion Jr. "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says; he is always convinced that it says what he means." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950) "No theory is too false, no fable too absurd for acceptance when embedded in common belief. Men will submit to torture and death, mothers will immolate their children [for] beliefs they accept." Henry George (1839-1897) "Every religion has for its foundation a miracle -- that is to say, a violation of nature -- that is to say, a falsehood. No one, in the world's whole history, ever attempted to substantiate a truth by a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of miracle. Nothing but falsehood ever attested itself by signs and wonders. No miracle ever was performed, and no sane man ever thought he had performed one, and until one is performed, there can be no evidence of the existence of any power superior to, and independent of nature." Robert G. Ingersoll |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | The concept
of god having a sense of humour was nicely done.
What I think is another topic for exploration is whether fundamentalists also have a sense of humour. In my humble opinion, they tend to be less open to humour in most forms. Could there be a connection between having little or no sense of humour and embracing the tenets of fundamentalism? Just wondering! Yours truly, |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Lack of
humor in creationists specifically or fundamentalists
generally has been an off-and-on topic of discussion in talk.origins for a number of
years now. My personal view on the subject is that one
can't be a zealot and have a sense of humor. Perhaps more
fundamentalists tend to be zealots than some other groups,
but Lord knows they're certainly not the only ones. One can
find zealots and humorless people of all stripes.
I personally know fundamentalist believers who are also riotously funny, so it's hard to generalize, but fundamentalism--and this is true of other religious categories, not just Christianity--tends to attract those who see the world in black-and-white, "you're either for us or against us" terms. Showing any sign of dissent, which humor often requires, puts the jokester in the "against us" slot. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Some
creatinists, particularly Phillip Johnson in this case,
concede that the Scopes Monkey Trial was not as it is made
out to be. He makes such claims that it was a mock trial to
put Dayton, Tennessee on the map. I've also heard similiar
comments, and at one timed traced it back to a single
publication however I no longer know what that was. Do you
know the facts of this case differ at all from what society
believes(not what the creationists believe), and do you
have anything to say about trying to change history if the
case doesn't? I have looked for a non-creationist
historical standpoint on the web, but have found none.
THANKS |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Check out my draft Scopes' Trial FRA. Ray Ginger documents the boosterism and rivalry between Dayton and Chattanooga as it relates to the Scopes' trial in "Six Days or Forever?" Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You evolution people are ugly |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
It's the price we pay for being right, I guess. Care to discuss some evidence? If so, I'll see you on the talk.origins newsgroup. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | Only some of us are ugly (Wesley - very noble of you to self-identify). Some of us are incredibly handsome and witty. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Life is a test of faith and what you believe! Why did God create us? Because we are his children and he is our father. We are here to be stewards of his creation and to fullfill his commands. We are able to know him by trusting what he has said to us in the Bible. This Bible is our operating manual for life for all of us to live by, obey the commands, and acknowledge him as creator and Lord of our lives. How do we know there is a God who created us? Look at the world around you and all its complexities. Our bodies and the many things that science can not explain! I don't understand how anyone can beleive that this world we live in just happend to come togather by chance. It takes more faith to believe in man's theory of evolution than to believe in an ALL MIGHTY GOD that created us and this world we live in! |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Science is
not a test of faith. Science is about the
confirmation of a theoretical model through the observation
of physical evidence and experimentation. This has nothing
to do with faith.
Nothing you wrote has any bearing on the theory of evolution. The following information comes from religioustolerance.org:
So, 49% of Americans accept the theory of evolution as fact. The great majority of them are Christians. In light of this, your message is misdirected. Your statement that it takes more faith to "believe" in evolution than in God is false. Evolution does not need belief. It has evidence. Why should we have faith that gravity will hold us to the earth? We should not. Your statement indicates that you do not know enough about evolution. You might take a look at Evolution for Beginners. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I think you did a horrible job of disproving the arguement by antievolutionists that there is no proof of macroevolution. The "claims" of synthesists certainly cannot be interchanged with scientific proof. This is a terrible explanation. The problem still remains and will always remain: MACROEVOLUTION DOES NOT OCCUR AND THERE IS NO PROOF OF IT OCCURRING. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | The
Macroevolution FAQ is not a proof of macroevolution
occurring. It is a discussion of the meaning of the word
"macroevolution" during the history of evolutionary
biology. What I sought to establish is that macroevolution
means evolution above the level of species.
In order to disprove macroevolution, critics must show that the sorts of changes to organisms that it involves cannot occur. This will be hard, since we have observed, in our time, speciation happening, and the genetic and morphological (shape) changes are understood and in some cases reproducible. The reason why evolutionary biologists (and indeed all other biologists) think that greater change occurred in the past is that it is the best explanation for the range of biodiversity we observe, and the distribution of characters between related species. In short, it explains why organisms are similar and different, which is something no other hypothesis yet developed can do. To give that up, biologists would need to have very great reason, which is not yet forthcoming. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a question, In my advanced biology class we needed something to fill the rest of the year, we voted on doing a debate. The topic we choose was evolution vs. creation. I'm on the side of evolution, and would really like to shoot the other side down. I was wondering if you had any advice on how to go about it, I've read many of the archives on your page, and there is TONS of information, too much to use, and rock hard arguments which you believe are better then others? Or just any general advice? Thanks. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Howdy,
Verbal debates aren't a good idea. Here's why: "Tell us, Mr. Evolutionist, why you continue to use the discredited example of horse evolution? The American Museum of natural history removed its evolution display when they realized it was false. It seems after the fraud of Lucy's knee and Archaeopteryx, and the hoax of Piltdown Man, evolutionists would learn not to try to fool the public. And all those supposed missing link skulls are either true humans or apes. After all, evolution is only a theory, and Charles Darwin even recanted it on his deathbed. You have one minute to respond." See what I mean? It takes them ten seconds to say it, and us 2 hours to answer it. It is impossible. Debates should be done on the internet, where the can't get away with that stuff. But, since you're already committed to it, let's address it. (These "debates" seem to me to be a way that creationists are infiltrating the public schools with their psuedoscience. Who's suggestion was it?) Do you know if they are going to present a young earth (<10,000 years) or an old earth (4.5 billion years old) position? If you find out they're not going to argue for a young earth, you can save yourself a lot of time and effort by not preparing geological arguments. However, if they do argue for a young earth, you need to be prepared with geology as well as biology. They will not be presenting any positive evidence in favor of creation. That's because there isn't any. They will be attacking the credibility of evolutionary science. You will need to be familiar with the most common creationist anti-evolution arguments (they never change). Check out these important sources: This one: Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism is well organized and easy to use. The General Anti-Creationism FAQ is also very good. Also, make sure you go to Frequently Asked Questions and their answers. The best tactic is to quickly dispatch their attacks and turn the tables, insisting that they do something other than mudslinging. Ask them for the evidence that supports their position. Also, check out Frequently asked but never answered questions for creationists. And while you're at it, ask them why some whales have hip bones. And ask them why major groups of organisms appear in the fossil record in the exact order that is predicted by evolution. Good luck. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I recently got into a discussion regarding the ages of some of the people in the Bible. I faintly recall an article written by a scientific type that stated that the human body could not possibly live for say 500 years. The religious claim is that with this moisture envelope the people on earth were not exposed to the sun and were therefore able to live longer. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The
"moisture envelope" is actually the amusing Vapor Canopy, an Ad Hoc
explanation for which there is no physical evidence.
They suppose that humans could live for 900+ years, because of a supposedly increased oxygen content in the atmosphere, and because of a decreased UV ratiation level, all supplied by this Vapor Canopy. They should attempt to raise a mammal in a duplicate environment, and see if its lifespan increases tenfold. I'd like to see the results. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Bob Smith |
Comment: | This is very interesting, but my question is if things did evolve into humans and other things then why didn't all of those species evolve in that area so that those organisms no longer exist in our world?? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The reader's
question is on par with the question, "Why are my cousins
Aaron and Melissa alive when I'm here?"
Populations of organisms may be split by geographic, environmental, reproductive, or other forms of isolation and then subjected to different environmental stresses. One population may evolve in one fashion, another in another. To put it another way: Life is a branching tree, not a straight stick. A population of organisms may evolve over time together. A population may fractionate, with each of its subpopulations evolving in different "directions." A population may not be able to evolve quickly enough in response to environmental changes and become extinct. Any combination (and more) of these events may occur. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | The Piltdown man was proven to be a hoax after hundreds of people used the man made skull and monkey jaw bone for their thesis statements. It was all a big lie. Just like the religious belief of evolution. So far, evolutionists have no emipirical proof of evolution. Micro evolution is one thing and different than your belief in macro evolution. To summarize, I believe that GOD created the earth, and you believe that DIRT created it, from NOTHING. What sounds more believable. I have proof, you dont, pretty basic. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yes, the
Piltdown man was a hoax. So what? That means all of
evolution is wrong? Not hardly. Was it creationists who
exposed the hoax? No, it was evolutionists. That is the
power of science, to weed out what is false. Like
creationism.
Please name one instance of creationists exposing the fraud of other creationists... I myself recently uncovered a creationist fraud. But I have yet to see creationists expose their fellows. They turn a blind eye to it. If you want to believe that people were created from dirt by magic, instead of by understood genetic processes, that's up to you. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You say that molocules just came together and formed living meterial. How? What caused it to happen? Why didn't things just stay the same? My answer, there is a God and he made life on this planet. Look up in the sky, do you think this could be caused by accident? If it was created by accident then why is the earth a perfect distace from the sun? Why are there the right number of planets to hold the earth on its path? Again, God. He might of allowed evolution to occur, but that is not my argument. My argument is with what started the evolutionary processes. God, of course. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | If you want
to believe that God started the evolutionary process, then
hey, good for you. No one on this website is going to argue
with you. It is not the place of science to suggest
otherwise. Such matters are for philosophy.
You might, however, do a web search on astronomy, or get a good science book. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | This is not a comment but rather a question. I've heard some talk on creation webpages that Darwin renounced his theory on his death bed. Is this a creation, or is there anything to back it up? If it is true, could it be something he said for fear of his life ending with no afterlife? If anyone could clear that up, please e-mail me at merlinbyrne@hotmail.com. Thank you very much for this great page. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This is the
"Lady Hope" hoax, and it is absolutely untrue. See the Lady Hope FAQ and the July 1998 Feedback
for details.
More to the point, it isn't even relevant whether Darwin "renounced" evolution. The strength of evolutionary theory does not come from the say-so of Charles Darwin or any other individual; it comes from the theory's ability to make predictions and explain observations. It is the confirmation, not the assertion, that makes it science. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I read somewhere that the Flood is a proven fact. While a lot of the authors points were easily debatable, a few points really stuck out, and I'll present them here. In the past and present, the human population basically doubled every 160 years or so. Basically, using this calculation( and accounting for plagues, wars, etc.), you can trace everything back to at most 10,000 years. Furthermore, more convincing evidence is given by studying the population of the Jews. The Jewish population doubles every 160 years (again very similar to the rest of humanity) and using this calculation, their population can be accurately traced back to Judas. How can you explain this fact? If there never were a bottleneck such as the Great Flood, shouldn't the human population be much greater and the genes far more variant. Also, how do you explain the disappearance of the caucasoid skull structures found in North Eastern America. In studying the Old World and known history, it is clear that a population has never ever completely displaced another population. The only time that has almost happened was with the European arrival to the New World, and that occured only because the new arrivers had guns and they were facing a civilization that was still in the Bronze age. Otherwise, the patterns have been completely different. The Caucasoids near China created a buffer zone of mixed races(Turkmenistan, etc.) that kept the two gene pools separate, the caucasoids near India created a buffer zone with the native Indians( Pakistan and Northern India), the Caucasoids in North Africa used a natural buffer zone (Sahara Desert) and populations(S. Egypt, N.Ethiopia) to create a buffer zone. In all these populations, never has one population completely integrated with another population. The caucasoids never wiped out the Asians nor Africans nor did they completely integrate them. The Africans never wiped out or integrated with the Caucasoids, and the Asians never fully integrated or wiped out the Caucasoids. In all of these examples, buffer populations were created so that for example when a Caucasoid intermixed with one of these buffer populations, the children would have been 75% Caucasoid and easily able to pass himself as a Caucasoid. There really isn't much differences between the races(and because there is a lot of differences already within a race) the children could be easily considered Caucasoid (can anyone say Keanu Reeves(who is 25% Asian yet able to grow a beard and has very white features?) Whats my point? Well my point is this. What the hell happened in North America? There is no way that the Asian North American population could have displaced the Caucasoid (or whatever race it is from) North American population. Instead, a buffer zone would have been created, and we would have seen what we see now in all over the world. A buffer zone, and two almost pure, different races. None of the populations were superior to the other. Both used primitive tools, so why should one be able to run over the other? They can't. And how could wierd looking skulls of non Indian decent predating 10,000 years be explained in South America. Who inhabited South America and how? Why is it that scientists have said that the Native Indians that came to America only came here at earliest about 10,000 years ago. Is this all just a coincidence? I don't think it is, and I believe this can easily be explained by the flood. If these ancient people predating the Native Indians were all killed by a flood, they would not have any descendants as it is the case. Furthermore, the Indians were free to inhabit all the Americas (as is the case). Scientist say that one strong evidence for the people in the East Americas being of Caucasoid descent is a little wedge tool they used that were also found in Western Europe. This tool is not found anywhere in the West in the America's. But why isn't it. Shouldn't we have expected it to spread Westwards (as all useful tools have) when the Native American population met with the Caucasoids? Well, the Native Americans never met these Caucasoids, because they were all dead and buried by the flood. Scientists wont be able to find any evidence of this flood. It lasted only 40 days, and occured throughout the world. The only way they can discover this huge bottle neck that occured is via studying our genes, and why there is not as much variety in them as should be if we were some 200,000 years old as a species and we breeded with species that were even older than that. Or does someone here have a better explanation on why there are 9 billion trillion people alive on Earth and the looks vary from Neanderthalic to us? Oh wait a minute, there are only 6 billion people who besides a little difference here and there, look all the same. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
The human population argument does not establish a young age of the earth, any more than a count of bacteria in your gut tells what your date of birth was. I have critiqued the Population Argument before in detail. Wesley |
From: | |
Response: | You read
wrong. The Flood is completely unsupported.
It does no good to argue obscure population arguments when the physical evidence speaks so loudly against the occurrence of the flood. It didn't happen. I have put together a web page that lists over 30 pieces of positive evidence that could be used to support a global flood... none of which have been observed. If creationists were really interested in promoting their notion of a global flood, and not just in trashing real science, they would look at this list of evidences and find real examples of them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In response to your "Stumper Questions for Creationists" number 11, I have this to say. Yes, there is coherence among the different areas of science. However, the actual dates are smaller. You know that carbon-14 is not at equillibrium and is changing in our atmosphere. You also know that the man who created that dating system in 1951 intended it to be used for ages under 2000 years. Those dates are exaggerated to tie in with the old-earth theory. Before the Great Flood( you DO know that there is ample evidence for that), trees grew at different, faster rates, as did other species. That explains the seemingly older ages for the tree rings. I could go on and on, but I think I have expressed my view. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: |
References:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | In his article entitled "Macroevolution," John Wilkins does a good job of differentiating the terms macroevolution and microevolution. Many in the general public are not entirely clear on these concepts in evolutionary biology and it has caused much confusion on the validity of evolutionary theory. In fact, one argument that is many times put forward, though Wilkins does not explicity introduce it in his article, is that it is claimed evolution cannot exist in the Darwinian framework for the fossil record shows a "cambrian explosion" (many new species suddenly present in a certain geological-historical time period), which stands in stark contrast to the gradualism of the Neo-Darwinians. The proponents of this argument do not recognize the possiblity that there could exist many different evolutionary mechanisms that ulitmately have the "individual" organism as the unit of selection. Gene mutations that occur can lead to an alteration in a phenotype that will ultimately be selected for by "gradual" or "punctuated" mechanisms in evolutionary time. The gradual mechanisms are obvious. In the case of punctuation, numerous examples can be given where a particular trait in a certain percentage of a population could be responsible for the survival of those individuals in that percentage of the population that are forced to overcome extreme environmental changes. After announcing all this, I must part ways with Wilkins to some degree, however. He does not consider the possiblity that in addition to microevolutionary events, there could be a form of downward causation whereby macroevolutionary forces (such as chaotic environmental changes) can cause a change in gene frequencies due to the fact that no possible phenotype could "overcome" the changes. That is, one can imagine cases where no organism is fit under certain environmental circumstances and the change in gene frequencies in the gene pool is due to chance as opposed to the standard "mutation-selection-evolution" mechanism that gradualists provide. Such cases will most likely occur in smaller populations, but due to the fact that evolutionary history contains a large degree of contingency, Wilkins should have probably commented on this point in his article. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | If I understand the reader correctly, he is arguing that genetic drift--random genetic fluctuations leading to evolution in small populations--is a source of "macroevolution" beyond that of natural selection and mutation. If that is the case, I know that John would agree with the reader, and I'd also like to point interested readers to our Genetic Drift FAQ, where this is covered in more detail. |
From: | |
Author of: | Macroevolution FAQ |
Response: | In addition
to what Kenneth said in his reply (and yes, I do agree with
this), I should point out that the FAQ is a review piece on
the current usage of a term, its history and its general
meaning. The FAQ wasn't aimed at giving the current
theoretical accounts of macroevolution. Perhaps it should.
For the record, I do think that - as a philosophical not a scientific point - all processes that occur above the species level are vector sums of processes that occur below it. I also think that all processes that occur at the organismic level are likewise vector sums of within. This is not to say that there are not downwardly causative determinations of lower level or component systems by higher level or inclusive systems. Of course environmental and historical factors affect macroevolution. This gets into the issue of reductionism, and its too big a can of worms to touch upon here. Maybe one day, when I'm more bored than I am now. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Before I
begin, let me just say that I am not a believer of
evolution. I am what you might call a "creationist"
(whatever that means). As a child I was taught that the
world was created by two molecules that somehow collided
and what we know now to be the universe was created. I was
also taught that human beings had evolved from some
previous existing form. I believe it was the monkey. Well,
I doubted almost everything I was taught until I could
prove otherwise. I am in my mid twenties now and still have
not seen any hard evidence that proves evolution to be
true.
One thing that I do have to say though, is that I always believed in a higher power. In that I mean that I believe in God, and I also believe without a doubt, that God is the Creator of all things. To believe that all things that exist today evolved by chance is to believe in the impossible. Evolution is an inadequate explanation for the creation of the universe. It does not explain anything. Evolutionists may criticize "creationists" for lying or misleading. You may also say that Christians and science do not fit well together. I never claimed it did. But I do know that scientists have to retain some dignity and honesty in their research. Didn't scientists come up with the idea of "probability"? The odds of evolution and also the "big bang" of occurring as a result of the blind working of the forces of chance are about the same odds as the Webter's Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing plant. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | As a child,
it seems you were taught some erroneous things. It is good
that you doubted them. Unfortunately, it seems to have
turned you away from science and toward creationism.
Hopefully now you will take it upon yourself to research
the real information.
If you believe in a higher power, please continue to do so. There is nothing about science or evolution in particular that will require you to cease believing in a creator. However, if you feel that evolution, as an explanation, is inadequate, you need to educate yourself. I suggest the Evolution Education Resource Center, if the Talk.Origins Archive has proved too difficult for you. Shouldn't evolutionists criticize creationists when they are lying or misleading people? Should we allow their errors, falsehoods and fallacies to go unchallenged? Like the one you just wrote about the dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing plant. To say so ignores all of the processes of evolution. Do you deny that organisms pass on traits to their offspring? Do you deny that the potential of genetic diversity exists in each creature? Do you deny that creatures which are better-suited to their environment survive in greater numbers than poorly-suited ones? If you just answered no to all three of these questions, then congratulations, you are an evolutionist! |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I have a
question. In one of my biology classes, I was told that no
organism can reproduce, even w/in its own kind, if it had a
varying number of chromosomes. How does the evolutionary
theory explain how so many different types of creatures,
all with varying number of chromosomes, came from the same
'soup'. Even if one creature in a species developed an
extra chromosome that enabled it to survive better, what
are the chances of it breeding sucessfully with that mutant
characteristic? Along the same line, for a breeding to be
successful, wouldn't you need two creatures w/ that same
chromosomal characteristic to breed together to pass it on?
And what are the chances of that happening twice in one
generation? One other thing, aren't all the behavioral
differences or adaptations genetically found in the genes
and not in the formation of chromosomes? Genes can adapt
and change without changng the number of chromosomes, can't
they?
Jessica A. Curtis |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
Quite a number of questions there. I don't think I can get them all briefly, but perhaps I can cover a few. While a mismatch in chromosome number often is a bar to breeding between two individuals, it is not always a complete isolator. There are some reptilian species complexes where diploid and triploid individuals can successfully interbreed. Other examples of mismatched karyotypes not preventing interbreeding are known. Conversely, there are instances of sibling species whose apparent genetic differences appear to be quite minor, but which have complete reproductive isolation. Yes, quite a lot of evolutionary change can happen in the absence of changes in chromosome number. However, a increase in chromosome number could also provide duplication of genes which are then free to diverge into other representations. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I am a
Christian with something to say. First the Earth is
billions of years old. The Earth is not just seven thousand
years old. Dinosaurs fosil are real. Every creature on
earth today is as it was created. Nothing has evolved to be
anything other than it was in the beginning AND THIS IS THE
SECOND OF THE THREE AGES OF HEAVEN AND EARTH. So put this
in your pipe and smoked it!
Thank You |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I have heard
of the Three Ages of the Earth. Dinosaurs (and humans)
lived during the first age, I think, but the world was
remade during Adam's time as it says in Genesis. Is that
how it goes?
Now, the hard part... time to ask you for the evidence in support of this idea. Did this idea come from the examination of the physical world, or by pondering on the words written in a book? Can you give any reasons for people to agree with your opinions? Until then, keep that and smoke it in your own pipe. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | But, "If the earth is a planet, and only one of several planets, it can not be that any great things have been done specially for it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from Adam? How can they trace their origin to Noah's ark? How can they have been redeemed by the Savior?" That proves the greatness of God, that He does such things. We Christians should stop concentrating on our own specialness, and concentrate on the greatnes of God. GOD became a zygote, then an embryo, then a baby, then a child, then a teenager, then a MAN. He could have lived forever, as a mortal, but He let Himself get killed. He went all the way for us. Then He came back to life, to take with Him those who accept Him, and returned to glory, to lead the way. Why should He have not done so on other planets and moons? Worship God. |
Responses | |
From: | |
Response: | What has any
of that got to do with science? Even a little? Not a thing.
You should send this message to Internet Infidels instead. |
From: | |
Response: | Two points:
CS Lewis dealt with the problem of life on other planets from a theological perspective in his Perelandra series. Have a look at them (I'm not saying I agree with him or that it solves your problem, but do read them). The idea that God makes nothing in vain is an old notion called "The Principle of Plenitude". It was abandoned with respect to biology in the early 19th century (by Christian biologists). See EO Lovejoy's classic book The Great Chain of Being for a historical review. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | A reply I read to a spontaneous generation query said that evolutionist don't concern themselves with anything before the appearance of the single cell. Isn't that putting the cart before the horse? |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Punctuated Equilibria |
Response: |
No. A deist conception of history could well credit God (or aliens, in the case of directed panspermia) with the introduction of the first self-replicator on earth, after which no further intervention need be postulated. Whether or not a biologist considers himself a deist, panspermist, or other, the question of the diversification of life following the introduction of a self-replicator is a separate and separable issue from the mechanics of how that self-replicator came into existence. Wesley |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Just
commenting on your Noah's Ark FAQ, several things worth
metnioning:
1) you assume that everything is as it is today--you assume Koala's ate eucalyptus leaves and other things about animals today. In genetic science, doesn't the isolation of animals produce specialization (eg. the St Bernard) which creates these problems that MAY not have occurred before the flood? In genetic science, if we have two dogs with complete genes, they are able to produce all other sorts of dog species. I think no further argument is needed. Who said everything that we see today went on the ark? This is your incorrect assumption. 2) you refute the fossil record as support for the flood, yet evolution is a worse model to explain it. Generally speaking, you would have dumber creatures on the bottom, and the smarter ones at the top but this order can be mixed with a flood. How do you have a mixed order in the evolution model, which undoutably occurred? 3) you treat the Bible as a science book, and not a book of history and religion. Sometimes things are written in a simple understandable form that may not be 100% black and white. Everything that has legs does not necessarily mean insects--but I know it does not help the problem of their existence today.. only to say that genetic science explains a lot 4) you treat the world as if it was always this way. We see seashells on mountaintops, and coal/oil deposits every continent including Antartica. This obviously says there was a great amount of vegetation everywhere.. does this exist today? Who said Mt Everest existed? The Book of Psalms (I haven't got it right now, so do not have the reference) says that after the flood, God sunk the valleys and raised the mountains. The deepest ocean is over 2km deep. Now if the world was more flat back then, it would not have needed as much water as people like to think. The thing is, you believe that continents could move, if God is in control, why is it inconceivable that He didn't lower the valleys and raised mountains like in Psalms? Please don't keep assuming you knew what the conditions were like before the flood! 5) Some animals show an ability to hibernate. Is it inconceivable that if God were in control, he caused all animals to hibernate? that would solve a lot of problems would it not? You assume that they did NOT hibernate, which makes your FAQ very unfair and unscientific. Again you assume as if you knew what exactly happened. 6) How did all the animals get on the ark, and how did they spread across the earth? Again you talk as if God were not even in the picture. How can you judge a book about God, if you conveniently leave Him out in all your statements? If you are true scientists, and your are more like priests because all your beliefs are on faith not empirical evidence (because like it or not you were NOT there), then you would ethically include at least the assumptions I have stated above, that you have made. But you never included them when you wrote all the children's text books with all the nice artist's impressions, so I doubt this post would make a difference. I dare you as scientists to include them, but because you're like the followers of Sai Baba who continued to worship long after Indian national television showed him to be a common prestidigitator fake, I doubt it. I think you will continue to believe whatever you want to believe. I do not think you are true scientists, willing to accept opposing arguments. Bottom line: you weren't there. You do not know what conditions existed during the flood, except what is explicitly stated in the Bible--and that makes all your postulations useless as far as Genesis is concerned. oh and by the way, how do you logically answer how come over 270 world-wide cultures have flood legends. An astronomical coincidence, don't you think, if it never occurred? cheers, John Toh ps. I'll visit your site again one day, and I have a feeling you will show yourselves to be what I thought your are--not true scientists |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Let's go
over your points.
1) We assume things were the same as they are today unless there is a good reason not to. Can you provide any evidence to suggest that the Koala's diet was any different a mere 6000 years ago? 2) Evolution explains the fossil record perfectly. The fossils are not "mixed" in a way discordant with evolution. It's not true that "dumber" animals would be on the bottom. Slower creatures would be. Turtles and sloths should all be on the lowest levels. I suggest an experiment along those lines. Take a large area, several acres, of hilly terrain, and fill it with many varieties of animals, and then flood it. I think that if you took 40 days to do it, you would find that ALL animals had gotten to the highest peaks. 3) Wrong again. WE do not treat the bible as a science book. Creationists do. We are not refuting the bible per se. We are refuting creationism's claims about the bible. 4) Seashells on the tops of mountains is the result of plate tectonics pushing up mountains of of sea beds. Coal and oil are the result of decaying organic matter. These are processes that are well understood. They do not support your assertion that the world was somehow different 6000 years ago. What makes you think so? The Book of Psalms is not a science book, as you yourself pointed out, so if it says that God raised the mountains and sunk the valleys, that is not a scientifically supportable statement. Where is the evidence for valleys being sunk? If the deeps of the ocean were flatened out before the flood, what about Gen 1:10 "And God called the dry land Earth, and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas, and God saw that it was good." He made "Seas", and he saw that it was "good". Also Gen 1:20 "And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life..." and Gen 1:21 "And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly..." How does this conform with ocean basins that are flat? It doesn't. It is an ad hoc explanation. How could oceans support "abundant life" (every living sea creature, including great whales) if the ocean basins were lifted up to sea level? That's just stupid. And if the world was smoothed out as you suggest, then how were the ocean basins formed? By your explanation, the ocean basins were carved out by the tumultuous downpour. But if that's the case, how did the flood waters cover the mountain tops? Flood waters carving out ocean basins prevents the water from covering the land! Think these things through before just accepting them, people. We can assume that the same processes that operate today operated in the past because there is no reason to think otherwise. To suggest that processes were different, without any evidence to support this, is an ad hoc explanation. 5) After telling us not to view the bible as a science book, you are asking us to figure in miracles into a scientific hypothesis. No, it is not acceptable to conclude that a god made all the animals hybernate. That is a nonscientific, unsupported assertion. Sure it would "solve a lot of problems", as you say. That's how creationism uses miracles... to solve unsolvable problems. 6) Again, after chastising us for viewing the bible as a book of science, you want us to factor God into a scientific theory. In science, for it to be science, you must leave gods and devils out of the picture. Clearly you don't know what words like science and empirical evidence mean. Any true scientific endeavor would not include the assumptions you have stated above. If you think they should, you need to educate yourself on what science is. Science does admit all opposing arguments. But scientists should not continue to grant their attention to ideas that have long since been discredited, such as creationism. Bottom line: we didn't NEED to be there. No one has ever been inside a volcano, yet we understand the processes of vulcanism. No one has visited a supernova, yet we understand the processes of stellar evolution. No one has ever seen a Giant Redwood grow from seed to full-grown tree, yet none doubt that it occurs. No one saw O.J. murder 2 people, yet most Americans are of the opinion that he did it. Things that happen leave traces. That is the bottom line. The "You weren't there" argument is childish and ignorant. Sorry, just being honest, here. The reason that most cultures have flood legends is that most early civilizations were settled near rivers and flood plains. Rivers and lakes flood... that should come as no surprise. The flood legends exhibit too many differences to all have sprung from a single event. A global flood never happened. If it did, it would leave unmistakeable evidence, none of which has been found. Look at this link to read my web page on the subject. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Jon McBride |
Comment: | A friend suggested that I checkout your page for some good insight into the evolution/creation issue. I came excited, read your welcome page, then went to "post of the month". I don't see what that has to do with evolution? Sounded like pure Christian/Judiasm bashing to me. Are you featuring Muslems next week? What does this have to do with science or evolution or creation? I read your bias, but it contains no warning of your religious bent. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: |
Unfortunately, you have gained a slanted view of the Talk
Origins Archive. We do not engage in Christian/Judaism
bashing. It does so happen that we get verbally assaulted
by fundamentalists who are bibical literalists, who insist
that every word (or at least most words) in the bible are
100% accurate. They feel oblidged to write in and tell us
that not only are we stupid, evil and/or deceived by satan,
but that we and those whom we mislead are headed straight
to hell.
There are Christians who have written articles about evolution on this website, and who help answer feedback. You can accept evolution no matter what your religon, be it Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Shintoism, Hinduism, Wicca, Satanism, Native American, or you can have no religion at all. It does not matter. But you cannot continue to believe the accounts of creation written in the sacred books, if they do not agree with what we know to be true about the physical world. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | My comment
is that I have found your site a learning experience. I
also have a question. In simple mathematics there is the
concept of a ratio. What if gentic information inside the
DNA was thought of as a ratio. The current total gentic
information being the denominator, genetic mutation or new
information the numerator. If this could be logically done.
I would expect DNA with less information to be more
dramatically changed per single mutation when compared to
DNA with much more information. For the simple reason that
a higher percentage of the total information has changed.
I thought that if all that could be true then I would expect that early in the evolution of life that larger and more dramatic change would be seen to happen quicker compared to later in the evolution of DNA. However, I have no real knowledge about any of this, so I thought I would ask knowlegeable people in this field here. I would appreciate any and all comments Kevin Collins. |
Response | |
From: | |
Author of: | Evolution and Philosophy |
Response: | What you
suggest is not implausible, although (you might have
guessed!) it is not that simple. Not being a biologist
myself, I can only make general comments.
Genes tend to be grouped into more or less functional units. Changes to a single gene will have dramatic effects in some cases because of the product of that gene and how it affects the cell and the growth of the organism, while other times that gene may be one of several genes that do similar things, and changing one gene will not have a lot of effect. So, the idea that the impact of a mutation is in proportion to the size of the gene within a functional unit is perhaps true overall, but not in specific cases. The idea that genes are "information" is a bit misleading sometimes. One definition of genetic information is the amount of non-redundant material - what can not be deleted and still function. Another is the "compressibility" of the sequence of nucleotides. Still another is the "aboutness" of the genes - what do they "code for"? Etc. Talking about genetic information in anything other than a very technical sense is fraught with trouble. However, it is true that some think that genomes were less constrained earlier in evolution (say, until the Cambrian period) and that the linkages between individual genes (epistatic linkages) were not then so tight. As a result they think that evolution was faster and more "creative" than since. I personally believe, with only minimal knowledge, that what happened is that genes which work well together were selected in favor of, so that more complex genomes evolved. The more complex the genome, the less change it can tolerate, within fairly well-defined limits. Anyway, I hope this is thought provoking. It certainly isn't gospel. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | I was very
surprised when I read the page "disproving" the flood.
Whoever wrote that should have looked at ALL of the facts
before jumping to conclusions. First of all, I will not
bother with the questions that you gave. I will, however,
put a lot of facts about the flood and Noah's ark, I'm sure
they will answer some of your questions, but (like all
theories (ex.) macroevolution) not all of them. Secondly I
will give you information on how the geological column is
wrong. Then I will name plenty of evidence that the Earth
is NOT billions of years old. Finally, (since "None of the
following have been observed as of yet") I will give you
evolutionist a list of questions that indicates that "Not
once in the history of the world" has Macroevolution taken
place!
FACTS ABOUT THE FLOOD (snipped by me, Ken Harding) |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Yet again
this month we have the rehashed questions and material of
Kent Hovind. For the answers, go
HERE.
People are cutting and pasting material directly off his website. Again. The same arguments, the same mistakes. There is not a single shred of evidence that supports a global flood. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | You claim in the title to your websight that you are "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy", however, I must admit a great deal of disappointment to find that instead of fairly debating the faults and merits of each side of the issue, you appear quite biased against the entire possibility of creationism. I see sections debating the merits of evolution, and the fallacy of creationism, but not vice versa. While it is true that you have a very detailed explanation posted that you are presenting the views of the "majority" of the scientific population, I find myself disagreeing with this statement. Science has many times confirmed events documented in the Bible, but has never proved that the Bible was inaccurate. Never. It hasnt been done. I am not a Bible thumper, I have not attended church in years, but I find the Bible to be a fascinating and far more credible explanation for the events you are discussing. Think about it, should I trust the devine Creator, or should I trust somebody that has in know way established even a miniscule amount of credibility? Even if you have a degree, which I find incredibly difficult to believe, why should anyone pay attention to someone who wasted so much time and money on college, and walked away so ignorant? I must admit some of the views you have expressed here were quite amusing. If that was your intention, I give you full kudos. If your intention was to sway opinion towards your extremely misguided beliefs, well, suffice it to say that you have failed quited miserably. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | This website
DOES explore the faults and merits of both sides of the
issue. It just so happens that creationism has the faults,
and evolution has the merits.
The faults of evolution have been scrupulously weeded out during the last 150 years of meticulous scientific research. Science is a self correcting process. The faults of creationism are disguised to look like credible data, and usually fool the general public, as well as satisfying the believer. We are not biased against the entire idea of creation. Show one scrap of evidence, and let's see where it takes us. All that has been offered up until now are inaccurate and fallacious attacks on legitimate science. There are many instances of the bible being proved factually wrong. But since this is not a Biblical Errancy website, I will list only one. This one is dealt with extensively throughout this web site. The world-wide flood of Noah never happened. Never. Click here and learn why. Our intentions are to shed some bit of scientific reason onto the misguided. We have indeed, at least in your case, failed miserably. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | For those with faith, no explanation is necessary; for those without, none will suffice. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I disagree.
I am without faith, and current mainstream scientific
explanations do suffice.
That also implies that people of faith cannot be scientists or seekers of knowledge. That is untrue. The truth has no need for any faith. A true book need not be divinely inspired. If it is true, it does not matter whether it is inspired or not. The label of "inspired" is used when the book would not be believed otherwise. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | How can you
be "willingly ignorant" of the flood? Here are some facts
about the ark and the Flood:
Please think about these facts that I have written about and e-mail me at . |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | It does not
appear that the reader has examined our Flood Geology FAQs,
especially the Problems
with a Global Flood FAQ and the Flood Stories from Around the
World FAQ, where most of the reader's points are
addressed. To respond in short:
|
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Don't be
scornful - I'm only 17 and not a scientist (yet!)
I did read the part on bias and disagree with having a website based on mainstream views only. I have read one very good creationist book (I don't know if there are any others, to be honest) by H.M. Morris (I think) and I don't see it quoted anywhere. I also find that some of your comments are not really polite. I think that the least scientists can do is respect each other. I'm sorry if you feel personally offended by creationist views. Thank you for taking the time to write a website on this important debate, but bear in mind that minority groups must also be represented. I must confess I didn't read all the pages closely, but I noticed you mentioned Christians who believe in evolution, but didn't quote from any of them. |
Response | |
From: | Chris Stassen |
Author of: | The Age of the Earth |
Response: | One great
thing about the World Wide Web's "hyperlink" format is that
locality is irrelevant: both local files and off-site files
are just one click away. This site has an extensive
collection of links to pro-creationism and anti-evolution
sites, and additional links to creationist works on
many of its individual FAQs. This allows creationists to
"have their say" on web pages that are solely under their
control. If you are concerned about web surfers who may
only get to see one side of the story, why not look through
the sites that we link to -- and complain to those that are
afraid to include "opposing view" links to sites such as
this?
Henry Morris' claims are mentioned and he is quoted in several places on this site, for example on moon dust, racism, errors, and fossils. You can use the archive's "search facility" to find these and many others. You might also be interested in a USEnet article that I wrote in 1996 which points out quite a few errors in one of Morris' books. In general we don't bother to point out the religious beliefs of the "evolutionists" that are quoted here. Whether or not they are Christians is not really relevant to the scientific issues at hand (the direction that the data points and what positions it supports) and those are the main focus of this archive. Several of the FAQ files on this site were contributed by "Christians who believe in evolution" (I think it is more accurate to say: "Christians who accept evolution as the best fit for the evidence"). I agree that some of the writing on this site is pretty harsh. But I don't think that the reason is that "we" feel "personally offended" by creationist views. For example, I am sometimes a little hard on creationists because I find their "scientific" work to be inexcusably sloppy, and much of their non-technical work to be misleading or erroneous. As a result, many well-meaning but non-technical folks end up repeating outright falsehoods that they have picked up from creationist literature. Those folks can be excused, but the authors of the works should have known better. In my opinion, authors of sloppy works deserve to take some "heat" for failing to do sufficient research. |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | What absolute emotive nonsense you've written. The fact is that both evolution and creationism are collections of theories; none of which has been proven. That is why they are theories, not scientific fact and will remain so until one of them can be proved by scientific method. Instead of becoming so steamed up about creationism why don't you ask scientific questions and set about creating experiments to verify or disprove them. Then we would all be better off. Your obvious emotion in connection to this issue is not conducive to rational debate or furtherment of scientific knowledge. It seems obvious to me that you believe so strongly in evolution because you don't want to admit to the possibility of a higher intelligence; of course I cannot prove that. I don't choose to do so here, but I think I could easily answer all of your questions to the point of showing that at this time, creation is still very much a possible and viable answer to the question of the existence of the various, very complex and beautiful lifeforms we find on Earth today. My personal belief is that there should be much more research into the mechanisms of evolution ie. how mutations that are beneficial to the organism could be passed on to the offspring. How one species can mutate into a new species and still reproduce: in other words how can you end up with a different number of genes or chromasomes? Why does there appear to be very long periods of time in the archiological records when species remains exactly the same? How can we explain the appearance of extremely complex machinery and chemistry in organisms when any simplification of the mechanics or chemistry would render the function of the thing worse than useless? I will comment on one of your questions though. As I recall on my reading of the history of carbon dating, tree ring dating was used to verify and quantify the results. It is no wonder therfore, that they are in agreement. It is however, this form of circular reasoning that leaves many evolutionists open to valid criticism. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Science is a
collection of theories! Some of which have been proven! You
need to read the definition of theory from the National
Academy of Science:
You ask: "Instead of becoming so steamed up about creationism why don't you ask scientific questions and set about creating experiments to verify or disprove them." You think that hasn't been tried? Creationists refuse to play ball. If they have evidence to support their claims, you'd never know it. They offer no positive arguments to support their case... only negative attacks against real science. You can really browse through this website and then make the accusation that we are just being emotional? That amazes me. The claim that we "believe so strongly in evolution because you don't want to admit to the possibility of a higher intelligence" ignores the fact that there are many Christian and religious evolutionists, and it is an ad hominem argument in any case, attacking people rather than the issues themselves. The answers to your questions are right in front of you. The black boxes at the top and bottom of your screen contain the words "Browse" and "Search". I suggest you click them. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | It is possible that Darwinian theory is true for only a given period,and involves a specific genus.Recent studies bore out lack of relation Neanderthal/Cro Magnon as tested in Germany.Recent discovery shows existance of other races in these areas.All "Experts" claim migrations occured by land,unlikely by the sea, yetother modes of colonization could have occured eg aerial. 100 y ago flying was unheard of.Ethnic lore is sometimes probably closer to the truth.I believe a new science will emerge linking tribal lores,sagas religious texts with available anthropological data geological sciences.Above all an open mind to future finds and capabilities of technology should be kept. . |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Why would darwinism, acting on the DNA that is possessed by all organisms, be limited to a given period, and involve only a specific genus? What could possibly limit the process in this way? I can conceive of nothing that could. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | Evolution of human beings DID happen! I know this because we have fossil evidence to back this up. It is true that evolution of humans didn't always proceed smoothly; there indeed are plenty missing links, but that doesn't stop the fact that there is evolution. I believe, however, that Charles Darwin's Survival Of The Fittest, and his Natural Selection doesn't even begin to scratch the surface of evolution! There are deeper cosmological principles involved that 20th Century scientists know nothing about. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Interesting.
There are "deeper cosmological principles involved that 20th Century scientists know nothing about", but YOU think that they exist. I would ask you why you believe such a notion. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | If complexity increases with size does that mean elephants are more complex organisms than humans? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | If
complexity increases with size, it might mean that.
"And if you take cranberries and stew them like applesauce, they taste much more like prunes than rhubarb does." -- Groucho Marx |
Feedback Letter | |
Comment: | There are
two very different meanings for the word evolution, they
are: Macro, which is 1.Assumed(never observed) 2.Religious
3.Un-Scriptual, such as a rock into a rose or a dog. The
other is Micro (variation) which is 1.Observed 2.Science
3.Scriptural, such as a dog into other dogs or a rose into
other roses, never a dog into a human. It is obvious that
Macro evolution didn't, doesn't, and won't happen. Design
demands a designer. Frogs don't turn into princes and 'Big
Bangs' make Big messes, not neat, orderly universes. There
are NO facts to support (macro) evolution. You steal
childern and teenagers class time and brain power promoting
this fairy tale of evolution. Evolution (macro) is not even
remotly related to science. In childrens fairy tales we
teach that: Frog + magic spell(usually kiss)=Prince
Evolutionist (you guys) teach that: Frog + Time=Prince The
entire subject of origin (both creation and evolution) is
actually outside the field of science. No one alive today
has observed the creation of the universe, and we cannot
"do it again" in the laboratory to demonstrate how it
happend, same with the big bang and the creation of life
from non-living matter. ANY theories about how we got here
are inherently religious (what we choose to believe in).
I have some questions for all of you evolutionist. If you can truthfully answer these questions than I would be happy to shut up and listen to any of your fairy tales without trying to prove you wrong. 1.When, Where, Why, and How did life come from dead matter? 2. '' '' '' and '' did life learn to reproduce itself 3.How did thought evolve 4.What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen gas becoming human 5.Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing 6.Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to us students as a fact Thank you for reading my feedback and it would be nice to hear from you in the near future please e-mail me. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | There is
only one type of evolution; when it is observed in the
short term, within a species, it is called microevolution,
and when it is observed to result in speciation, it is
called macroevolution. They are both observed.
Macroevolution is also strongly inferred. Whether a
scientific theory is "scriptural" or "unscriptural" has
absolutely no bearing on anything whatsoever.
You say that design requires a designer. Certainly. Now you have to explain what evidence you have to require that the world was designed. The world is in fact complex, and complexity requires an explanation, not a designer. Evolution does not specify that humans came from dogs... what a strange thing to say. You criticize evolutionists for claiming that life came from a rock (which is untrue, by the way), but feel comfortable in the belief that Adam came from dust. Whatever. Those questions you pose are merely a few from the extensive list of His Holiness Kent Hovind. You can read the complete list, and my responses, right here. A similar list of questions that I am working on is from the Center for Scientific Creationism, is Let's Play 20 Questions. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | Illusion |
Comment: | Well, I knew
there were a lot of dumb people out there, but as dumb as
this..well I had no idea.
Im sorry to say this to all of you Flat Earth guys, but where in the name of Valen were you when Apollo 11 took pictures of Earth? Have you ever heard of gravity? |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | Have you read the disclaimer at the top of our Flat Earth page? The one that says we don't believe the Earth is flat? |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | I'd just like to highlight the misconception of evolution the a lot of people would have. In a recent religion class the various beliefs of the origin of the earth (and hence species) were discussed. I put my hand up and said that I was an evolutionist along with one other person. Then a question from a fundamentalist baptist to the general class discussion went something like this: "If we came from apes why aren't apes still changing into humans today?". I never got a chance to answer this. Even with my small knowledge of the aspects of evolution I could have answered this. The pastor then proceeded to try and demonstrate that science cannot work backwards to prove evolution and that evolution is totally untestable because it would have happened a long time ago and hence cannot be repeated. From the baptist's question it is shown that he never actually looked into evolution and his idea of evolution is probably based on tabloid journalism, that gets the attention of the masses. It is great to see sites like this who open yourselves to such questions and month after month correct misconceptions about evolution. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | I agree with
what you wrote. I think that most people have a distorted
view of evolution, whether they got it intentionally or
unintentionally, and this prohibits their acceptance of the
idea. How can they accept it if they can't understand it?
The belief that when a new species evolves, it must replace the original species is a misunderstanding of the evolutionary process. It's just like you and your brother... you both do not necessarily share the same fate, do you? If your brother moves to another country, do his actions and descendants have any affect on you and yours? And just because you descended from your father does not mean that your father is dead. Dogs surely evolved from wolves, and there are still wolves. If the new species gives the original species too much competition, the original species could be driven into extinction and be replaced by the new one. But there are many reasons why the new species might not replace the old one... such as relocating away from the old species, a change in the type of diet, an abundance of food. The original species can still continue as long as it can make a living. Sometimes the new species replaces the old one; sometimes the old and new species both continue to exist. Another way to think about it is that a species is like a river. If that river branches off, there is no reason that both streams should go in the same direction. For more on this, check out this article by John Wilkins. It's great that you put your hand up and were counted as an evolutionist. |
Feedback Letter | |
From: | |
Comment: | But, "If the
earth is a planet, and only one of several planets, it can
not be that any great things have been done specially for
it as the Christian doctrine teaches. If there are other
planets, since God makes nothing in vain, they must be
inhabited; but how can their inhabitants be descended from
Adam? How can they trace their origin to Noah's ark? How
can they have been redeemed by the Savior?" From Here, as quoted from Henry
Morris.
That proves the greatness of God, that He does such things. We Christians should stop concentrating on our own specialness, and concentrate on the greatnes of God. GOD became a zygote, then an embryo, then a baby, then a child, then a teenager, then a MAN. He could have lived forever, as a mortal, but He let Himself get killed. He went all the way for us. Then He came back to life, to take with Him those who accept Him, and returned to glory, to lead the way. Why should He have not done so on other planets and moons? Worship God. |
Response | |
From: | |
Response: | The point
is, that why would a supremely intelligent designer and
architect create worlds, apparently uninhabited, that we
can never visit? Assuming the uniformity of the formation
of planets, there should be countless planets around the
billions of stars in the universe, none of which we can
ever see, even with our most powerful telescopes.
These other worlds, therefore, have nothing to do with humans. The biblical passage which states that the celestial bodies were created for the use of man as for signs and seasons is therefore rendered false. The hypothesis which you present bears no evidence. |