TalkOrigins Archive - Feedback for September 2004

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Having read the information on the website, I feel obliged to complain about the author's obvious bias against creationists, and his/her stereotypical viewpoint, that creationists are ignorant to both evolution and to science in general. "creationists in particular, need to also work a little harder in order to understand science. Reading a textbook would help." I find this statement both unnecessary and blatantly rude to the many creationist scientists who take the time to research science and the theory of evolution. In reading the information on this site I, a believer of creation, took the time to learn about an opposing view, despite being only 13. Perhaps you could show the same courtesy to creationists, who have equally scientific proof, and a right to be heard.
Response
From:
Response:	It would help if you provided a link to the exact section to which you are referring. In general, however, I would respond that the author is correct. The statement is not one of bias; it is an accurate assessment of the knowledge level of most creationists. If you have indeed learned some science from this site, that is great- that's why it is here. You should take a few moments to page back through the feedback we receive and judge for yourself the scientific competence of the creationist readers. Although there are exceptions, it tends to be abysmal. Here is a fine example: The simple statement "There are no transitional fossils", which we see over and over and over, reflects a profound ignorance and misunderstanding not only of the fossil record, but also the nature of evolution and what a fossil represents. For one thing, there are "transistional fossils": the feathered dinosaurs of China and the reptile to mammal series are particularly fine examples. In another sense, though, all fossils are from transitional species, except those at a dead end in their lineage. I would also add that it really isn't rude. It might be a little shocking to be called ignorant, but it pales besides the threats of hell and damnation we receive here on a regular basis- not to mention the exceedingly vulgar suggestions we also get, presumably from people who are trying to save our souls.

Feedback Letter
From:	Rose
Comment:	There are many respectsble scientists in the world who do not believe in evolution in the particles-to-people sense, and from a scientific stance rather than a religious oppposition. How do you answer to this?
Response
From:
Response:	I would say that no scientist in his or her right mind believes that particles all of a sudden "poofed" into people. The "poof" phenomenon is one believed by creationists, not scientists.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	"Is your (scientists) ego more important than students learning evolution? Think about it." I have, and it seems the evolutionsist theory is so fragile, it is impossible for someone to speak for it against a creationist without the theory being proved wrong. As a 14-year-old student I would rather be taght the truth of creation rather than a fallible evolutionary theory. Evolution should at least be presented as a theory, rather than fact. I think that it is not important for us to be brain-washed into the evolution theory, without being presenrted with its flaws, which, et's face it, are numerous.
Response
From:
Response:	How do you reckon that creation is the truth? If there was any evidence for special creation, it certainly has not been published. Note that holy books of any sort don't constitute evidence- which does not detract from their worth, mind you. But looking for science in scripture is like looking for a cookie recipe in an art history book- you're in the wrong place. On the other hand, there is a lot more evidence supporting evolution than you seem to be aware of. Have you visited a natural history museum recently? I would not call a theory supported by thousands and thousands of fossils "fragile". Finally, you are lumping together the fact of evolution with the theory of evolution- a very common mistake. The fact of evolution is that species change. They do, you know, and the changes have been measured in field experiments and laboratory experiments. The theory of evolution- the part you don't like, I suspect- explains those changes and looks at the results of those changes, resulting primarily in the idea of common descent. No other theory of the origin of biodiversity has worked so well. I am not quite sure where "ego" plays a role in all this.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I haven't heard this ever pointed out before, but perhaps some of you have thought of this already: The Creationists use the King James Version Bible as the inerrant word of God. The ID "theorists" claim that random mutations can only result in a loss of information. The King James Bible has undergone many translations since the originals. Translations always introduce random mutations. How then can the King James Bible be perfect, when this violates the very premise put forth by ID? Here is a "family tree" genealogy of numerous Bible versions, including the King James Version. Any thoughts on this?
Response
From:
Response:	I must admit, I've never understood why some creationists claim that the KJV, and only the KJV, is the inerrant word of God. (Some don't, mind you.) While I would agree that the KJV has a richer, more poetic tone than other versions, I personally don't see where the argument for its inerrancy derives. (Do people think Jesus spoke in English?)

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	While searching for capers the food, I came across your website article about the Piltdown Man caper. What a delightful surprise! I thoroughly enjoyed the article and intend to give other parts of your website a look. Sandra Sparks Hurst, Texas
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood and the Young Earth
Response:	See, random errors can be productive! Glad you liked the site, it is the effort of many volunteers.

Feedback Letter
From:	Nyril
Comment:	One of my minor pet peeves with debating creationists is when they ask for, "Complete and irrefutable evidence for the whole of everything you evil-utionists stand for, and a few things it doesn't stand for, summarized neatly into several paragraphs." It seems like you guys get a lot of these, in one form or another, particularly when a rash of people whom have nebulous "reports" or "papers" to be writing ask for the complete history of the eye or something similar to be summed up for their exclusive use. Erm, as for my comment. Looking back over the feedback, I am constantly amazed you've failed to track down people and inflict bodily harm against them for posting that sort of feedback. Really, keep up the good work. If there's any anger management classes or summat you guys manage, post a pay-pal and I'd chip in a bit.
Response
From:
Response:	We are all serene and gentle people, armed only with wit and evidence. Physical violence is unnecessary unless they wake us up early on a Sunday morning by knocking on the front door, in which case they deserve what they get. A donation pathway will be set up in due course, only to cover costs of the running and rental for this site. A Foundation has been established (in Texas) as a not-for-profit organisation, and you can read the details here. We volunteers will continue to get nothing for our labors, not even beer... sob

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Please note that due to the large amount of feedback the archive receives each month, only a selection of letters can be answered. However, all letters are read, and your feedback is important to us! So please don't be discouraged if you do not receive a response. ..... so, i will be discouraged if i don't get a response. you really should have a chat with me. cheers. edward
Response
From:
Response:	Yes, someone actually reads them all.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I am currently writing a introductory biology course, and found your Evolution FAQ invaluable. Thank you for taking the time to assemble such a useful resource. Best regards, Justin Reese

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	ID proponent Dembski has raised interesting issues with regards to scientifically identifying an object as natural vs designed. Considering where we are in terms of space exploration, just how would the scientific community make that determination of some artifact/object of interest were it found in our solar system?
Response
From:
Author of:	Dino Blood and the Young Earth
Response:	William Dembski repeatedly makes the assertion that his "Explanatory Filter" is comparable to how archaeologists determine if an object is designed. He has even moved beyond this to a position that his "theory" subsumed archaeology and the other historical sciences (he calles them the "special" sciences). Consider this quote from William Dembski. 2001 "IS INTELLIGENT DESIGN A FORM OF NATURAL THEOLOGY?" "The fundamental idea that animates intelligent design is that events, objects, and structures in the world can exhibit features that reliably signal the effects of intelligence. Disciplines as diverse as animal learning and behavior, forensics, archeology, cryptography, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence thus all fall within intelligent design. Intelligent design becomes controversial when methods developed in special sciences (like forensics and archeology) for sifting the effects of intelligence from natural causes get applied to natural systems where no reified, evolved, or embodied intelligence is likely to have been involved. (Dembski 2001)" The only problem is that there is no basis in fact for Dembski's claim, as I have shown in a chapter for "Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Dembski also claims it is not necessary to have knowledge about a designer's nature or about the means that a designer used to impose their will on the material universe. Supporting this assertion is his frequent statement, "There is a room at the Smithsonian filled with objects that are obviously designed but whose specific purpose anthropologists do not understand," or slight variations. Again the problem for Dembski is that this is also untrue (see Jeffery Shallit 2002 "Anatomy of a Creationist Tall Tale" University of Waterloo). Archaeologists never-the-less routinely recognize as artifacts objects that have no known purpose and whose functions we are unlikely ever to know. But in every instance we recognize them by the simple observation of marks: the pits, scratches, polish, grinding, burning, fracture, and so on that are the unambiguous indication of manufacturing. Dembski followers might try to make the argument that these material modifications are then the criteria used by the EF to detect design, but they neither necessarily complex nor specified. I personally suspect that we will miss all potential extra-terrestrial artifacts unless they are extremely close to those built objects we're directly familiar with already. Dembski's "method" is absolutely no help.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	I was just curiuos as to why you would place a memorial on your page if we are just globs of goo? To what evolutionist do you credit feelings of sentimentality for the dead, if they are but dust in the wind?
Responses
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	We are people. We care about other people, those whom we have known and loved, and like all people, whether religious or not, we remember those we cared about. Frankly, this is one of the most objectionable comments I have read in this feedback forum, and we get all kinds. Simply because we accept that evolution has occurred does not force us to think we are just collections of chemicals. We are certainly that, but we are so much more. I once heard someone say that we are about $5 worth of chemicals. It was pointed out that if we synthesised the complex chemicals that $5 worth goes to make in a body, we'd all be worth around $5 million. Saying that something is chemical is not to settle its worth, economically or otherwise.
From:
Response:	I have to agree with John about the value of this piece of feedback. What a terrifying lack of empathy is packaged into such a short message. This is exactly the sort of outlook that results in things like "They don't value life like we do", or "They don't feel pain the way we do". Or, in the most extreme case, "Nits make lice". This is not only profoundly insulting, it shows a willingness to divide humanity into "us" and "them", with "them" being anyone who does not follow the writer's particular philosophy of hate.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Thanks so much for your efforts maintaining this site. I especially enjoy reading the feedback (anxiously waiting for August :). I do have a comment and a question: Peter Atkins wonderful new book, "Galileo's Finger: The Ten Great Ideas of Science", has three paragraphs about Creationism, and gives three (of the many) arguments against it. He writes: "For a detailed account of this evidence [pseudogenes as plagiarized mistakes], see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/molgen " The FAQ appears to be quite wonderful, but how is the casual visitor to the TO archive to know it exists? There does not seem to be any directory of FAQs or link to such on the opening page, just a link to selected FAQs. Am I missing something? Are we all missing lots of hidden jewels?
Responses
From:	Chris Stassen
Author of:	Isochron Dating
Response:	The archive doesn't have a single list of all FAQs, probably because it would be too long to wade through easily. Instead, the FAQs are grouped by category into several lists. The "Browse" link in the archive's logo image appears on every page in the site, and takes you to the category list. Clicking on any category (left-hand column on that page) yields a list of FAQs in that category. The Plagiarized Errors and Molecular Genetics FAQ is listed in the Creationism category, and also in the Must-Read Files category.
From:
Response:	I'll also point out that we do have an alphabetical index to our articles, as well as an outline by subject matter. Those might help you see the full range of material on the site. And don't forget the Archive's search capability!

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Hi, just wanted to say, what a wonderful website this is, very very useful, I'm here because of My Biology SAC (assignment), doing Australian Saltwater Crocodiles as my species and this place is a great site to check out natural selection, top to bottom history, grand diagram on Tree of Life, The Time Scale, dude, awesome work, Rock on Best regards, dan

Feedback Letter
Comment:	How can you explain DNA? It is impossible for DNA to have slowly evolved, it is far too complex. If one small piece is missing it will no longer function. There is no debating that fact, DNA could not have evolved. That makes evolution impossible.
Response
From:
Response:	Not at all. DNA is a molecule, subject to the rules of chemistry. It is made of simpler substructures that occur naturally. Many people today are in fact studying how DNA evolved. Although we do not yet know the exact path by which it evolved, we have a general idea about the process and specific research programs to work out the details. In fact, the 1989 winners of the Nobel Prize in Chemistry received the award for their work showing that RNA molecules - similar to DNA molecules - can help make copies of themselves. You also assert that "If one small piece is missing it will no longer function," as if this meant that something could not evolve. This is not true; so-called "irreduceably complex" systems can evolve. One way they can is as follows: A population of organisms has some system (an organ, a biochemical pathway, etc.) that we'll call System A. The population also has a different, unrelated system that we'll call System B. Neither System A nor System B depend on the other in any way. By chance, a member of the population has a mutation that allows System B to help out the functioning of System A. We'll call this System B'. This mutation is advantageous to the organism's reproductive success, and over time it spreads through the population and displaces System B. Now the entire population has System A and System B'. Later, a second, unrelated mutation in a different organism affects System A. It makes System A work better, but now System A depends upon the influence of System B'. This new System A - call it System A' - spreads throughout the population. Finally, a third mutation in System B' makes it more effective, but also makes it dependent on System A'. The new System B" spreads throughout the population. At the end of the process, what started as two independent systems are now interdependent - one cannot act without the other. Yet they evolved, with no impossible "leaps" along the way. For more on the fallacies of irreducable complexity, see our articles on the work of Michael Behe.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Over the past few months, I have been reading the talk.origins archive, as well as other evolution articles online and in print. I think your site is fascinating, and I am particularly impressed by the restraint of your feedback responders. I would like to pose some questions to theists like John Wilkins* and Wesley Elsberry (although others are welcome to respond, too). Some are Christian-specific, others are more generic. - If you believe that life originated through natural, materialistic processes, and that stars and planets came together through gravitational collapse rather than the snap of omnipotent fingers, what need is there for God? - If you believe that Genesis is not a literal tale of creation, or was the product of human authors (as suggested by your Flood Myths FAQ), what authority does the story have? - If the sun didn't really stand still in Joshua, why accept the veracity of the Gospels of Mark, John and Matthew? - If the Bible is scientifically, historically, and (some would say) morally wrong, why pattern your life after its teachings? - If you can believe that all the life on earth could have evolved through natural processes, without the need for supervision or intervention, why should the universe need a thinking entity to create it, as opposed to some unconscious process or event? - Do you believe that there is something so special or unique about human beings that the creator of the universe would concern himself with us? - If you accept that populations and organisms adapt themselves to their environment, rather than the environment suiting life, does the universe need any "fine-tuning" for our benefit? - Do you believe that certain aspects of humanity, such as love, compassion, or a sense of justice necessitate a soul? - Do you believe that the Bible is an exceptional book, a theology that stands out among other theologies? - Have you experienced a miracle, or felt a presence in your heart that had no better explanation than Jesus? - Do you want there to be a god, because the world would be a better place if there was one, or because it would be nice if there were an afterlife? That's a lot of questions, but the only one you really need to answer is, "Why do you believe in God"? I have read the God and Evolution FAQ, but it really just said that evolution doesn't rule out the existence of a deity. I've also read the "Various Interpretations of Genesis" FAQ, but that just seems to be six ways of explaining away alleged errors in the bible. I realise that this isn't the best forum for such questions, but you are the only theists I'm familiar with who seem rational and intellectually honest. I'd like to understand why intelligent theists believe what they do, and I think other TO readers would as well. *I gather John Wilkins is some sort of Deist; excuse me if I'm mistaken.
Response
From:
Author of:	Evolution and Philosophy
Response:	I am neither a theist nor a deist. Nor, for that matter am I an atheist. I am an agnostic. I do think that those who have strong beliefs on this topic can hold them consistently with good science, but I do not think that one has to be any particular type of believer (or infidel) to accept science. Many people who are smarter and better educated than I plump for theism or atheism. I cannnot presume they are fools. The fallacy known as "ad hominem" was originally just a misapplication of a general and valid form of argument - we might think of it as a "by your lights" argument, where one grants the premises of the opponent in order to show that a conclusion follows that either undercuts their case or supports your own. [The fallacy was thinking that because you had shown they must accept X based on their own premises, that therefore X was true.] Most of what you are responding to in the FAQs with your questions are, in fact, ad hominem arguments of the valid kind - we grant that the Bible might be true, or that God exists, in order to argue that this does not condemn evolution. Of course, some interpretations of these beliefs do prohibit evolution, but it needs to be put vividly and clearly that one need not object to it.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Is it allowed to belive that the bible is literalry true but a record of Nuclear war and nothing whateever to do with God
Response
From:
Response:	There's no rule against it as far as I know, but it's pretty self-contradictory.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

For a good laugh, have a look at one of the latest articles Marshall Hall, the champion of geocentricism, added to his website "The Earth is Not Moving" .

He misread a simple news article about a planet being detected at a nearby star and wrote a lengthy tirade about it, titled "Transparent Deception In Yet Another Alleged Extra-Solar Planet Discovery."

Hall thinks the astronomers are saying the planet, which is about 50 light-years away, is visible to the naked eye. This is the lead line to Hall's article:

"All major TV and Print and Net "News" Media reported on 8/24/04 a "discovery of an Earth-like planet...some 50 light years away...that is bright enough to be seen with the naked eye"."

What the CBC article, 'Super Earth-like' planet discovered, actually says is that the star, not the planet, is visible to the naked eye:

"The planet orbits a star called mu Arae some 50 light years away in the southern constellation of Altar. The star is bright enough to be seen with the naked eye."

Hall's many glaring errors of fact and logic in his book and the articles on hw website show he has no understanding of physics, astronomy, mathematics, or even the fundamental philosophies and methods of the sciences, but this latest gaffe puts his literacy into question as well.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

One group of these people that I cannot find addressed on your site is The Apologetics Press. They came and spoke in the town where I was then attending college. They kept putting up fliers and I kept getting "free paper." Anyway, the speaker was Dr. Brad Harrub. The whole thing was of course utterly ridiculous, but here's a few of the highlights for anyone preparing to attend one of his talks in the future.

1. "If all living things are descended from a common ancestor, why does the human body recognize viruses as something else?" (I nearly choked to death laughing at that one!)

2. His most interesting slide was of a fishing reel stuck through what was supposed to be really old rock. He quotes some head of geology as saying that it doesn't exist because he says so and then shows the picture to the audience. After the show, my Dad asked him for the reference for that quote and Dr. Harrub was kind enough to E-mail the original article to us. The only problem was that the portion quoted was missing. (OOPS!) So we had someone else find the whole article and it turns out the geologist was joking when he said it didn't exist and there were a number of workable explanations for the reel being in the rock. We've asked him a number of times since then why he so blatantly misquoted, but he just won't answer. Big shocker there.

3. He also quotes goofballs like Hoyle and his buddy as "biologists" while referring to Dawkins as "just an astronomer!"

Anyways, they do a good job of crowd control and stop any public answering of questions. These people, while obviously not real bright upstairs are a genuine and growing threat,

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Holy crap! This may be the most valuable web site ever! Thanks.
Response
From:
Response:	Yours is an odd theology, but thanks.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	If evoloution is real, and we came from monkeys, how come there are still monkeys on this earth that are not humans?

Feedback Letter
From:	Richard An
Comment:	To me, scientists think that evolution has started.RIGHT??? Wrong peoples. to me the only person who made us was GOD, he created us. if you people think that im wrong then i will prove to you that evolution doesn't exsist or never started. evolution means when something is changed from its state to another and another. if WE WERE EVOLVED FROM MONKEYS THEN WHAT IS AFTER HUMANS. it can't just stop as humans there has to be something after that. and so im telling all the scientists or people who are going to read this that evolution DOESN'T EXIST.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	When reading the article about Noah's Ark, I couldn't help but smile, though just a little. I was especially astonished by the comment that pests would attack the food supply on the ark. It seems ludicrous that such debates even exist. It is important for Creationists to remember that God is not bound by the boundaries that inhibit us, that is humans. God could have simply kept the pests away from the food, as He kept the animals from procreation, He could have held the "wooden" boat together, and He could have done a lot more. We cannot quantify or limit God. How absurd is it that people try to deny the existence of Noah's ark when those who believe in Jesus Christ believe in a supreme being. It would make more sense to me if opponents of Creationism would attack concepts like eternity, hell, or aspects of the spiritual world. To deny the existence of the ark based solely on logic is not even a substantial argument. Come on. Christians believe that their savior, Jesus Christ, died for the sins of the entire world and rose again in three days. This is not meant to offend anyone. I simply don't see any reason for such debates.
Response
From:
Response:	You are absolutely correct in every particular with regards to the story of a Noachian Deluge. However, it is not scientists that insist on a scientific validation of the Ark. Scientists just refute. Young Earth Creationists like Henry Morris, Duane Gish, and Kent Hovind maintain that the Ark was scientifically feasible, that all fossils are arranged just so via "hydrodynamic sorting", that the Grand Canyon was carved by flood waters in the last 6,000 years, and other such rubbish. As soon as you say "miracle", however, the argument is over. Nothing trumps God. But once you do that, you have to take the story out of science classrooms- where it never belonged in the first place- and more than anything else, people like Morris and Gish and Hovind want, for some reason, to have their religion in everyone's science class. In a nutshell, that's what scientists object to.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	arI'm a college student that is studying geology. In one of my professor's lectures he mentioned plate techtonics and continental drift. I was wondering if you could provide me with an explanation for this. This is the theory that I came up with. What if Pangea did exhist? What if, after the flood, there was just one continent? I think that humans tried to build the tower of babel exactly where babylon is today. In reference to Pangea, Babylon would be in the exact center of the continent. God confused the languages and different groups went in different directions (north, south, east, west etc.). Then, to make sure that humans didn't find some other way to communicate and reunite the languages he separated the continents to separate the people. Makes sense. I read a passage that says, "where God looks at the earth it shakes and where his finger touches it smokes." Sounds like earthquakes and volcanoes to me. I propose, instead of taking billion/millions of years to separate, that God separated the continents in a much shorter span of time. Maybe, even overnight. email me and let me know if I'm on target.
Response
From:
Response:	I am afraid you are not on target. There is no evidence for a global flood in the sense of Genesis 1. The continental landmasses were connected as Pangaea over 300 million years ago, long before humans were on the scene. When you study geology, you have to seriously alter the way you think about time. You can no longer think of the 1995 as "a long time ago". You have to get your mind around a concept called "deep time". Having said that, I will concede that it's darn near impossible to grasp the concept of 10 million years, let alone 300 million. Most of us just boggle at the notion. Professional paleontologists and geologists (and others like cosmologists) are better at this, but you have to give it a shot. If you want to read up on the evolution of human languages, and some other fascinating stuff, try Jared Diamond's Guns, Germs, and Steel. You won't regret it.

Feedback Letter
From:	Håkon d. Myhre
Comment:	Thank you for a fantastic site. I`m from a very christian evangelical scociety in Norway, and Creationism is very prominent there. I was even a creationist myself for a time, until I stumbled upon your site and saw the loads and loads of evidence supporting evolution. I have even used this archive to convert some creationist freinds of mine. This site is truly the best site on the web. Keep up the good work. H. D. M.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	I really enjoy this website! Keep up the excellent work! One suggestion -- it may not be that feasible -- why isn't there a 'list' of scientists (biologists, geologists, physicists, ect...) who do accept evolution by means of natural selection as a scientific truth? I think if people could see a list like this, they would be blown away by the astronomical majority of scientists who do accept evolution by means of natural selection as scientific truth. These scientists are not 'blind,' solely following what is 'most common' (evolution as a fact) in their fields... These people are highly educated, observing the vast number of papers/articles/research going that support evolution. I think that a list like this would blow any person who disputes evolution by means of natural selection as a scientific fact. Keep up the excellent work!
Response
From:
Author of:	Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
Response:	Such a list would be so long that it would be difficult to assemble and maintain. However, the National Center for Science Education has put together a similar list, narrowing the scope to only those scientists named "Steve". (See also here and/or here.) I suspect most people have no idea how much research there is behind evolution. Searching for "evolution" in PubMed turns up more than 20,000 papers just in the last two years. Granted, not all of those are about the theory of evolution, but then again, there are plenty of other papers relevant to aspects of evolution which that search would not find.

Feedback Letter
From:	Jed Jones
Comment:	yew tock.orajuns peepul iz fiiting GOD if yew no whuts gud fur yew yewd repent un go ta church un sit onna frunt pue un crie un cunfes yur evul waiz if yew lut evulushun rul yur livez GOD el git yew atta time uv end it cud cum at ani ttime darwun repentud beefor hee dyed an iz now n heaven lukin down on yew with teers n hiz ayes dawkuns iz evul which doctur soze ghuld but fillup jonsun iz gud mikul beehee iz gud dumski is gud an smartter than yew ar an hee dispruv n deebunk evalushun with mathamaticks that yur to dum too doo hovund iz gud not evul lik yew say hee iz dogz dont change inta catz adam dint hava beerd orra bellebuttun dinasores wuz on arc an then leeved trax n texus rivurbedd botum noah putt anamulz EGGS on arc soze it cud bee big enuf ta git all speesees on it evun tazzmayneeyun devuls piltdoun man wuz hokes ov mad siuntust esposed bi gud creashunists neeandurthalls wur haff anamuls cuz aftur arc landud noah son ham had sex with wimmin munkees an they had neeandurthall baybees GOD creatud urth n 6 daiz sunlite wuz creatud beefor sun wuz GOD restud 1 dae everbuddy nose each dae lastud 24 ours that wuz 6 thowsund yeerz ago not 6 bazzaguzillionz liek yew say yur offull un evul i hait yew all crisschuns hait yew bern n HEL Jed
Response
From:
Response:	OK, I got a chuckle out of that. Anybody want to take credit for it?

Feedback Letter
Comment:	Distinguished Sir Edward T. Babinski, Distinguished Gentlemen, Please accept our congratulations for the scientific high quality of the document that You have had the iniciative of publishing in the World Wide Web of computers, in the form of a well arranged collection of articles and essays on the so-called evolutionism versus creationism debate, that has been filling library shelves and school lessons for the last two centuries since the publication of "Philosophie Zoologique", by Monsieur Jean Baptiste Pierre Antoine de Monet, Chevalier de Lamarck, in 1809. In fact, we have found one of the most clarifying pages on the subject to be Your lines devoted to the Chevalier de Lamarck and other scientists from the first half of the XIX Century: Regrettable it is, however, that they are called "Pre-Darwinians" (or "Darwin´s precursors"), in the same fashion as certain philosophers are called "Pre-Socratics". This unfortunate label of "Darwin´s precursors" seems to assume not just the historical importance of Mister Charles Darwin as a philosopher of Nature (or scientist, which is the same), but even the "scientific correctness" of his views, reminding somewhat dogmatically of the "political correctness" of liberal demagogy. It is important to note that, contrary to what most creationists wrongly think, "Evolution" does not mean "Darwinism" at all. Lamarckism (or evolutionary environmentalism), the inheritance of acquired characters by direct influence of the environment and by the "besoin" of the evolving organism, still today stands as the most credible explanation for the demonstrable and irrefutable fact of the evolution of life forms. Darwinism cannot explain phenomena like, for instance, the socio-biological behaviour of non-progenitor individuals who accept the duty of sacrificing themselves in the defence of the group against attackers, or like the formation of very complex organs (in exempli gratia: the eyes and the binocular vision of a mammal). The idea that random mutations can help to "select" the fittest is an absurd, it is the absurd of the growing improbability, it is like stating that by adding more than ninety differently numbered balls to a game of bingo, we are helping a particular player to win the prize. The vast majority of random mutations happen to be more of a hindrance than of an advantage. At the most, we may consider the possibility that evolution does not use only one mechanism (like also we accept that different species evolve at different speeds inside a given geological period), this is to say, that sometimes or with some species the environment plays the main evolutionary rôle, and at other times or with other species the survival of the fittest plays the dominant rôle. But to hold without reservations Mister Darwin´s ideas, is just abandoning a religious dogmatism only for falling into a scientific dogmatism. In resume, Lamarck´s ideas are as valid today as they were in 1809. Nearly two hundred years of research and discoveries have helped to consolidate his case. It is true that the Chevalier de Lamarck was misunderstood, that he was misunderstood from a diversity of scientific and non-scientific "interpreters", and that a good deal of that misunderstanding came from wrongly assumed semantics of the word "besoin". A similar situation to what happened, in Astronomy, with the famous case of the word "canali" used by Signore Giovanni Schiaparelli, wrongly translated into English as "canals", when a better translation for it would have been "channels", and provoking many people into believing that the Italian astronomer was declaring the existence of engineering works built by an intelligent civilisation on the surface of the planet Mars. In fact, the French verb "besoin" is closer in meaning to "need" than to "wish" or "want", and this (and other translation clarifications) makes Lamarck´s thought more understandable. We personally had the need of reading a copy of the original French edition itself, in possession of the library of the Cleveland Community College (near Shelby, North Carolina, Confederate States of America), for knowing first hand what the Chevalier de Lamarck had said in 1809. And with this, we finish our letter. Please feel free to publish this letter in full or in part, to suppress or modify those parts that You may deem necessary, or to add Your own notes and references. Be also at will for including our name, Uniform Resource Locator, or electronic post address, just in case that some of Your readers may choose to read also our own document or to communicate with us. History, Philosophy, Science, Technique: http://www.captain-peter-anthony-stonemann-confdrate-states-ship-dixieland.tk/ Receive our Best Confederate Regards, and our encouragement to continue in Your scientific endeavour. For Confederate Independence. Dixieland for ever! São Paulo, Brazil, 20th September 2004. Captain P.A. Stonemann, C.S.N.
Response
From:
Author of:	Darwin's precursors and influences
Response:	Actually, this mistranslation of "besoin", due to Charles Lyell in his 1832 second volume of The Principles of Geology, has been known for over a century. It was first brought to English-speaking attention by Vance Packard, a noted neo-Lamarckian. You will find a broader discussion of precursoritis with regards to Lamarck in Barthélemy-Madaule. Lamarck is a much-abused figure, it is true, but the fact remains that the idea that things evolve to meet a "need" or "want" (as "besoin" is translated by Packard - "want" means "something that is wanting" in the older English that Packard is using) is just wrong. It is "finalistic" thinking, or as we know it, teleological thinking. Nothing evolves to meet a future need, and it is here that Lamarck fell down. You are going to have a very hard task to convince scientists that he was right in this regard. [Lamarck is credited with several ideas, including the inheritance of acquired characters - this is false; it was widely held (including by Darwin) and was not original to Lamarck. He was, however, the author of this idea, and also of the view that evolution is necessarily progressive and occurs independently of other lineages from spontaneous generation through to the "human grade". Neither of these are correct, either.] Part One of Lamarck's book is on the web in English. Barthélemy-Madaule, Madeleine. 1982. Lamarck, the mythical precursor: a study of the relations between science and ideology. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Packard, Alpheus. 1901. Lamarck, the founder of evolution: His life and work. New York: Longmans, Green and Co.

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

FYI, a quote that's not in the mine:

Stephen Jay Gould - "I regard the failure to find a clear "vector of progress" in life's history as the most puzzling fact of the fossil record." The Ediacaran Experiment, Natural History)

I had this one used recently, together with 3 other quotes that were all in the mine. Great resource! I love this site.

regards Cath

Feedback Letter
From:	Kyle Johnson
Comment:	Thank you for this site. I first became aware of "Dr." Hovind when here was on the Coast to Coast AM radio show a few years back and his ignorance of the basic scientific method blew my mind. Just before coming to your site I was on his. The ammount of logical fallacies is amazing. Also, like every creationist source I've yet seen, he spends most of his time trying to tear down evolution instead of actually showing what makes creation a fact. I can only assume that means he just doesn't have enough real science to support his point of view. Keep up the good work. Kyle Johnson Memphis, TN

Feedback Letter
Comment:	I believe the web page has mad me angry because I know what happend in the beginning! I want to ask you peoples a question, if you believe in "evolution", where the heck did we humans come from? I am a 14 year old girl who is not trying to except "evolution" because it's wrong! I know the real thing and where we all came from. I have to go,but I'll talk more about this when I come back!
Response
From:
Response:	You are welcome to come back at any time. Where did humans come from? Africa, originally, and don't let anyone tell you differently. We evolved just a few million years ago, probably from a species of Australopithecus. Why do I say that? Because there's a chain of fossils leading back to that genus- in other words, evidence, not faith, leads us to that conclusion. There's nothing wrong with faith, but you shouldn't apply it incorrectly. I hope you do come back for more discussion, by the way.

Feedback Letter
Comment:	You guys have a nice site here the problem being its full of lies. You guys should actually listen to someone before you go ahead and mock them. You know, if you think evolution is so true you should debate Kent Hovind. He has offered to debate several evolutionists on their own ground. Don't give me this stupid excuse that a debate is rigged, you can have the debate where you want it. Hey, I'm going to give you guys something to chew on with a scientific question. Where did matter first come from (You say that the big bang created everything, but I want know where the "ingredients" for the big bang came from)? If you could reply to this e-mail that would be great. I know this is long so obviously I don't care if this get's on your comments page. I want to see what you guys say. Thanks
Response
From:
Response:	In fact, Kent Hovind has declined numerous invitations to debates on the Usenet group talk.origins. His debates aren't "rigged" in any sense except he spits out so many lies so rapidly, it's impossible to counter them all in an oral debate. However, he avoids written debates like the plague. As to your other question, you have confused evolutionary biologists with cosmologists. Try www.badastronomy.com for Big Bang questions.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Tim Thompson get his sidereal and solar days mixed up in his reply to "Chris" in the Aug 2004 feedback?
Response
From:
Response:	Yes he did. We have fixed it. Thanks for noticing and letting us know.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	Just as I thought, you couldn't post my feedback because your worried people are going to start not taking evolution seriously, which is already happening anyway. Most people believe in a creator. I believe in a creator not because most people do but because it makes the most sense and science supports it way more than it supports evolution. I don't even no why I bother. I guess it's just something to do and you twistid thinking scientists are amusing (and a joke). And I say again like so many millions of other people have said SHOW ME SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME SAY WOW, NO I BELIEVE IN EVOLUTION. Oh I forgot you don't have anything. Nothing
Response
From:
Response:	Mr. Borders is referring to an item that he submitted for August feedback that was never selected for publication. Looking at it, I can see why. What little it had to say has been said better by other creationists who have had published feedbacks. Since he seems to want to claim that his feedback was not published due to cowardice, I will reproduce what he wrote in full. On August 22, 2004, Mark S. Borders twice submitted: I'm glad to see you creationists out there defending our creator/designer. The other sad group of people crack me up trying to explain evolution. Like I asked Bob Patterson on his website, (and he never delivered) show me just two facts that prove evolution to the point where I say -Wow now I believe in evolution, how could I have been so blind. But you can't because you got nothing. When I read the creationists argument against your claims, they're so convincing that a 10 year old would laugh at you. And when I here your explanations to disprove the creationist, I read it and, well, I laugh like the 10 year old would except louder because you're just grasping at fantasy. If there was proof it would be on the news-"well evolution was just proven". But these weak little discoveries make you look ignorant. We would hear people on the street, at work, in CHURCH saying 'did you hear, they proved evolution?'. Something from nothing-what a concept! Funny how Mr. Borders failed to "SHOW ME SOMETHING THAT MAKES ME SAY WOW, NO[W] I BELIEVE IN" creationism. What is good for the goose is good for the gander! He might try to find a "proof" that not among the hundreds of disproven creationist claims or yet another example of a misquote on evolution used by creationists. A larger fallacy used by Mr. Borders is the idea of establishing an entire field based on one or two facts. Fields of study are not established in such a manner whether they be evolutionary biology, atomic theory, or anything else. Indeed if evolution depended on only one or two "magic bullets" to "prove" it, that would be grounds for suspecting that serious problems existed with the field. In reality there are many thousands of things which strongly support evolution. Mr. Borders is advised to read this site's article on the evidence for evolution. Its Scientific Proof? section is also useful since it deals with the nature of "proof" in science. This simple reality is that the mere discovery of evidence for evolution is a "dog bites man" story while the discovery of any evidence against evolution would be a "man bites dog" story that would get a lot of attention. Why would "proof" of what almost every professional in the field of biology has accepted for well over a hundred years make the news? One might as well also ask why "proof" of protons and neutrons has not made the evening news. Mr. Borders also presented a false dichotomy of either a creator or evolution.

Feedback Letter
From:	Patrick
Comment:	I noticed in the August feedback, Chris Gravelle commented "...the universe which the word itself means one spoken sentence when dividing the word universe." Amazing. Creationists can't even consult a dictionary for a proper etymology, it seems.

Feedback Letter
From:	Rodolfo Vargas
Comment:	don't think that is offensive; and those who take a right-wing neo-conservative, or fundamentalist religious, view Dear Mr Wilkins Though I agree with the ToEv, I must say that you are one dumb shit to think that every one who agrees politically with "neo-conservatives" is somehow a Christian fundamentalist. Let me guess: you work in a college and have never had a real job, correct? Leave your political prejudices at home, asswipe. It is unfortunate that after reading this site for four years, and being amused by the fundies, my first comment has been this one. Get over yourself, leftie.
Response
From:
Response:	I think you have over-interpreted me. I was presenting a number of alternative views that Paul Myers regularly has a go at on his personal blog. These include right-wing neo-conservatives (I don't think I have seen him attack conservatives per se, but I might have missed it - being an Australian I don't have the same radar for American internecine disputes the natives living there would), and it also includes fundamentalists (the comma indicates a list). I think I have also seen him attack people who have the wrong taste in music too. It's his blog - he's free to do what he likes. I do not work in a college - I have worked in non-academic full-time employment for over thirty years (with a year of semi-employment). I have worked in factories, done manual labor (not much, though, I oppose exercise on moral grounds), been a clerk in administration, a printer, a graphic artist and a guillotine operator for paper. I suppose this might not qualify me as working in the real world, but I am not an ivory tower academic (although I dearly want to be one). I am not a left-wing political believer, either. My politics is middle of the road Millian liberal (the word means something different in non-American English speaking countries). In my own country I am regarded as a mild conservative. In any case, that is my personal choice and has nothing to do with what Paul says or thinks. I recommend you get over yourself. It is indeed unfortunate that you allowed your own knee-jerk reactions to inspire you to make a public statement like this.

Feedback Letter
From:	Rodolfo Vargas
Comment:	Wilkins The more I think about it, the more annoyed I get. What the F#$! makes you think that all scientists are lefties? What the F#$! makes you think that those of us who understand and believe that evolution is correct are NOT neoconservatives? It's s&*@ like this that drives people that can otherwise be convinced of science's truth that you and other lefties turn off. F#$! you, Wilkins. I am proudly a neocon. Kerry WILL lose, a@@#$%^. (framing "neocons" makes it a POLITICAL not a SCIENTIFIC discussion)
Responses
From:
Response:	Golly. I substituted a few characters in the expletives so that maybe the library filters won't exclude the TO Archive. I suggest a quick read of the Bill of Rights, which has some words about "freedom of association" in it. P.Z. Myers was exercizing that right on his blog. John Wilkins merely noted it. I don't see anything there that remotely implies that "all scientists are lefties", or that only non-neoconservatives can appreciate the evidence of evolutionary biology.
From:
Response:	Rodolfo was, I think, missing a comma and thought I had lumped all conservatives, especially neoconservatives, in with fundamentalists. This is clearly not the case, and I don't think Paul at his blog thinks it is the case. But it's an interesting reaction nonetheless.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	DEAR SIR, WE WILL LIKE YOUR COMPANY TO PREPARE A PROFOMA INVOICE FOR THE NGK B7HS SPARK PLUG(300 PIECES) WITH THE SHIPPING COST TO MY COUNTRY SEGEGAL (DAKAR ) WE SHALL BE AWAITING FOR YOUR URGENT RESPONSE AS SOON AS POSSIBLE, I REMAIN MR BABS,
Responses
From:
Response:	I think I have never seen a feedback that avoids the usual arguments so completely. A refreshing change, indeed.
From:
Response:	DEAR SIR: I AM CURRENTLY IN POSSESSION OF 300 NGKB7HS SPARK PLUGS THAT MUST BE MOVED FROM A NUMBERED ACCOUNT IN SWITZERLAND TO AN ACCOUNT IN YOUR COUNTRY. ON RECEIPT OF YOUR BANKING INFORMATION I WILL DEPOSIT 300NGKB7HS SPARK PLUGS IN YOUR ACCOUNT. YOUR SHARE WILL BE 30 SPARK PLUGS. PLEASE BE UTMOST CONFIDENTIAL. THANK YOU.

Feedback Letter
From:
Comment:	The site is awesome. Thank you for providing this information to deal with anti-evo in such an easy to find fashion. Pat Biology/chemistry/geology senior

Feedback Letter

From:

Comment:

Dear evolution debate

I am not a creationist or even a christian however to hight light the 'design flaws' in various species

is not really an arguement against 'intelligent design '

as it assumes an intellignet that shares our vlaues and if there is one thing that is clear from what is said about 'god' it is that its mind would be very alien

Ps I in the process of assembling good scientific evidence that there wasa nuclear war 12000 or so years ago, and a reading of genesis is good eveidence towards this. so once I have proved that the bible says there is no creation o reven god the creationists wont have much of an arguemtn left Pat Kent MSc England

Feedback Letter
From:	Jennifer LeClair
Comment:	Hi my name is Jennifer. I am a 13 year old, and I think evelution is a big fake. I am a christian and I think god is the way to be, and if you dont except him, well, you will end up in a very bad place. I excepted God into my life and now I am happier than ever. I just love my life, even when things go wrong. So I recremend you to choose him not evelution. If you want to know more just send an e-mail to (email address deleted in the interest of privacy- CT)
Response
From:
Response:	Hi Jennifer, First off, let me advise you not to put your email address out in public for anyone to see. Second, many, many people find that they can accept both evolution and God. As a matter of fact, there is a whole philosophy called "theistic evolution" that says God guided the whole process. This might have been from the very start, or at crucial points along the way, or even at the very end, by giving humans souls. And while I am glad you are happy, most people do not feel that there is an "either/or" choice to be made here. The great thing about evolution is that it makes sense. I (or anyone here at talk.origins) would be more than happy to spend time explaining just why that's so, if you want to email us. People who accept evolution and God don't have to look at fossils and make up nonsense trying to explain them away. Most people who accept evolution can look at the similarities between species and believe that God did something wondrous by making us all related. In short, there is no conflict between evolution and God, except one that is made up by people who either don't understand what evolution is all about, or who have some other reason for wanting you to not know the truth.