← Autodidact Archive · Original Dissent · friedrich braun

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant

Thread ID: 18444 | Posts: 43 | Started: 2005-05-29

Wayback Archive

friedrich braun [OP]

2005-05-29 17:19 | User Profile

May 21, 2005

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic

Science feeds on mystery. As my colleague Matt Ridley has put it: “Most scientists are bored by what they have already discovered. It is ignorance that drives them on.” Science mines ignorance. Mystery — that which we don’t yet know; that which we don’t yet understand — is the mother lode that scientists seek out. Mystics exult in mystery and want it to stay mysterious. Scientists exult in mystery for a very different reason: it gives them something to do.

Admissions of ignorance and mystification are vital to good science. It is therefore galling, to say the least, when enemies of science turn those constructive admissions around and abuse them for political advantage. Worse, it threatens the enterprise of science itself. This is exactly the effect that creationism or “intelligent design theory” (ID) is having, especially because its propagandists are slick, superficially plausible and, above all, well financed. ID, by the way, is not a new form of creationism. It simply is creationism disguised, for political reasons, under a new name.

It isn’t even safe for a scientist to express temporary doubt as a rhetorical device before going on to dispel it.

“To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” You will find this sentence of Charles Darwin quoted again and again by creationists. They never quote what follows. Darwin immediately went on to confound his initial incredulity. Others have built on his foundation, and the eye is today a showpiece of the gradual, cumulative evolution of an almost perfect illusion of design. The relevant chapter of my Climbing Mount Improbable is called “The fortyfold Path to Enlightenment” in honour of the fact that, far from being difficult to evolve, the eye has evolved at least 40 times independently around the animal kingdom.

The distinguished Harvard geneticist Richard Lewontin is widely quoted as saying that organisms “appear to have been carefully and artfully designed”. Again, this was a rhetorical preliminary to explaining how the powerful illusion of design actually comes about by natural selection. The isolated quotation strips out the implied emphasis on “appear to”, leaving exactly what a simple-mindedly pious audience — in Kansas, for instance — wants to hear.

The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer) is not the most serious problem. There is a more important point to be made, and it goes right to the philosophical heart of creationism.

The standard methodology of creationists is to find some phenomenon in nature which Darwinism cannot readily explain. Darwin said: “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” Creationists mine ignorance and uncertainty in order to abuse his challenge. “Bet you can’t tell me how the elbow joint of the lesser spotted weasel frog evolved by slow gradual degrees?” If the scientist fails to give an immediate and comprehensive answer, a default conclusion is drawn: “Right, then, the alternative theory; ‘intelligent design’ wins by default.”

Notice the biased logic: if theory A fails in some particular, theory B must be right! Notice, too, how the creationist ploy undermines the scientist’s rejoicing in uncertainty. Today’s scientist in America dare not say: “Hm, interesting point. I wonder how the weasel frog’s ancestors did evolve their elbow joint. I’ll have to go to the university library and take a look.” No, the moment a scientist said something like that the default conclusion would become a headline in a creationist pamphlet: “Weasel frog could only have been designed by God.”

I once introduced a chapter on the so-called Cambrian Explosion with the words: “It is as though the fossils were planted there without any evolutionary history.” Again, this was a rhetorical overture, intended to whet the reader’s appetite for the explanation. Inevitably, my remark was gleefully quoted out of context. Creationists adore “gaps” in the fossil record.

Many evolutionary transitions are elegantly documented by more or less continuous series of changing intermediate fossils. Some are not, and these are the famous “gaps”. Michael Shermer has wittily pointed out that if a new fossil discovery neatly bisects a “gap”, the creationist will declare that there are now two gaps! Note yet again the use of a default. If there are no fossils to document a postulated evolutionary transition, the assumption is that there was no evolutionary transition: God must have intervened.

The creationists’ fondness for “gaps” in the fossil record is a metaphor for their love of gaps in knowledge generally. Gaps, by default, are filled by God. You don’t know how the nerve impulse works? Good! You don’t understand how memories are laid down in the brain? Excellent! Is photosynthesis a bafflingly complex process? Wonderful! Please don’t go to work on the problem, just give up, and appeal to God. Dear scientist, don’t work on your mysteries. Bring us your mysteries for we can use them. Don’t squander precious ignorance by researching it away. Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas.

Richard Dawkins, FRS, is the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, at Oxford University. His latest book is The Ancestor’s Tale

Gabrielle

2005-05-29 17:31 | User Profile

:clap: PHD Scientist offers $250,000 REWARD if anyone can PROVE the theory of Evolution

Article is found at:

[url]http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=250k[/url]

Dr. Hovind's $250,000 Offer formerly $10,000, offered since 1990

I have a standing offer of $250,000 to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution.* My $250,000 offer demonstrates that the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief.

Observed phenomena:

Most thinking people will agree that-- 1. A highly ordered universe exists. 2. At least one planet in this complex universe contains an amazing variety of life forms. 3. Man appears to be the most advanced form of life on this planet.

Known options:

Choices of how the observed phenomena came into being-- 1. The universe was created by God. 2. The universe always existed. 3. The universe came into being by itself by purely natural processes (known as evolution) so that no appeal to the supernatural is needed.

Evolution has been acclaimed as being the only process capable of causing the observed phenomena.

Evolution is presented in our public school textbooks as a process that:

1. Brought time, space, and matter into existence from nothing.
2. Organized that matter into the galaxies, stars, and at least nine planets around the sun. (This process is often referred to as cosmic evolution.)
3. Created the life that exists on at least one of those planets from nonliving matter (chemical evolution).
4. Caused the living creatures to be capable of and interested in reproducing themselves.
5. Caused that first life form to spontaneously diversify into different forms of living things, such as the plants and animals on the earth today (biological evolution).

People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense. The exclusive teaching of this dangerous, mind-altering philosophy in tax-supported schools, parks, museums, etc., is also a clear violation of the First Amendment.

How to collect the $250,000: Prove beyond reasonable doubt that the process of evolution (option 3 above, under "known options") is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence. Only empirical evidence is acceptable. Persons wishing to collect the $250,000 may submit their evidence in writing or schedule time for a public presentation. A committee of trained scientists will provide peer review of the evidence offered and, to the best of their ability, will be fair and honest in their evaluation and judgment as to the validity of the evidence presented.

If you are convinced that evolution is an indisputable fact, may I suggest that you offer $250,000 for any empirical or historical evidence against the general theory of evolution. This might include the following:

1. The earth is not billions of years old (thus destroying the possibility of evolution having happened as it is being taught).
2. No animal has ever been observed changing into any fundamentally different kind of animal.
3. No one has ever observed life spontaneously arising from nonliving matter.
4. Matter cannot make itself out of nothing.

My suggestion: Proponents of the theory of evolution would do well to admit that they believe in evolution, but they do not know that it happened the way they teach. They should call evolution their "faith" or "religion," and stop including it in books of science. Give up faith in the silly religion of evolutionism, and trust the God of the Bible (who is the Creator of this universe and will be your Judge, and mine, one day soon) to forgive you and to save you from the coming judgment on man’s sin.

• NOTE: When I use the word evolution, I am not referring to the minor variations found in all of the various life forms (microevolution). I am referring to the general theory of evolution which believes these five major events took place without God:

Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. Planets and stars formed from space dust. Matter created life by itself. Early life-forms learned to reproduce themselves. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms (i.e., fish changed to amphibians, amphibians changed to reptiles, and reptiles changed to birds or mammals).

Answers to Commonly Asked Questions about the $250,000 Offer

Students in tax-supported schools are being taught that evolution is a fact. We are convinced that evolution is a religion masquerading as science and should not be part of any science curriculum. It has nothing to do with the subject of science. There are at least six different and unrelated meanings to the word “evolution” as used in science textbooks.

Cosmic evolution- the origin of time, space and matter. Big Bang Chemical evolution- the origin of higher elements from hydrogen. Stellar and planetary evolution- Origin of stars and planets. Organic evolution- Origin of life from inanimate matter. Macroevolution Origin of major kinds. Microevolution Variations within kinds. Only this one has been observed, the first five are religious. They are believed, by faith, even though there is no empirical evidence to prove them in any way. While I admire the great faith of the evolutionists who accept the first five I object to having this religious propaganda included in with legitimate science at taxpayer’s expense.

Even a quick review of a typical public school textbook will show that students are being deceived into thinking all six types of evolution above have been proven because evidence is given for minor variations called micro-evolution. The first five are smuggled in when no one is watching.

This deception is a classic case of bait and switch. One definition of evolution (such as “descent with modification”) is given and the others are assumed to be true by association. The first five meanings are believed by faith, have never been observed and are religious. Only the last one is scientific. It is also what the Bible predicted would happen. The animals and plants would bring forth “after their kind” in Genesis 1.

Many have responded to my offer of $250,000 for scientific proof for evolution. The terms and conditions of the offer are detailed very clearly on my web site [url]www.drdino.com[/url]. Here are some answers to some commonly asked questions.

The offer is legitimate. A wealthy friend of mine has the money in the bank. If the conditions of the offer are met, the money will be paid out immediately. My word is good. The members of the committee of scientists that will judge the evidence are all highly trained, have advanced degrees in science as well as many years of experience in their field. For example: there is a zoologist, a geologist, an aerospace engineer, a professor of radiology and biophysics, and an expert in radio metric dating to name a few. They are busy people and do not wish to waste time on foolish responses. Nor do they wish to waste time arguing with skeptics and scoffers who seem to have nothing else to do than ask silly questions when they really don’t want answers (so far this has been the typical response to the offer). I will not reveal their names for this reason. Any legitimate evidence will be forward to them and they will respond. At that time they may identify themselves if they choose. The merit of the evidence presented and the reasonableness of their response does not depend on who they are. Evidence of minor changes within the same kind of plant or animal does not qualify as evidence and will not be sent to the committee to waste their time. For example, doubling the chromosome number of a sterile hybrid does not add additional genetic information; it duplicates what is already present in the parent plant. Because of the absence of additional genetic information the resultant plant can't be classified as different or new species. The plant may differ in a number of ways - bigger, vigorous as observed in any polyploid plants. Such easily recognizable phenotypic changes have confused many. Some evolutionists have jumped to the conclusion that a new species has been evolved. The key is that no new genetic information has been added. Even a new “species” is not proof for evolution as the offer calls for. See the conditions of the $250,000 offer on the web site. Some have insisted on a precise definition of the word “kind”. The Bible defines “kind” as those that are able to “bring forth” or reproduce. Those animals that were originally able to reproduce were of the same kind. There may be diversity now, 6000 years later, that could cause some varieties of the original kind to not be able to reproduce now. For example, I understand that rabbits from Alaska cannot breed with rabbits from Florida yet they are still the same kind of animal. It is obvious that a dog and a wolf are the same “kind” of animal (they are currently classed as different “species” yet are inter-fertile-- hmmm, what is the precise definition of “species”?) where a dog and a fish are not. While there may be some blurry areas that would be worthy of research in defining the original kinds, rather than muddy the issue with these type questions it would be wise to focus on the obvious cases like the dog/fish comparison. These are obviously different “kinds” of animals. So, for the sake of clarity, prove the dog and the fish evolved from a common ancestor. The honest scientist would be wise to admit that no evidence exists that could begin to prove the dog and the fish have a common ancestor. He may believe that they are related but that is not science and that is my point in the offer. Some believe this type of evolution happens but it should not be presented to innocent students as a “fact”. Further, it certainly is not evidence that the other four definitions of evolution have occurred. The idea that the majority of scientists believe in the theory is not evidence either. Majority opinion is often wrong and must be corrected. History is full of examples. Anonymous letters will be ignored.

Rather than simply sending in scientific evidence for evolution, some have wasted lots of their time and mine sending letters demanding to know who is on the committee, what bank account the money is in, asking Bill Clinton type questions about the definition of words like “is”, etc. When I do not respond the way they want me to they post notices on their web sites claiming that I owe them the money or that the offer is a sham! It is obvious they are using the Red Herring tactic to draw attention away from the fact that they have no evidence to support the religion of evolution. I tell everyone who inquires, if you have some evidence, send it in, don’t beat around the bush. Give us the best you have on the first try please to save time.

Many have offered evidence of microevolution and assumed that the other 5 meanings of the word are somehow magically connected. They don’t seem to realize that they are blinded to the obvious. Treat the $250,000 offer as a lawyer would treat a ‘who-done-it’ case. It is your job to prove that what is being taught to our kids as fact (all six meanings of the word evolution above), is indeed a fact. If this cannot be done then it should be admitted that evolution is a religion but not a science. Some say it is unfair to define evolution including the origin of the universe. They say it only has to do with “change in gene frequency over time.” All you need to do is read your local textbook and see that all 6 meanings of the word are part of what is taught as evolution theory. If these nay Sayers are agreeing that it should not be included then they should help me get it out of the books, if they are genuine.

Over the years I have heard many evolutionists say, “Evolution is a theory like gravity is a theory. Don’t you believe in gravity?” They repeat this mantra as if repetition will make it true. Their example is silly of course. We can all observe gravity every moment of our lives. We can do tests and experiments to verify the theory of gravity. No one has ever seen an exception to it. By the same token, no one has ever observed evolution nor been able to demonstrate any evolution beyond minor variations within the kind. To try to make evolution science by associating it with theories like gravity is ridiculous.

Nearly all responses to my $250,000 offer go something like this: “Of course no one can prove evolution, can you prove creation?” This response is what I expected and wanted. Neither theory of origins can be proven. Both involve a great deal of faith in the unseen. So my next logical question is: “Why do I have to pay for the evolution religion to be taught to all the students in the tax supported school system?” Since all taxpayers are being forced to pay for evolution to be taught exclusively in public schools and evolutionists have had the last 130 years and billions of dollars in research grants to prove their religion, the burden of proof is on them to supply proof of their theory.

I do not have time or interest in getting involved in long e-mail debates, but I will talk to anyone by phone or debate with any qualified scientist (even a panel of evolutionists) in a public forum at a university, on radio or TV, as long as there is equal time for each position not each person. If you call, please have a list of topics to discuss or questions to ask and feel free to record the conversation if you like. Just inform me that you are recording please. I hope this response is satisfactory.

I have taught for years that evolution is nothing but a religion mixed in with real science. Many have been duped into believing in it. There is no evidence that any plant or animal ever can or did change to any other kind or creature. It is time that intelligent people the world over began to admit that the king has no clothes! There is no evidence for changes between kinds of animals. The Bible teaches that God made them to “bring forth after their kind.” This is all that has ever been observed. The same Bible teaches that everyone will face the Creator one day to be judged for everything they have said, done or thought. I recommend that everyone prepare for that day by taking advantage of God’s mercy and forgiveness afforded through the free salvation offered to any who will confess their sin and receive Jesus Christ as their Lord. If you are interested in learning more about becoming a Christian, please call me. I travel a lot but always take time for calls when I am in the office. I am most often in Wednesday through Friday at 850-479-3466. Check my itinerary on my web site for my location if you need to talk with me while I am out speaking. If possible, attend a seminar. Seminars are free and we always have a question answer time for those who attend.

Sincerely,

Kent Hovind

Happy Hacker

2005-05-29 18:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun]May 21, 2005

Creationism: God's gift to the ignorant As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic[/QUOTE]

Dawkins has less credbility on Evolution than Bush has on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. For starters, no one is trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas, only challenge the credibility of this state doctrine.

madrussian

2005-05-29 18:41 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]:clap: PHD Scientist [/QUOTE] He's a high school teacher and a kook:

[url]http://www.drdino.com/seeArticle.php?artid=68[/url]

Strangely enough, I haven't found his credentials, except the title "Dr."

This is what they believe: > Additionally, CSE sets out to demonstrate the fallacies and deceptions of modern evolutionary thinking. We believe the Bible is literally true and scientifically accurate. We believe the earth was created in six literal, 24-hour days, about 6000 years ago. We believe dinosaurs have always lived with man. They were called "dragons" throughout most of human history. Noah took them on the ark (probably juveniles--just be sure to get a pink one and a blue one!). After the Flood, people killed most of them. There are probably a few small ones still alive today in remote parts of the world. See our video, Dinosaurs and the Bible for much more on the topic.

:shocking:

friedrich braun

2005-05-29 19:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Dawkins has less credbility on Evolution than Bush has on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. For starters, no one is trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas, only challenge the credibility of this state doctrine.[/QUOTE]

[B]Dawkins has less credbility on Evolution than Bush has on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. [/B]

Why do you say that?

[B]For starters, no one is trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas, only challenge the credibility of this state doctrine.[/B]

No where did he in his article say that someone was trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas.

Petr

2005-05-29 19:32 | User Profile

[COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "Why do you say that?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Because Dawkins is an utterly biased, ruthless propagandist.

Even his chair in at the Oxford University is quite phony: "[I]the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science[/I]". He's been called to be actually "a Professor of Atheism."

[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "No where did he in his article that someone was trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Let's see what the sub-headline of this article you posted says: [B] [COLOR=Red][SIZE=3]"As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic"[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

[B]A flat-out lie[/B]. Evo-propagandists are never too picky about truth when trying to smear creationists.

Petr

Happy Hacker

2005-05-29 19:47 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Gabrielle]PHD Scientist offers $250,000 REWARD if anyone can PROVE the theory of Evolution[/QUOTE]

Kent Hovind is a former science teacher, and now is a fulltime Creation Science advocate. I believe his PhD is in Education. I wouldn't call him a scientist because he has never been a primary researcher. He is eccentric, but does grasp the idea of Science better than most Evolutionists.

That $250,000 is very safe.

madrussian

2005-05-29 19:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]He is eccentric, but does grasp the idea of Science better than most Evolutionists.
[/QUOTE] You could say he grasps the idea of science better than most scientists.

No, make it "believing in the Bible is a prerequisite for grasping science" :biggrin:

friedrich braun

2005-05-29 20:05 | User Profile

Thanks for being HH's ventriloquist.

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=Purple][B][I] - "Why do you say that?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Because Dawkins is an utterly biased, ruthless propagandist.

Even his chair in at the Oxford University is quite phony: "[I]the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science[/I]". He's been called to be actually "a Professor of Atheism."

[COLOR=Purple][I][B] - "No where did he in his article that someone was trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas."[/B][/I][/COLOR]

Let's see what the sub-headline of this article you posted says: [B] [COLOR=Red][SIZE=3]"As the Religious Right tries to ban the teaching of evolution in Kansas, Richard Dawkins speaks up for scientific logic"[/SIZE][/COLOR][/B]

[B]A flat-out lie[/B]. Evo-propagandists are never too picky about truth when trying to smear creationists.

Petr[/QUOTE]

Petr

2005-05-29 20:10 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Thanks for being HH's ventriloquist."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Thanks for throwing a tantrum when I correctly point out just how [B]casually dishonest[/B] evo-propagandists can be.

Petr

Gabrielle

2005-05-29 20:43 | User Profile

Gentlemen, Gentlemen... LOL. You guys are funny. :blow:

Happy Hacker

2005-05-29 21:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=friedrich braun][B]Dawkins has less credbility on Evolution than Bush has on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction. [/B]

Why do you say that?

For [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=108060&postcount=46]example[/URL]. Or, take the article at the top of this thread is dishonest. Dawkins' declares "Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas." Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge. The people in Kansas want to give the students more information. They want the students to know the flaws of Evolution theory and to be aware of alternatives. Dawkins, himself, is the advocate of ignorance. He wants to ban the students from receiving additional knowledge.

[B]For starters, no one is trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas, only challenge the credibility of this state doctrine.[/B]

No where did he in his article say that someone was trying to "ban" Evolution in Kansas.[/QUOTE]

The only name on that article, which includes the subtitle with a reference to banning Evolution, is Richard Dawkins. An anonymous Evolutionist may have inserted words after Dawkins' title, but it hardly changes that fact that Darwkins article is nothing more than an effort to imply that Creationists want something banned, specifically Evolution in Kansas. When you accuse someone of wanting to make students ignorant, you're accusing that person of wanting to ban something. The anonymous Evolutionist who added those words didn't miss the point.

Gabrielle

2005-05-29 21:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]For [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showpost.php?p=108060&postcount=46]example[/URL]. Or, take the article at the top of this thread is dishonest. Dawkins' declares "Ignorance is God’s gift to Kansas." Ignorance is the opposite of knowledge. The people in Kansas want to give the students more information. They want the students to know the flaws of Evolution theory and to be aware of alternatives. Dawkins, himself, is the advocate of ignorance. He wants to ban the students from receiving additional knowledge.

The only name on that article, which includes the subtitle with a reference to banning Evolution, is Richard Dawkins. An anonymous Evolutionist may have inserted words after Dawkins' title, but it hardly changes that fact that Darwkins article is nothing more than an effort to imply that Creationists want something banned, specifically Evolution in Kansas. When you accuse someone of wanting to make students ignorant, you're accusing that person of wanting to ban something. The anonymous Evolutionist who added those words didn't miss the point.[/QUOTE]

Good post, H.H.

Angler

2005-05-30 00:56 | User Profile

We believe the earth was created in six literal, 24-hour days, about 6000 years ago. Anyone who believes such laughable nonsense is beyond hope. He is following Paul's exhortation to be a "fool for Christ's sake." Rationality is his enemy, so how can you reason with such a person? All you can do is pity him.

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-05-30 03:57 | User Profile

Great article by Dawkins.

Petr

2005-05-30 08:02 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Great article by Dawkins."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Great exactly how? To me it seemed just a collection of boring agitprop cliches.

[B]AND[/B], Dawkins endorses one even more notorious anti-creationist hack than himself:

[COLOR=Indigo][I]"The deceitful misquoting of scientists to suit an anti-scientific agenda ranks among the many unchristian habits of fundamentalist authors. But such Telling Lies for God (the book title of [B]the splendidly pugnacious Australian geologist Ian Plimer[/B]) is not the most serious problem. "[/I][/COLOR]

Some info on this Plimer:

[url]http://www.trueorigin.org/noaig.asp[/url]

(excerpt) [COLOR=Purple] "[B]Plimer has another claim to infamy — on a University of Newcastle letterhead, he said of an American creationist scientist who was vising Australia: “ [I]… you would surely have noticed an entourage of young people (principally boys) accompanying [him] and who continually touched him[/I].[/B]” (the creationist always travelled with his wife or the couple he was billeted with). But considering the involvement of the Skeptic Editor at the Humanist Australis2000 conference with the pedophile advocate, one must wonder if the Skeptics aren’t repudiating Plimer’s comment because they don’t actually consider it an insult. [B]It is interesting that the Australian Skeptics have been publicly invited, from the podium at their tenth annual convention in Melbourne, to dissociate themselves from such gutter tactics, as well as the outright lies (and blatantly practising deception against creationists, which Plimer brags about in his book Telling Lies …) [/B] which Dr Carl Wieland documented on overhead at the time. They were put on notice that a refusal to do so would be a reason for AiG to refuse to debate them. Stear has also been confronted with this, but has also refused to repudiate such outrageous behaviour. [B]Such a refusal indicates that they clearly think the end (combatting creationism) justifies the means (deception, lies and slander), so how can anyone be sure that anything else they write is not deception for the good of the “cause[/B]”?"[/COLOR]

See also:

[COLOR=Blue][SIZE=4]Ian Plimer’s Bloopers (a selection)[/SIZE][/COLOR]

[url]http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/183.asp[/url]

Petr

Petr

2005-05-30 08:11 | User Profile

[COLOR=Sienna][B][I] - "Rationality is his enemy, so how can you reason with such a person?"[/I][/B][/COLOR]

Once again you personify "rationality" in an animistic manner.

Your pompous rhetoric asides, wouldn't it be perfectly possible (for the sake of argument) to very rationally and logically devise a scheme that would show the earth to be no older than 6,000 years; what exactly would be so irrational about it, especially if one would reject the uniformitarian paradigm (that the present is an absolute key to the past, and that every natural process continues "as they were from the beginning of the creation")

[COLOR=Indigo][B]2 Peter 3:3-4:

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, [U]all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation[/U]. [/B] [/COLOR]

It's only a matter of how you interpret the empirical evidence available. One could easily devise very "wild" theories and still stay formally very "rational" - panspermia advocates are evidence enough for this.

Petr

Ron

2005-05-31 19:00 | User Profile

I noticed the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a legal term used for criminal cases. It's quite subjective. Each juror must decide for themself what the standard is. There is no uniform meaning. I don't know how this could possibly used as the standard of proof for Creationists. They can't lose. On the other hand, preponderence of scientific evidence may be a good place to start.

Happy Hacker

2005-05-31 21:42 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ron]I noticed the standard of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. This is a legal term used for criminal cases. It's quite subjective. Each juror must decide for themself what the standard is. There is no uniform meaning. I don't know how this could possibly used as the standard of proof for Creationists. They can't lose. On the other hand, preponderence of scientific evidence may be a good place to start.[/QUOTE]

How many times does an Evolutionist have to point and yell "ignorant" before he has established a preponderence of the scientific evidence?

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-06-01 01:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]How many times does an Evolutionist have to point and yell "ignorant" before he has established a preponderence of the scientific evidence?[/QUOTE] That is a dishonest characterisation of the Evolutionist's arguments.

Ron

2005-06-01 01:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]How many times does an Evolutionist have to point and yell "ignorant" before he has established a preponderence of the scientific evidence?[/QUOTE] I will agree, name calling has no place in the discussion from either side. However, it seems to me each side is talking past the other. The Creationists want the Evolutionists to demonstrate their point scientifically, whereas, they need only faith to establish theirs.

Happy Hacker

2005-06-01 03:00 | User Profile

[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]That is a dishonest characterisation of the Evolutionist's arguments.[/QUOTE]

Maybe in some cases, but certainly not in the case of Dawkins' article at the top of this thread. If Evolutionists aren't charging ignorance, they're charging dishonesy. That does seem to be the substance of the Evolutionists' arguments in defense of the scant and highly speculative circumstantial evidence they offer for something no one has ever seen.

Happy Hacker

2005-06-01 03:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Ron]I will agree, name calling has no place in the discussion from either side. However, it seems to me each side is talking past the other. The Creationists want the Evolutionists to demonstrate their point scientifically, whereas, they need only faith to establish theirs.[/QUOTE]

Evolutionists claim that that their theory is based on solid science. They should be expected to back that claim up, especially if they're going to impose their beliefs on others.

There's been some discussion on this board on the [URL=http://www.originaldissent.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17275&highlight=fred+evolution]anti-Evolution[/URL] article written by Fred, who is not a Creationist. Fred repeatedly points to example of example of problems for Evolutionists. Compare that to Dawkins', a leading Evolutionist, article at the top of this thread. One is a serious look at the problems of Evolution. The other one is just Creationist bashing. This typical.

madrussian

2005-06-01 05:51 | User Profile

What's scientific evidence for creationism? None.

Texas Dissident

2005-06-01 07:45 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]What's scientific evidence for creationism? None.[/QUOTE]

Show me the monkey boy!

[IMG]http://images.amazon.com/images/P/6305458073.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg[/IMG]

Angler

2005-06-01 08:23 | User Profile

[QUOTE=madrussian]What's scientific evidence for creationism? None.[/QUOTE]Who needs evidence when you have a book that people say was "breathed" by God? If ancient people wrote it in a book and you were brought up to believe in it without question, then it HAS to be true. No further thought is necessary. Okay, you can have doubts -- just not too much doubt. That could make God angry. LOL

Angler

2005-06-01 08:36 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]Show me the monkey boy! Okay -- here are several. Notice the progressively larger cranial capacity and other features. There are other characteristics of such fossils that we cannot see here, such as the position of the opening in the base of the skull can be used to determine whether or not the creature walked primarily on four legs or two.

[IMG]http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1_files/hominids_horiz.jpg[/IMG]

Today we have "monkey-boys" in the form of Negroes, who are slightly lower on the evolutionary ladder than whites, even though we are technically the same species. We also have chimps, with which we share well over 90% of our DNA. Other ancestors with genomes between ours and those of chimps are long-extinct. We only have their fossils, some examples of which are shown above, and some of their preserved DNA.

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-06-01 11:49 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Evolutionists claim that that their theory is based on solid science. They should be expected to back that claim up, especially if they're going to impose their beliefs on others.[/QUOTE]

Well, there is ample evidence for Evolution, as has been demonstrated repeatedly on this board, by more scientifically competent posters than I.

However, even if there wasn't, the onus is not on the Evolutionist to demonstrate that life originated through purely natural means. The onus is on the Creationist to demonstrate that "Intelligent Design" is the means by which life was created, since they are the ones seeking to "introduce ontological entities beyond necessity". There is no reason that Creationism should be the default position until overturned by a purely naturalistic of human origins other than the fact that Creationism is the position that you currently hold. All other things being equal, a naturalistic explanation of the origins of life is preferenced over one involving a creator, since it entails less assumptions. If a merely plausible explanation of the origins of life exists (e.g. evolution) there is no need to assume the existence of a creator, even if the evolutionists account is not 100% provable beyond a doubt.

Rather, it is your responsibility as an advocate of Creationism (or Intelligent Design) to prove that this was the only possible means by which life could come into being. So where is your proof?

Texas Dissident

2005-06-01 14:51 | User Profile

[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]Rather, it is your responsibility as an advocate of Creationism (or Intelligent Design) to prove that this was the only possible means by which life could come into being. [/QUOTE]

I disagree. Just like evolution itself, that statement goes completely against the natural state of things. Creationism is the default 'theory' and millennia of human history attests to that. The onus of proof lies squarely and fully on the new, progressive, sober-minded, logical and rationally-enlightened scientific evolutionist.

Speaking as one of Angler's 'enemies of rationality' who deserve pity, again, just show me the monkey boy. Bring me Cha-ka so I can pet him. Have pity on me and give me some conclusive proof of evolution. Lead me out of my intellectual wasteland and save me. Please.

The 'scientific' evolutionists can't, won't and never will get that proof. On that ultimate score of 'what matters most in life', you've got nothin' but some ape skull fragments. Come on. Talk about blind faith...

Texas Dissident

2005-06-01 15:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]Okay -- here are several. Notice the progressively larger cranial capacity and other features. There are other characteristics of such fossils that we cannot see here, such as the position of the opening in the base of the skull can be used to determine whether or not the creature walked primarily on four legs or two.

So what, Angler? What does that tell me besides there have been monkeys that looked different throughout our world's history?

You do realize the incredible 'leap of faith' you're making going from that picture to the theory of evolution? What never ceases to amaze me is how you can make yourself believe that and dismiss Creationists as 'enemies of rationality' deserving only pity. :lol: I hope you do see the common thread here--at bottom, evolutionists just don't want God around. That's the heart of the entire made-up 'debate'. I say made-up because the only real debate going on is in the evolutionist's own mind--trying each day to justify themselves and deny the obvious right in front of their face.

Happy Hacker

2005-06-01 19:11 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler][IMG]http://www.evcforum.net/RefLib/EvidencesMacroevolution1_files/hominids_horiz.jpg[/IMG][/QUOTE]

Setting up such sequences is psychologically the strongest evidence Evolutionists have for Evolution. The trouble is, at best, it's subjective (pyrite must be gold because it looks like gold). At worst, it's another Evolutionist lie.

If you look up those fossils. You'll find that all of them have objective problems to their position in that picture. Some of those problems are so great that even leading evolutionist experts reject them as human ancestors. Yet, here they are in this picture, composed by a liar.

For example, the first fossil, A, is a modern chimp. B and C are classified as Australopithecus africanus, which is an ape species that by scientific consensus are not considered to be in the line of human evolution (like so much one-time evidence for Evolution, it doesn't stand the test of time). K and L are both officially classified as Homo Sapian (the species we belong to). You can look up the rest if you need further illistration of the desperation of Evolutionists to fabricate evidence.

The subjective flaw is that you can line up anything and make it look like there's an evolutionary sequence, like cars or clothes from your closet. It works well between humans and apes because ape and human skulls are already similar. Toss in the natural variation within a kind, and you have the material to create a compelling sequence that has no truth to it.

Angler

2005-06-01 20:55 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Texas Dissident]I disagree. Just like evolution itself, that statement goes completely against the natural state of things. Creationism is the default 'theory' and millennia of human history attests to that. The onus of proof lies squarely and fully on the new, progressive, sober-minded, logical and rationally-enlightened scientific evolutionist. As I've pointed out before, what primitive people thought about human origins means no more than what they thought about the origins of weather, the nature of the solar system, etc. It doesn't matter what people thought for millennia. If they were wrong, then they were wrong.

As far as the burden of proof, obviously it lies on the creationists. Why? Simple: there are many different creation myths. They can't all be correct. Thus, you have to prove that yours is.

That's moot anyway, since modern science has proven that evolution is a fact. Not all of the details are known, but evolution is known. It's been observed in nature and in laboratories. And if evolution can happen within species, then there's no reason to doubt that it can transform one species into another under the right environmental pressures. There is often an imaginary line drawn between micro- and macroevolution, but it's all the same process.

Speaking as one of Angler's 'enemies of rationality' who deserve pity, again, just show me the monkey boy. Bring me Cha-ka so I can pet him. Have pity on me and give me some conclusive proof of evolution. Lead me out of my intellectual wasteland and save me. Please. I'll let you pet Cha-ka the monkey boy if you'll let me pet Dino the dinosaur. Both are extinct, so neither of us is likely to get his wish. But just because something doesn't exist now doesn't mean we can't know for a fact that it once did exist. Dinosaurs once existed, and so did primitive forms of man. The fossils exist to prove it.

The 'scientific' evolutionists can't, won't and never will get that proof. On that ultimate score of 'what matters most in life', you've got nothin' but some ape skull fragments. Come on. Talk about blind faith...[/QUOTE]Those are not ape skulls. Are you an expert in zoology? You think those who study such things all their lives don't know an ape or human skull when they see one? Those are transistional forms.

Furthermore, it would be a serious mistake to think that those fossils alone are all the evidence that exists for evolution. There is so much evidence, in fact, that no single person can possibly be familiar with all of it. It comes from many different areas of science, and it all points in the same direction. Here's more strong evidence that I've posted before. I know you won't read it, but here it is anyway:

[url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html[/url]

Creationists can take refuge from the evidence by simply not looking at it and/or by claiming that the scientific experts from multiple disciplines around the world are all in some kind of conspiracy to hide God's hand in the world. The latter is absurd, of course, since evolution has nothing to do with the existence of God. I personally doubt the existence of a "personal" God, but my doubt has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. (There are, however, some sciences that contribute to my doubt -- primarily neuroscience.) By not looking at the evidence and considering it with an open mind, you're only cheating yourself.

[url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html[/url]

Angler

2005-06-01 21:19 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Happy Hacker]Setting up such sequences is psychologically the strongest evidence Evolutionists have for Evolution. The trouble is, at best, it's subjective (pyrite must be gold because it looks like gold). At worst, it's another Evolutionist lie. You are interpreting the fossils solely on their superficial appearance, but you have no expertise in the area. Experts in zoology and related subfields of biology will be able to see a lot more in those fossils than you and I. Are 99.85% of earth and life scientists around the world lying? If so, I'd like to know their motive. (I do know that many creationists lie to themselves and frequently recycle thoroughly-debunked arguments, such as those based on thermodynamics or "tornadoes in junkyards.")

If you look up those fossils. You'll find that all of them have objective problems to their position in that picture. Some of those problems are so great that even leading evolutionist experts reject them as human ancestors. Yet, here they are in this picture, composed by a liar. What problems? And what "liar" composed the picture?

For example, the first fossil, A, is a modern chimp. B and C are classified as Australopithecus africanus, which is an ape species that by scientific consensus are not considered to be in the line of human evolution (like so much one-time evidence for Evolution, it doesn't stand the test of time). K and L are both officially classified as Homo Sapian (the species we belong to). You can look up the rest if you need further illistration of the desperation of Evolutionists to fabricate evidence. Where are you getting this information?

The subjective flaw is that you can line up anything and make it look like there's an evolutionary sequence, like cars or clothes from your closet. It works well between humans and apes because ape and human skulls are already similar. Toss in the natural variation within a kind, and you have the material to create a compelling sequence that has no truth to it.[/QUOTE]The flaw in this argument is that fossils, unlike cars and clothes, are not man-made. They have to be discovered. Nobody chose to find fossils that fit a sequence in locations that also fit evolutionary theory. They simply did.

"Natural variation within a kind" would be easily recognizable and would be highly unlikely to account for the variations between those fossils.

Now, how about Biblical creationism and Genesis. Anybody have any fossils to support that? How about geological analysis to support a worldwide flood? (There is proof of ice ages.) Mention of microscopic organisms causing disease in the Bible? A firmament in the sky? Evidence that the earth is 6000 years old and that multiple methods of radioactive dating are all wrong, even though they all agree substantially? Evidence that the continents were all joined together much more recently than is claimed?

Happy Hacker

2005-06-02 02:44 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]You are interpreting the fossils solely on their superficial appearance, but you have no expertise in the area. Experts in zoology and related subfields of biology will be able to see a lot more in those fossils than you and I. Are 99.85% of earth and life scientists around the world lying?

No, the scientists aren't lying, just the Evolutionists. The fossils in the picture you posted, Australopithecus africanus, H. habilis, H. erectus, et al. can all be found on Creationist websites along with rebuttals based on scientific sources. Care to tell me which authority arranged those fossils for that picture? Richard Leaky, or another such expert, or some Evolutionist hack only interested in pumping out propaganda? Someone like Leaky would never have produced that picture.

If so, I'd like to know their motive. (I do know that many creationists lie to themselves and frequently recycle thoroughly-debunked arguments, such as those based on thermodynamics or "tornadoes in junkyards.")

The tornado in a junkyard is an analogy created by an Evolutionist. And, instead of insisting that Creationists lie or don't understand thermodynamics, maybe you'd like to provide just one example to refute their explanation of thermodynamics. This is where you point to an example of Evolution, endlessly increasing complexity within a system open only to energy.

Where are you getting this information?

Get what information? The identification of the skulls?

The flaw in this argument is that fossils, unlike cars and clothes, are not man-made. They have to be discovered. Nobody chose to find fossils that fit a sequence in locations that also fit evolutionary theory. They simply did.

You can line up anything. Stars, mountains, ponds, and so on. The reason my examples were all artificial is because intelligently created things fall into types with variation within those types. I don't know about different pond kinds.

"Natural variation within a kind" would be easily recognizable and would be highly unlikely to account for the variations between those fossils.

Then why does your chart have two skulls classified as Homo sapian? In fact, in the picture you posted, there are several examples of variation withing a species, even in the Evolutionist view of the fossils.

Now, how about Biblical creationism and Genesis. Anybody have any fossils to support that?

There are billions of fossils that document the fixity of species. You can go to the beach today and find living animals, marine invertabrates, that look almost identical to fossils supposedly hundreds of billions of years old. And, if you dig through the rock, you'll find their fossils at all levels of the fossil record. It's not the randomness and constant variation that Evolution would produce. Why in hundreds of billions of years, a new major type of marine invertebrate failed to evolve? Supposedly every land animal, insect, and plant has evolved in a time where not a single new major type of marine invertebrate evolved. Why? Because Evolution doesn't happen.

Exelsis_Deo

2005-06-02 04:01 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Angler]As far as the burden of proof, obviously it lies on the creationists. Why? Simple: there are many different creation myths. They can't all be correct. Thus, you have to prove that yours is. [/QUOTE] There are past threads, searchable within OD, in which I and others discussed this with much more evidence, focus, and depth than in this thread. Look them up, Angler. It's far more enlightening.

I felt a need to refute your assertion. You say the burden of proof lays upon the creationists. You know that is not true. It is not us Creationists, but you Evolutionists, who contrived this theory of yours upon the populace. Back in the 1870's and it bore fruit, which the Jews and Satanist Freemasons took flight with in the 1930's . Then you continued to fund and make careers out of questionable scientists who would " tow the line " and receive funding from the organizations which were/are looking for a result before the empirical evidence, number 1 first mistake according to science. No, Angler, its not the Creationists who need to show proof, it's the Evolutionists, and their cock-brained theory, which was nothing but an offshoot of " Enlightenment" and " Progress " .. once again, mankind forcing it's limited ability to perceive reality upon the natural world. Evolution is utter cr*p. It is nothing more than a reflection of its age . Taking technology progress and trying to apply that same theory to the natural world. A sad excuse to sell books and make a reputation for a few men who waltzed around like pariahs while the Church laughed at them. This is now the 21st century. You should be able to look back upon that age objectively. Any excuse to show " progress " - oo " evolution " .. lol. crazy.

If anything, mankind has " devolved " .. understand ? DEVOLVED. Methuselah lived to be 952 or so. You materialists are so pathetic. So what do you say Angler ? Shall we get into an Evolution/Creation debate ?

Angler

2005-06-02 04:56 | User Profile

[quote=Happy Hacker]No, the scientists aren't lying, just the Evolutionists. They are essentially the same group: [url]http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoCreationScientists.html[/url]

The fossils in the picture you posted, Australopithecus africanus, H. habilis, H. erectus, et al. can all be found on Creationist websites along with rebuttals based on scientific sources. Creationist websites have no credibility because I've never seen one that didn't contain fundamental errors of fact or logic.

The tornado in a junkyard is an analogy created by an Evolutionist. That's not relevant; regardless of who created it, it's used by creationists. And it couldn't be more wrong. As I've explained before, matter on the atomic and molecular scales acts completely differently from matter on the macroscopic scales. If you throw a bunch of junk in a junkyard into a pile, it will just sit there. If you throw a bunch of molecules or ions together, it is very likely that bonds will form and more complex structures will be created.

And, instead of insisting that Creationists lie or don't understand thermodynamics, maybe you'd like to provide just one example to refute their explanation of thermodynamics. This is where you point to an example of Evolution, endlessly increasing complexity within a system open only to energy. The claim made by many creationists is that the laws of thermodynamics forbid evolution because "entropy can only increase." The claim is pure rubbish. Entropy in an open system can decrease if it increases somewhere outside the system. This can and does happen spontaneously in nature.

I have pointed to many examples of evolution, and there are countless more out there. Nevertheless, not one of them is even needed to see that the creationists are wrong on the thermodynamics question. Thermodynamics has nothing to do with "information," the need for a "designer," or anything of that sort. A human designer couldn't violate the laws of thermodynamics even if he tried. Human beings can and do decrease the entropy of systems on a routine basis. The caveat is that when they do so, entropy must increase at least as much somewhere else outside those systems.

Get what information? The identification of the skulls? Yes. Do you have a link to a creationist site where they purport to debunk the evolutionary implications of those fossils?

You can line up anything. Stars, mountains, ponds, and so on. The reason my examples were all artificial is because intelligently created things fall into types with variation within those types. I don't know about different pond kinds. Actually, things created randomly by natural forces are a lot more likely to suffer from individual variation -- that is, unless the designer is incompetent. Every time I hear of Siamese twins being born, for example, I have to wonder what the "Designer" had in mind.

There are billions of fossils that document the fixity of species. You can go to the beach today and find living animals, marine invertabrates, that look almost identical to fossils supposedly hundreds of billions of years old. The earth is only about 4.5 billion years old:

[url]http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html[/url]

And, if you dig through the rock, you'll find their fossils at all levels of the fossil record. It's not the randomness and constant variation that Evolution would produce. Why in hundreds of billions of years, a new major type of marine invertebrate failed to evolve? Supposedly every land animal, insect, and plant has evolved in a time where not a single new major type of marine invertebrate evolved. Why? Because Evolution doesn't happen. You're right that there are organisms alive today that have existed in a similar form since the dawn of life. Microscopic organisms are another example. Why do they still exist? Well, why not? Just because some of them were split off from the larger group and ended up being subjected to selective pressures that cause them to evolve doesn't mean that the original group is going to go extinct.

Angler

2005-06-02 04:59 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Exelsis_Deo]If anything, mankind has " devolved " .. understand ? DEVOLVED. Methuselah lived to be 952 or so. You materialists are so pathetic. So what do you say Angler ? Shall we get into an Evolution/Creation debate ?[/QUOTE]Not if you're going to waste my time with insults rather than intelligent points.

By the way, Methuselah, if such a person ever existed, did not live to be 952. That's what's known as a legend. You know -- a tall tale. Like Paul Bunyan and Babe, his giant ox.

Angler

2005-06-02 05:14 | User Profile

I just happened upon this letter at TalkOrigins and thought it was worth sharing. It's about the supposed global flood:

Personally, I have said many times that I would welcome ANY evidence of the existence of any god, and I have even specified indirect evidence that would be quite convincing, not only to myself, but (I suspect) to all the wicked atheists here: the residue of the Noachan Flood. It avoids the problem of "how can there be physical evidence for a spiritual being?" by focussing on one instance in which that spiritual being supposedly interacted physically with the physical world in a way that would have produced distinctive physical consequences. While we have seen fundies claim that their god is so deceitful as to cover his tracks, I, for one, would presume that such a dishonest being is unworthy of being taken seriously, much less of worship.

I do not concern myself here with the issue of the needed two additional hydrospheres of water and its drainage out of earth's gravity well, nor with the necessary consequences resulting therefrom by operation of the laws of physics: the atmospheric pressure resulting from a "vapor canopy" that would prevent the existence of life as we know it, the heat release from the condensation of that much water that would be sufficient to melt lead anywhere in the atmosphere, etc. are very serious impediments to the veracity of the story, but most, if not all, fundies lack sufficient knowledge of physics to be able to follow the reasoning. It only confuses them, leading them to drag out yet another version of the Deceitful God, who, they claim, sets the laws of physics aside his wonders to perform. Instead, I simply take the Genesis account at its face value, looking at the effects that much water falling at that rate would inescapably have upon the face of the earth.

We have an account of a global flood directly produced by Yahweh in the Bible. Given the fact that we have information, presumably from a source inspired by omniscience, of the extent of the flood ("over the highest mountains," or roughly 30,000 feet above present sea level) and of the time of the rain (40 days and 40 nights = 40 24-hour days = 960 hours), it is easy to calculate the rate of the rainfall: 30,000/960 = 31.25 feet of water fell per hour. That is a little more than six inches of rainfall per minute.

I would think that "gullywasher" fails to do this rate justice, inasmuch as that term is applied to rainfalls of one or two inches per hour. Suffice it to say that this rain would wash away pretty much any particles smaller than Volkswagens and deposit all of this in a single stratum covering the low-lying areas world-wide.

We know from geology that floods leave evidence in direct proportion to their size (this stratum would, for instance, be far thicker than any other ever created and would cover all the area on earth with its thickness varying in inverse proportion to altitude), and we further know from the mechanics of disposition of suspended solids in fluids the type and extent of the stratum that would be laid down by a global flood. Those larger particles would lie at the bottom of the stratum, with progressively smaller bits covering them. In addition to that, the contents of that stratum, particularly in the region of shorelines where the braking effect of standing water would cause the flow to drop much of its initial load, the remains of ALL creatures mingled together under optimal conditions for fossilization (heavy sedimentation at great depths, with the finest materials thickly sealing the top) are known: in short, a universal unique event would produce a universal unique outcome--a stratum like no other in the geologic column.

Such a stratum would furnish perfectly good indirect evidence for the existence of this Yahweh person, just as tracings on a photographic plate tell us of subatomic particles or the behavior of objects in space tells us of the existence of enormous gravitational forces only explicable by the presence of a black hole.

So show us this stratum. That would be evidence.

Don Martin

Response from Frank Steiger:

Your post touches on several subjects at the same time. I would like to comment on just one: Science deals with what can be observed and measured. It does not deal with matters of philosophy and religion. There is nothing in evolution that rules out the concept of God. Evolution, like all science, does not take a position on matters of religion. Creationists claim that because evolution does not support their dogma, it is atheistic. This is a gross distortion of fact. Evolution neither supports nor condemns religious beliefs; such considerations are simply outside the scope of science. Evolution should be evaluated on the basis of whatever the factual information indicates, not on the basis of whether or not it is consistent with a specific concept of "morality."

From [url]http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/apr97.html[/url]

Petr

2005-06-02 06:07 | User Profile

[COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Actually, things created randomly by natural forces are a lot more likely to suffer from individual variation -- that is, unless the designer is incompetent. Every time I hear of Siamese twins being born, for example, I have to wonder what the "Designer" had in mind."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

You show here your ignorance of the basic position of young-earth creationists - according to the Bible, [B]the whole creation[/B] with its natural processes were turned into a state of curse when Adam and Eve fell.

All this death and decay are a consequence of the Fall.

It is telling that you didn't even know this - it shows that you don't have any interest in finding out what creationists really believe, but choose to believe in a caricature of your own mind instead.

Petr

RowdyRoddyPiper

2005-06-02 06:48 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr]It is telling that you didn't even know this - it shows that you don't have any interest in finding out what creationists really believe, but choose to believe in a caricature of your own mind instead.[/QUOTE]

So what? Exactly how much consequence does the notion of the Fall have for Creationism?

The essence of Young-Earth Creationism, that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and all life on it was created by God, is what is under attack from Evolution. Don't try and muddy the waters with extraneous details. Whatever you may say about whether evolution is "how nature works" the age of the Earth is not something that is open to reasonable disagreement without subscribing to conspiracy theories.

There are multiple mutually corroborrating evidentiary sources for the claim that age of the Earth is much older than 6 thousand years: [list][]How do you explain the existence of stars that are more than 6,000 light years away from Earth? []There's radiocarbon dating. []There's ice-core drilling, which shows seasonal layers of ice going back up to 750,000 years (which can be directly counted going back for over 14,000 years). [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121[/url] []There is the dendochronological record. [*]There are fossils of sealife found in mountain ranges that were once under the sea (mountain ranges that took millions of years to rise).[/list] And I'm sure I could find more. There is no way any honest individual can dismiss all this mutually reinforcing evidence. I just don't understand how people that are obviously intelligent, well-read and scientifically literate can deny this. It's starting to weird me out to be quite honest. :huh:

Angler

2005-06-02 07:02 | User Profile

[QUOTE=Petr][COLOR=DarkRed][B][I] - "Actually, things created randomly by natural forces are a lot more likely to suffer from individual variation -- that is, unless the designer is incompetent. Every time I hear of Siamese twins being born, for example, I have to wonder what the "Designer" had in mind."[/I][/B][/COLOR]

You show here your ignorance of the basic position of young-earth creationists - according to the Bible, [B]the whole creation[/B] with its natural processes were turned into a state of curse when Adam and Eve fell.

All this death and decay are a consequence of the Fall.

It is telling that you didn't even know this - it shows that you don't have any interest in finding out what creationists really believe, but choose to believe in a caricature of your own mind instead. [/QUOTE] Uh, Petr...I did know that YECs (and nearly all other Christians for that matter) believe that all death, disease, and misery are consequences of the "fall." I was speaking with a tone of irony, but you missed that.

Of course, the notion that children are born with defects because of a sin committed by someone who lived millennia ago is absurd in its own right. Deliberately allowing a newborn child to suffer consequences of an action in which he couldn't have taken part is plainly unjust. That is a fact which is not open to debate: you cannot be justly punished for something out of your control. Anyone who claims otherwise is as wrong as wrong can be.

Angler

2005-06-02 07:04 | User Profile

Excellent post, RRP.

[QUOTE=RowdyRoddyPiper]The essence of Young-Earth Creationism, that the Earth is approximately 6,000 years old and all life on it was created by God, is what is under attack from Evolution. Don't try and muddy the waters with extraneous details. Whatever you may say about whether evolution is "how nature works" the age of the Earth is not something that is open to reasonable disagreement without subscribing to conspiracy theories.

There are multiple mutually corroborrating evidentiary sources for the claim that age of the Earth is much older than 6 thousand years: [list][]How do you explain the existence of stars that are more than 6,000 light years away from Earth? []There's radiocarbon dating. []There's ice-core drilling, which shows seasonal layers of ice going back up to 750,000 years. [url]http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4121[/url] []There is the dendochronological record. [*]There are fossils of sealife found in mountain ranges that were once under the sea (mountain ranges that took millions of years to rise).[/list] And I'm sure I could find more. There is no way any honest individual can dismiss all this mutually reinforcing evidence. I just don't understand how people that are obviously intelligent, well-read and scientifically literate can deny this. It's starting to weird me out to be quite honest. :huh:[/QUOTE]

Ron

2005-06-02 18:22 | User Profile

The real irony is even if one could disprove the falsity of evolution, this in itself does not prove the existence of a god.