Feedback for February 2005

Kwan King Yan

Would it be possible to have all the local files on this site archived into a tarball, zip, gzip or a bzip2 file to download?

Mark van Hoeij

Dear talk.origins,

In your answers to Haldane's dilemma on:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB121.html

something needs to be added. The main source of the dilemma is that Haldane makes an incorrect assumption. See:

http://www.bakkster.com/r_crea18.htm

for an explanation. For your convenience, I'm copying/pasting the relevant part of that web page:

Haldane's assumption was that it would take 300 generations to fix a single gene from initial mutation to ubiquity in a population. While one can debate this figure, it is not the main source of the Dilemma. This comes from the invalid assumptions that only one gene can be fixed at a time and that no other changes can accumulate until the ongoing one is fixed. That's why multiplying the number of generations per fixation by the number of total DNA differences makes no sense.

I noticed another problem with computer simulations for Haldane's dilemma. Some simulations assume just one parent because that's easier to program.... However, it's clear that evolution works much faster with two parents (that way good mutations can meet to produce even better offspring).

Mark van Hoeij

Kurtk Klein

Thank you for the organization, conciseness, and thoroughness of this website! It is a fantastic tool.

A possible error: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE310.html

The source of the shrinking sun claim is given as a 1974 book by Morris, but the response indicates that the claim stemmed from a report written in 1980. While Morris might be known by some for his smoke and mirrors, most would not ascribe future-telling to him as well.

Kurt Klein

Mike

I recently debated some creationists/ID'ers on a web forum and came across the following argument for which I had no answer:

DNA is a code, all codes are intelligently designed, therefore life was intelligently designed.

I could find no complete refutation of this argument, and was curios of your thoughts on the matter. Obviously, the statement "all codes are intelligently desinged" has no proof, yet I could find no evidence of a complex code that was not intelligently designed. In any event, thanks for maintaining such a great, useful site!

Bill Gascoyne

In the January Feedback, Greg Lanning wrote: "Darwinists go out of their way to debunk belief in God (this is the final thrust of the attacks on Berlinski, Bethe, Dembski etc.) but with that debunking must go a debunking of moral restraints tied to belief in God." In this, he may be committing the same logical fallacy he is pointing out: Confusing the necessary with the sufficient. Does he mean that belief in God is necessary for moral restraint? Or only that it is sufficient? And if it is only sufficient, then there must be another source of moral restraint, perhaps one that is not susceptible to being destroyed by the discovery of a scientific truth.

Cole Mitchell

A couple of things:

1. I was browsing your feedback and found one of your guys (Gary Hurd) taking a naive falsificationist view of science, whereby scientific theories cannot be proven but can be disproven (some say that this is what separates science from pseudoscience). Now, I don't do philosophy of science, but I think I know enough to inform you that this is a discredited view (or at least as discredited as a view can be when it's philosophical in nature). I take it that these days phil science experts don't go in for the proving or the disproving of theories at the hands of observation -- this is due to lots of worries about the relationship between theory and observation raised by Quine, Putnam, and others. Of course, some scientific theories are better than others, and this has a lot to do with how they stand with respect to observables, but the story is more complicated than that.

In any case, I imagine everyone would agree that there's something wrong with a scientific theory that has no observational implications at all. And that there's something wrong with theorists who endlessly tack on ad hoc hypotheses instead of revising their theory. And that might be all you need to say.

2. Also Troy Britain used "counterfactual" as though it meant "false". But a counterfactual statement is a statement that discusses alternate ways the world might have gone -- e.g., "If I hadn't scored that goal, my team would have lost" and "If Gore or Kerry had won, America's foreign policy wouldn't be so foolish".

Keep up the good work!

Stephen

Evolutionists often claim that natural selection shaped leaf insects to make them indistinguishable from leaves. But those insects appeared on earth ages before plants with leaves! What do you think?

Alex Whitney

Just want to say, thank God (err..) for talkorigins, keep up the excellent work. I imagine you get a lot of hatemail from crackpots, but there are sane people out there (perhaps, we hope, we are even the silent majority?) and your hard work is really appreciated, and wholly necessary and important.

Cheers, Alex.

Ronald Gravendeel

I send this letter in reply to Chris Colby's "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology"

In the paragraph "The development of Evolutionary Biology" he writes: "[...] Mendel mailed his paper to Darwin, but Darwin never opened it."

Because I have seen this factoid being used by some creationists to "discredit" Darwin (often refering to mr. Colby's article) I tried to find a relevant source to this claim. Apparantly, the claim that Darwin owned an unopened copy of Mendel's paper is exaggerated. As described in a letter by Andrew Sclater on the matter, this "unopened copy of Mendels' paper" is actually a part of a book which only mentions Mendel's studies. Mr. Sclater has also published his findings but unfortunately, I was unable to secure information beyond the abstract of this article.

It seems that Charles Darwin never owned a copy of Mendel's paper.

I think this information might be useful to pre-empt the next creationist who thinks this factoid will "utterly discredit" Darwin.

Sincerely,

Drs. Ronald Gravendeel
Licentiate Biology (K.U. Leuven, Belgium)
Belgium

David

Thank you for the very entertaining and informative site. One more argument that can be made against the literal interpretation of the Judeo-Christian flood myth is that it is clearly derivative. The Noah story closely parallels that of Utnapishtim which is related in the Epic of Gilgamesh, a written account of Sumerian/Babylonian origin that is proven to pre-date Genesis.

Mark S

Creationist Claim CE101 concerns Moon dust and how much would have accumulated by meteoritic dust. Could you also comment on the claim that dust derived from continual thermal expansion and shrinking of surface moon rocks for millions of years would have given rise to a layer several miles thick - John MacArthur in his "Battle for the Beginning" radio series.

Jessie Jackson

Do you guys smuggle mexicans like some of your staff to work for you guys? As far as I'm concerned Hovind is a lot smarter than you comics, he actually shows some good amount of evidence, isn't a loser and makes sites to try to get poeple to hate on other people over the internet, geesh what are you children? I got a good joke for you guys.

Person 1: Well, how do creationists know that the Big Bang isn't true? Person 2: Tell me, Matt. If you put a bomb in your room, do you think setting it off would make it clean or dirty? 1) That's easy. A bomb would cause a huge mess. I would have clothes and toys all over the place. Mom wouldn't be happy about that at all. 2) Well, you can think of the Big Bang kind of like a big bomb. Evolutionists think that when this explosion happened things got more organized or straightened up instead of getting more disorganized or messy. 1) That sure doesn't make any sense. Another way we know evolution isn't true is to look at our so-called relatives, the monkeys. Man and animals do have many things in common, two eyes, two ears, and the way we breathe, for example. But if you compare DNA, the instructions inside our body that tell us how to look, of monkeys and men, there are some big differences. For the DNA of a monkey to accidentally change to the DNA of a man would be like saying I accidentally jumped over the Grand Canyon So big bang created everything that looks so beatiful on Earth? I wonder how Earth would look after an atomic bomb, maybe we might get more beautiful. Your logic is sad.

i'm a high school student, and in one of my science courses we are disgussing scientic evolution. i dont really believe in this. i see it as more of the religious view on this topic. i believe in that god created man and women. the whole bible theory is whats my viewpoint.

Christian DeMenge

I am looking for a good 3d osteology program so I can study for a class. Can you help mre locate the software? Thank you.

Genosovia Belemardo

I have seen the end of the earth. I have been to the earth's very peak and I will tell you this, it is not flat! The very fact that you would believe in something so incredibly false forces me to ask the question of whether the earth even exists?... How can you not believe in something you live on. That's like a hippopatumus not believing in water, or an ant not believing in an ant hill. You, sir, are an IDIOT!

Hi,

My main anger with ID is the dishonesty used to push it.

One question that I have is: What exactly is intelligent design theory? I say theory very loosely. Other than saying complex life had to have behind its existence a designer. Exactly what is the theory?

1. Did the intelligent entity, which I will arbitrarily call God, interact with phyiscal world a billion years ago, a million years ago, last night? 2. Is God involved with every conceptions or cell splitting?

Science assumes that the physical universe is governed by rules. Does ID say that it isn't?

Other questions:

1. How can you prove or disprove a God behind the creation of life. 2. Why does it matter so much to ID proponents that evolution of life occurs?

My religious says God created the universe twenty years ago on January 22, 1985. He set up the physical universe in that one moment. Our memories for before then were simply implants.

My question is: is my religious belief a scientific theory?

It can not be proved or disproved. It could actually be true. It would violation the scientific assumption the the physical universe follows rules that have existed for billions of years. The universe is only 20 years old, after all.

My cousin has another religion that split off from mine. His religious belief is same as mine, except he believes the universe is actually 40 years old.

Which of our "theories" is right? Can they be proved or disproved?

My points are:

1. Science makes certain assumptions about the universe following rules. 2. Science observes and proposes theories. Then scientist try to prove the theories wrong using critical thinking, the scientific method, and intelligual honesty. 3. ID is not science. It is not honest. And it wants people not to use their critical thinking skills. 4. ID could very well be true. However, just like my religion and my cousin's religion, ID is a metaphysical, religious belief that can not be proved or disproved. 5. Science is not trying to answer the metaphysical question about God. It does not have to. God can exist or not. He could have intervened at any point in time and we can not prove or disprove it. This is not sciences role and should not be. 6. If ID gets into science classes it is the failure of the boards to be intellectually honest. 7. Does it bother anyone that people, who push ID and probably think of themselves as followers of God, are so intellectually dishonest?

Hi. I was curious if there are any recent observations of macroevolution, by that I mean a major change of an organism from one form to another. Why is it that we don't see say, a fruitfly turn into a bird these days? Is it because changes that come are too gradual and slow for the speculation to see complete change? If this is a matter of the environmental conditions, has there been any observation of evolution in the laboratories? What are some reasones that macroevolution appear so unnoticeable?

colleen

This is my first time on any blog. Been on the net for 15 years. I found PT after Cobb County.I wanted to see exactly how creationists had convinced so many people to support religion vs science, I see how Demski,Gish etc.are relentless and convincing.I majored in anthropology 25 years ago,and agree with to. My question(finally):Why are there no rebuttals/agreement in the IdeasID blog today?

Alicia

I am strongly apposed to the fact that you are forsing ebolution upon people! I come from the Christian faith, and do you not think that we dont have proof too? Cause we do! Noah's ark... you say is a story, well there has been traces of the ark found! Also, we have much more proof of fact. You have only science, we have faith...

I've noticed that Jason Gastrich still has talkorigin.org. Are you guys doing anything about it? Also, is there any legal fund to which I could contribute to support costs?

Jon Anderson

I recently did a Google search for "giant humans" and came up with the following link:

http://nation.ittefaq.com/artman/exec/view.cgi/10/8519

It is from "New Nation: Bangladesh's Independent News Source." The writing is in broken English and seems to make references to the Q'ran. It includes a realistic looking photos of a giant skeleton being excavated by two tiny figures. It bears a very recent date (4/22/04) and claims the photo was taken from a helicopter before the Saudi government restricted the area. The text of the story is below:

Giant human skeleton found in Saudi Arabia By Saalim Alvi from Riyadh Apr 22, 2004, 12:04 Recently gas exploration is going in the desert of south east region of Saudi Arabia. This desert region is called Empty Quarter, which means in Arabic "RAB - UL -KHAALEE"; this body has been found by ARAMCO exploration team. This proves what Allah SWT said in QURAN about the people of AAD nation and HOOD nation.

They were so tall, wide and very power full that they were able to pull out big trees just with the one hand. But what happen after when they become misguided and disobeys Allah SWT, Allah SWT destroyed the whole nation. ULEMA KIRAM of Saudi Arabia believes that this body belongs to AAD nation.

Saudi military took over this whole area. And nobody is allowed to go in this region except Saudi ARAMCO personnel's. Saudi government has kept it very secret but some military helicopters took pictures from air. And one of them he runs on internet here in Saudi Arabia.

Vernon Hedge

I am recent visitor to your sight. Very impressed overall!

There is almost certainly a problem with the phylogeny at the end of "Introduction to Evolutionary Biology" (Version 2 Copyright © 1996-1997 by Chris Colby [Last Update: January 7, 1996]) as Marcel Meime points out.

Not only is there the evidence that Marcel cites concerning phylogenetic inference of sequence data, but the inference that microsporidia are early branching eukaryotes rests on the assumptions that (1) they do not possess mitochondria; and (2) mutation rates are similiar between microsproridia and other eukaryotes. Neither of these assumptions are safe.

Williams et al (2002) use immuno-microscopic methods and more appropriate phylogenetic inference methods to demonstrate that the microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis contains an organelle of mitochondrial origin and that when the more rapid rates of mutation in the microsporidia are accounted for they should be placed in the eukaryotic crown rather than at the base.

One reason why taxa can be erroneously placed as an early branch in a tree is because they have higher mutation rates than other taxa, or they could be said to be evolving more quickly. (This is known as "long branch attraction" where the fastest evolving taxa clearly produce the most change, the most change = the longest branch, and the longest branches get grouped at the base of phylogenetic trees) These data are consitent with a group that has adapted from functioning in an aerobic environment to functioning in an anaerobic one in a relatively short period of time and have become parasitic. This also explains why mitochondrial HSP70 genes, for instance, are found in this group. The fact that the microsporidia parasitise other eukaryotes should have perhaps suggested to us earlier that they were unlikely to have been the earliest branch in the eukaryotic tree.

see Williams BAP, RP Hirt, JM Lucocq & TM Embley (2002) "A Mitochondrial Remnant in the Microsporidian Trachipleistophora hominis" Nature; VOL 418; pp 865-9

Keep up the good work!

Jim Reeves

Wanted to communicate to you how grateful I am that your website exists. Your site provides professional and exhaustive information for people with objective curiosity regarding evolution. There is such a massive quantity of disinformation out there being spread on the net and in churches. And, even though it's doubtful that this site could impact the thoughts of people that would claim an international satanic conspiracy has spawned evolution, there are many that still have not made up their minds.

And would also like to encourage you guys to 'take no prisoners' when rebutting rude/dishonest/disreputable critics. Afterall, we live in a society that seems to believe that an accusation that is not addressed vehemently is an accusation that 'must' be true.

Again, thanks for all the effort!

Kyle

Love the site, thanks alot, great work, you know, all that good stuff.

Recently came across a website; truthorigins or something like htat. I haven't had time to read his articles, but he seems to counter many of the articles here. Do you know where I could view some rebuttal?

R Goldthwaite

Hi,

In your generally great (if slightly advanced) FAQ page discussing 'progress in evolution', http://talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil/teleology.html the page's author John Wilkins writes: "The current view is best summed up by a phrase of Gould's - evolution is a bush, not a tree."

Perhaps this is a slip of editing? I expect it should read "is a bush, not a LADDER", in the context of the paragraph and of Gould's general thought (in which I've read significantly). And between a bush and a tree I can't imagine significant differences pertinent to the metaphor.

thanks, Ron G

Brad Boring

This is not really feedback, strictly speaking, but not a technical bug either; however, I was not sure how else to point out a correction that should be made.

On one of the pages that was a refutation as part of the index of creationist claims pertaining to radiometric dating:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF210.html

The response reads, "The radioactive decay rates of nucleotides..."

Rather than the word "nucleotides," I believe the author meant to use the word "nuclides." There's a significant difference between the two and the former does not apply here. It can be an easy mistake to make, but it should be changed in order to be accurate.

David Burgess

I thank God that there is a voice of reason prepared to stand and refute the claims made by these (at best misguided) creationists.

Keep up the good work.

David Deal, PhD

An acquaintance of mine from England mailed me a copy of American Genesis by Jeffrey Goodman. I must admit I am only a fifth of the way through it. He makes some fantastic claims that seem now to be supported by finds in the Savannah River basin. Does the scientific community dismiss his contention that man may have evolved in southern California and migrated westward across the Bering landbridge?

Patrick

Creationists often get criticized for calling evolution "Darwinism", and are told no one calls it that, but I've seen some biologists using the term as well. I read the What Is Darwinism FAQ, but I'm afraid I'm not seeing the distinction between evolution and Darwinism. My best guess is that Darwinism is that category of evolutionary thought that holds natural selection as the dominant force in evolution, but I'm probably wrong. Could someone clear this up?

You are a moron, the geological collum was deposited rapidly and there is petrified trees connecting the layers right side up and upside down. These trees prove the layers were formed rapidly, because the trees conect them together. mabe the roots grew during the flood whitch water level reached above the highest mountian. How is oil and coal made? Roots growing 7000 feet down doesnt dissprove the the rapid formation, mabe during the flood seeds were buried. These layers are not diffrent ages, and how come there is no erosion marks between the layers. I did erosion controll, and underground construction. I am not going to fall for your false science. The geological collum is based on circular reasoning. Your carbon dating is assumed constant, and that is unknown. carbon date a live snail and see what you get 25,000 years.Plus how many super novas do we have, not millions of years worth. The mammonths were froze rapidly (small ice crystals in blood) You would need -300 deg below to freeze the mammoths with unroted food in there stomach, the inside would rot because of their stomach acid hello. There is no proof of anything being consistant, if there was more observations would favor the earth as under 10,00 years old. Go to drdino.com and learn real science.

Clifford Greenblatt

The 29 Evidences for Macroevolution atticle states that the universal gravitational constant has been determined to only three decimal places. This may cause some confusion. It is true that the constant has been determined to three places to the right of the decimal point in scientific notation. However, it would be more clear to say that it has been determined to four significant digits. According to NIST, the value of the universal gravitationa constant is 6.6742E-11 (m^3)/(kg*s^2) with an uncertainty of 0.0010E-11 (m^3)/(kg*s^2).

Daisy

The whole theory of Evolution makes no sense to me whatsoever. The whole thing about us evolving by chance isn't possible, is it? I mean, come on, I believe we all have a purpose, and because we have a purpose we are not alive by chance.

cory

If you believe in evolution, you are wrong. Let me give you a reason why. 1)Where you there? NO! If you werent there, than how could you know that the earth was "formed" millions of years ago. Who will you believe? An all knowing God who was there, or a man who wasnt there and dosent know it all.

Bob Vaiden

I recently attended a debate on the U of Ill. campus between Drs. Ross and Rana from "Reasons to Believe" and 2 U of I instructors. To the best of my knowledge, Dr. Ross is respected as an astronomer (No...I don't "buy" his argument of "complex equation = God", but in general I'd expect him to "stick" to science). I was therefore astounded to hear Dr. Rana say "there were no complex, multicelluar organisms prior to the Cambrian". You can't SAY that in front of professional geologists! (at least you shouldn't :) The Ediacaran Period, which precedes the Cambrian, is known for its fauna of "multicelluar, complex organisms"(up to 2 meters in size!). It's just what one might expect prior to the evolution of a diverse, hard-shell Cambrian fauna! I didn't jump up and correct him (wish I had :), but I told (for the nth time) my classroom and web students to check out the "facts" that they hear/read (I hear the "Moon dust" and "Shrinking Sun" fairly often). Anyway... thanks for all your work on this site to counter this type of nonsense!

Kai

I'm an undergrad. student moving towards grad. study in physics. I'm a Christian (actually very confused recently), but also think Evolution + Old Earth is correct. It kinda bothers me when people are trying to "redesign/misuse" a scientific theory in order to fit a belief (ex. speed of light, second law of TD, Magnetic field of Earth, to name a few). I must say "Great Work Guys!" to everyone involve in replying and maintaining this Talk Origin website.

One thing I worry thought is that how long will this debate last? It must be very very tired seeing so many feedbacks rejecting evolution and old earth etc, while this debate will not have an end anytime soon. I can sense there'll be generations after generations of people rejecting the idea of evolution and an old earth. What kind of discovery or scientific development can help put a solid end to this debate?

S. Meschter

Thank you for this site. I was raised by fundamental Baptists and this particular issue (creationism vs. evolution) was my father's passion. He subscribes to the Ex Nihilo magazine and has dozens of videos concerning this topic. One year for our family vacation he actually took us to the Word of Life campus in upstate New York for a Creationism conference/seminar where they held workshops and discussions. My brother and I got to meet Ken Ham and we went swimming with his kids while my father talked to him. So in other words, I've been fairly brainwashed. We were forced to go to a Baptist high school where they taught creationism and I have always had doubts/questions about evolution because of what we were taught. Your site specifically addressed every "proof" they ever offered us and debunked them thoroughly, rationally and scientifically and I cannot thank you enough for that. I've always wanted to believe in evolution but could never let go of those nagging doubts from the past...until now. I hope that one day my father will be able to read the information presented on your site and admit that maybe he was wrong but I doubt it. I have higher hopes for my brother, though, and will send him the link. Thank you again and please continue the good fight because as long as people like my father exist I fear the fight is long from being over.

David James

I find the ideas in Creationism unbelievably stupid and the concepts behing the theory of evolution very beautiful. Indeed evolution can be seen all around to fit in with what we can observe everyday.

David James

I'm absolutely stunned at how thorough and academic this website is. Excellent, excellent site. It was my one stop shopping website for my evolution argument.

Matthew

Thank you very much for the response. I appreciate it. First of all, I have to say I don't think your blind people or the spawn of Satan by any means. I believe you are special becuse God made you that way, and he has a plan for you whether you like it or not. But anyway, thank you for the response, I would have preferred a bit of a less hostile response. But ya can't win them all. Anyway, I apologize for confusing macro and micro evolution. Simple mistake of lettering. But I only have one more question for you, and I know I'm going to receive some negativety on this one ;). But if your so sure that evolution is true.... how come you haven't answered Dr. Hovind's challenge for the $250 000? I mean it seems like it would be and easy way to make money if I was against him I mean. But anyway I once again thank you for the response. But I do think you should tone down on your responses to people, insulting them really isn't going to win them over to your views. But you do things your way. I once again pray for you, and thanks again. GOD BLESS Matthew

Joel Enright

I've just spent the last 2 hours reading through the articles on this site and I must say it has been fascinating. Reading this site has shown to me how little people actually know about evolution. Thus making it easy for the creationism scientists (who never actually try to prove their own theories, rather they just try to disprove others) to prey on the ignorant to convince them to think that evolution is some lie perpetrated by the scientific community.

Fantastic job, the ammount of information on the site is staggering, I had not even heard many of the arguments listed on the site but now if I ever do I know how to thouroughly debunk them. Keep up the good work.

Mark S Borders

In a response by Troy Britain, he mentioned Kent Hovinds $250,000 offer not being valid. Think about it, if someone had $250,000 to spend on something so controversial like PROVING evolution, he would pay it IF, and that's a big IF, there was proof. By proof, he doesn't mean a bunch of HOT AIR like your web site information, he means proof. If someone would pay $250,000 for proof that rain comes from rain clouds or the earth is round or fire burns or animals reproduce only after their own kind or if a tree falls in a forest and no one's there to hear it-would it make a sound?, then I think somebody just won 250,000. I don't believe you people are scared as the person who sent the comment mentioned, you're just ignorant. If you only knew how ridiculous the whole evolution concept sounded. If there was proof, then you wouldn't see experts in fields pertaining to evolution rethinking their views. What a disturbing, but hilarious website. "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom."

I am puzzled that most anti-evolutionists attack the concept of evolution because it is “only” a theory, not a fact. Facts themselves are simple ideas of limited use. If I venture outside on a winter day, I may observe that my exposed skin develops bumps and my body begins to shiver. I deduce the fact that it is cold outside. Any animal with a nervous system could deduce the same fact, although the information is valid only right here and right now.

On the other hand, we have theories of heat transfer applied to the Earth system. We say it is cold in the winter because the Northern Hemisphere does not receive as much solar radiation as it does in the summer, so the temperature falls. We also have the theory of the Sun centered Solar System, in which the Earth rotates around the Sun, maintaining a constant angle of inclination relative to the stars. This theory assures us that given the passage of time, the Northern Hemisphere will receive enough solar radiation to warm us to summer temperatures.

My question is: “Why do anti-evolutionists want to demean the glorious Theory of Evolution by attempting to compare it with a mere fact?” The Theory of Evolution is much more than a fact, and I am surprised more people don’t recognize it.

Robert J. Kaumeyer

Thank you for your honest and forth right disclosure of some of the Creationists who claim to be scientists. I was totally unaware of their real credentials and background. I have been very supportive of the creationist investigations and now will carefully check out each person prior to reading their material. I have a B.S. degree in Biology from California Poly University, Pomona Calif. 1968 and a Master of Theology from Dallas Theological Seminary 1971.

Daniel, student of Monroe Community College

DEBATE, ANYONE?

Dr. Jay L. Wile, a Ph.D. graduate in nuclear chemistry from the University of Rochester, has offered to debate anyone over the accuracy of radiometric dating (including radiocarbon dating). Dr. Wile argues that RADIOMETRIC DATING IS UNRELIABLE, and that the earth is considerably younger than billions of years old.

NO SCIENTIST HAS YET ACCEPTED THE OFFER TO DEBATE DR. WILE.

Professors and scientists from Cornell University, Syracuse University, University at Buffalo, Monroe Community College, Buffalo State College, Binghampton University, University of Rochester, Rochester Institute of Technology, and Ithaca College were invited to debate Dr. Wile, but no one has accepted.

If anyone knows of any Ph.D. scientist who would be willing to debate Dr. Wile, please email me.

Don Gisselbeck

Regarding the alleged global flood. On top of a hill east of Missoula, MT you can find ripple marked mudstones in situ and look down on the highest Lake Missoula shoreline. I would love to see that explained by the Young Earth people.

just another Christian

Q.1. there is not reason to believe in evolution. the THEORY of evolution is and always has been false and that is proven by the bible. archology was founded onproving the bible wrong, yet everything that archologist have found have continued to do the oppisite and has always proven the bible correct.

Q.1a. i believe that extinctions have happened in the history of the earth and that all the dinosaurs were probably dead when the ark was used. but again the bible has never been proven incorrect.

Q.1b. honestly i dont think that you can do both. many people think of Christianity as a religion but in actuallity it is a lifestyle. if you are living as a Christian lifestyle and tell people that you believe in evolution then you are not a true Christian. true Christians understand and believe that God CREATED the earth. therefore you cannot be a strong Christian and believe in evolution.

Q1c. and Q1d. i'm 16 and to tell you the truth i think that there are a lot more old creationists and evotulionists because thats the way they were raised and were told and thought. i think that a lot of young people believe in the THEORY of evolution because the teaching of God and CREATION have been thrown out of schools in the U.S.

Q1e. i dont think that science will hurt creationism because the sciences that are being found are continually providing evidence that the bible is true.

i promise to continue writing and answering these fabnaq.

Eric

About a month ago, I used Ernst Mayr's book 'What Evolution Is' to gather material for an explanation of evolution in my church. I included a copy of Haeckel's embryological drawings in my presentation, and supplemented that with the statement 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny'. Shortly before my presentation, I learned of Haeckel's error in the student version of 'The Case for a Creator' by Lee Strobel.

This was naturally frustrating. I had learned of Mayr's 'What Evolution Is' at an evolution vs. creation forum, where it was cited as an undergraduate text on evolution by one of the forum's purported biologists. In my youthful naivete, I thought I could rely upon Mayr and that biologist for sound reference.

This one error, of including a universally discredited drawing, damaged my presentation and damages the integrity of Mayr's 'What Evolution Is'. It's hard enough to be a high school student advocating evolution among somewhat fundamentally Christian friends, all in the setting of a church. It's almost futile to persuade Christians (who, let's face it, practically all reject naturalistic evolution) with arguments that even peripherally include falsified evidences like Haeckel's drawings.

I do not understand why Haeckel's drawings enjoy the posterity rightfully denied to other falsified articles of evidence. While paleontological shams like Nebraska Man are swiftly expunged from the scientific canon upon their falsification, Haeckel's drawings remain popular. In addition to my obervation in 'What Evolution Is', I clearly recall my sophomore-year biology teacher saying "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny," and have heard anecdotes from other high school students about how Haeckel's drawings are included in their curriculum.

If such things have been discarded by academia, why do they still exist in secondary, and, apparently, post-secondary curriculum? Science publishers and educators alike should stop using false arguments to buttress evolution. Doing so gives Jonathan Wells and company an invitation to attack that much larger a target.

House

This is great such a wealth of information to debunk a creationist. Recently, a creationist posted a creationist thread in my oft-frequented forum. I could not stand reading his posts, ire filled me as I knew each of his statements were untrue based on my geology background. As for the biological and evolution theories, I had no leg to stand on. I came to this site and 'lo and behold' when I searched to refute his posts this sites' 'claims (of creationists)' were verbatim the drivel he spewed. This site should be recommended to teachers of science everywhere, when the dark aged creationists pound their bibles to tell a school district to insert creationism into their classes.

Daniel O'Hara

The quote from St. Augustine in Troy Britain's feedback response in January was so very apposite, and a salutary slap on the wrist for ignorant defenders of untenable positions. But could you please tell us exactly where it is to be found in Augustine's writings?

Darren M

The idea of feathered dinosaurs and the theropod origin of birds is being actively promulgated by a cadre of zealous scientists acting in concert with certain editors at Nature and National Geographic who themselves have become outspoken and highly biased proselytizers of the faith. Truth and careful scientific weighing of evidence have been among the first casualties in their program, which is now fast becoming one of the grander scientific hoaxes of our age---the paleontological equivalent of cold fusion. If Sloan’s article is not the crescendo of this fantasia, it is difficult to imagine to what heights it can next be taken. .. Storrs L. Olson, Smithsonian.. How many more hoaxs do we have to endure? Evolutionists can't even agree on what to disagree on, what a mess.

t.k. smith

I thought that you guys/girls at Talk Origins would like to know that Creationists are making a rebuttal to your Creationist Claim List. Just thought you might be interested in viewing their "response.:

Dear Person, your site may be devoted to mainstream science, but majority does not determine truth. You are also direspectful in calling christainity a myth (one of your comments said it should be taught as a myth). Also, a great number of your articles are already on arguments that creationists dicourage. See AiGs argurement creationists should not use. You also refute sources, mainly kent hovine, who is also discouraged by creationists. mabe you should refute articles such as true origins brutal refute of NGs "was Darwin Wrong article" Diffute our actual arguements, and stop cherry picking the bad ones

Ed Hibbard

I greatly appreciate insights gained from your website. Somewhere there I read about CWACK, Christians Who Aren't Creationist Kooks. I am one. I dreamed up another acronym that might fit many of your readers including me: EWAAK, Evolutionists Who Aren't Atheist Kooks. So now you know where I stand, may I mention Dr. John Haught (a Christian Theology professor) & two of his recent books: 1.God After Darwin & 2.Deeper Than Darwin. He does not stoop to mention the above mentioned cutesy acronyms. He does however grease the skids to one's use of said acronyms to express one's standing on the evolution/creation debate. He also eased my concerns about Christian exclusivity, & Theodicy.

Dan Brooks

This is quite an interesting site; the comprehensiveness of the section directly responding to particular creationist objections was especially impressive. I was surprised at how comprehensive it actually was; it referenced a recent poorly-written opinion article in the University of Cincinnati's newspaper The Newsrecord (2/14/05) purporting Huxley and Darwin to be racists! I'm glad someone else out there is doing their homework. -DB

Jack

There is an article recently published online "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis" http://www.uni-kassel.de/fb19/plantphysiology/niklas.pdf that claims existence of intermediate forms linking major groups of vertebrates. What can you say about these "intermediates"?

Miguel Garcia

In January's Feedback, Mark Borders said:

"I can read evolutionary theories (or facts as you like to call them) till my eyes cross and it will never convince me of it."

Such a statement is emblematic of a closed mind and also tends to bring Christianity itself into ridicule as St. Augustine observed:

"Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of this world....Now, it is a disgraceful and dangerous thing for an infidel to hear a Christian, presumably giving the meaning of Holy Scripture, talking nonsense on these topics; and we should take all means to prevent such an embarrassing situation, in which people show up vast ignorance in a Christian and laugh it to scorn."

If one is going to discuss science, whether to defend or disprove, it is incumbent on that individual to at least try to both understand the concepts being discussed, and obtain accurate information from a multiplicity of sources (rather than from one narrow one).

Retreat into arguments from incredulity or refusal to engage in discussing the intrinsic science of the topic is only injurious ones personal credulilty and ultimately, their cause.

Finally, as a Christian myself I find it dissapointing that self-styled Christians like Mark Borders slip into base derision. This is neither a Christian act nor a sound replacement for cogent, logical argument & knowledge of a subject.

My hat is off to those of you from Talk.Origins who exhibit such patience & civility in the face of continuous disparagement and condescension.

Your efforts are greatly appreciated and your combbined knowledge much admired.