|Comment:||The Harvard Biosciences link has been changed to: Biology Links.|
|Response:||Thanks. Notices like this regarding broken links can be sent to . I have notified the administrators of the new link.|
|Comment:||Having read,"Intelligent Design", I simply want to say job well done. Thank you Mr. Stenger, for a rational and cogent article on the subject. I find it a curious thing, as to how many so-called scientists propound their quasi-religious ideals as science, and expect to do so with impunity. To them I say, save the sermon for the pulpit and consider a change in occupation. Perhaps,one whose basic premises are better suited to your ideals.|
|Comment:||Hi, in a
debate with a creationist recently, discussing the speed of
light and distant stars etc... he mentioned an article that
I had read on Bose-Einstein condensate, and it's
experimental ability to slow down photons:
Do you know the specifics of this experiment? Did slowing them down create a red shift? Is this really relevant outside the lab? Is this experiment a problem for modern astronomy? As of now, I don't know the best way to respond, because I don't know enough about the relevance of the experiment.
experiments done to slow light down to such low speeds were
first reported in 1999: Light speed reduction to 17
metres per second in an ultracold atomic gas, L.V. Hau
et al., Nature 397(6720): 594-598, February 18,
1999; Ultraslow Group Velocity and Enhanced Nonlinear
Optical Effects in a Coherently Driven Hot Atomic Gas,
M.M. Kash et al., Physical Review Letters 82(26):
5229-5232, June 28, 1999. In the Hau et al. study,
light propagation is slowed through a cold (10-9
Kelvin, -459.7 Fehrenheit) dense (6 x 1011 atoms
per cubic centimeter) Bose-Einstein condensate, and the
slowing is caused by quantum mechanical interference. In
the Kash et al. study, a similarly slow speed (90
meters per second) was achieved by similar quantum
mechanical interference, except that the gas this time was
hot (360 Kelvin, 188.3 Fahrenheit) though of similar
density (2 x 1012 atoms per cubic centimeter).
Also, in both cases the gas was pure, sodium for Hau et
al., and Rubidium for Kash et al. And,
furthermore, in both cases the gas was optically prepared
by a "coupling" laser beam at right angles to the "probe"
laser beam (the "probe" being the beam that was slowed
This is a highly artificial, laboratory environment, that cannot be duplicated by nature in any known manner. It is well known that light slows down when it propagates through any medium. it is also well known that this slowing down is a function of wavelength, in that different wavelengths of light slow at differernt amounts (in the two experiments above the slowed light was strictly monochromatic, in laser beams of fixed wavelength). In general, light slows down less, in less dense media. Therefore, in the near vacuum of space, one would expect little if any detectable slowing. There are no astrophysical analogs to a dense Bose-Einstein condensate, which light might encounter on its travel through space, and there is certainly no analog for the "coupling" laser that is required (and must be active along the entire path of propagation), which must also be precisely tuned to the optical characteristics of the gas used to slow the light. I cannot imagine any way that these experiments could be applicable to light propagating through space, and the age of the universe.
There is also observational evidence that no similar but unknown effect has been cast upon the speed of light in the cosmos. All such effects require light of different wavelengths to slow by differing amounts, therefore causing the average speed of light through the cosmos to be wavelength dependent. This appears not to be the case, as reported by B.E. Schaefer, Severe Limits on Variations of the Speed of Light with Frequency, Physical Review Letters 82(25): 4964-4966, June 21, 1999.
|Comment:||Hi, I read an article which you talked about creation & science and how you belief they don't mix. The reason I'm emailing you is that you only mentioned one view of creation science. I feel you mention the one that can fit your opionion of Bible the best. You didn't mention the fact that evolution is only a theory or is it just a hypothosis? I don't understand people who say they seek truth but ignore the fact that they could be wrong or theories could be wrong. I will give anyone who can prove evolution scientifically $10,000. If you seek truth like you say you do. Go for the challenge it's free. contact me @ Creation Science Evangelism 29 Cummings Road Pensacola, FL USA 32503 telephone: 850-479-3466 (8-4 Mon-Fri CST) toll-free (in US only): 877-479-3466 facsimile: 850-479-8562|
doubt that this was written by Kent Hovind, since Mr.
Hovind would certainly be aware that his challenge is now
for $250,000, not $10,000. It doesn't matter how much the
challenge is for, of course, because his money is quite
There are many such challenges that circulate among creationists; all are cleverly worded so as to avoid any possibility of having the challenge met. Of all of the monetary challenges of this sort I have seen, Hovind's is the most blatantly unmeetable. To begin with, he defines "empirical" as "relying or based solely on experiment and observation rather than theory". And rather than defining evolution as biologists define it, he adds several superfluous and even irrelevant statements to the definition. He ends up with the following definition of evolution:
1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. 2. Matter created life by itself. 3. Early life forms learned to reproduce themselves. 4. Major changes occurred between these diverse life forms
It is clearly impossible to offer empirical evidence - that is an expirement or observation - that shows that "time, space and matter came into existence by themselves" or that "matter created itself out of nothing". The event is over and cannot be observed, nor can the creation of matter be reproduced in a laboratory expirement. Historical science rests on inference, not direct observation. To make things worse, Hovind sets up an incredibly absurd standard by which to judge such evidence even if it could be offered. He says that in order to collect the $250,000, one must "prove, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the process of evolution (option 3 below) is the only possible way the observed phenomena could have come into existence." He reinforces this in his challenge when he states, "As in any fair court of law, the accuser must also rule out any other possible explanations." So not only must one show evidence for this invalid definition of evolution, one must prove that this is the ONLY POSSIBLE way it could have happened. I would suggest that there is no statement that could be made about any historical event whatsoever that could even hypothetically meet such an inflated and nonsensical standard of proof. Gravity cannot be shown to be the "only possible" way that the planets stay in their orbits - it is of course possible that they are held in their orbits by angels, devils or invisible orange leprauchans. There is ALWAYS a hypothetical alternative that can be offered to any proposition. Lastly, he provides no details on who the "committee of trained scientists" are that would judge this pointless effort should someone be foolish enough to take him up on it. In short, Hovind's money is quite safe - he designed the challenge to insure that this would be the case. I would gladly make a one million dollar challenge to Mr. Hovind if he could prove ANY historical claim within the boundaries of such criteria.
|Comment:||Can you comment on the geologic scale of dating. It seems to be circular reasoning from what I have been reading. I am open to your comments|
|Response:||This is a common argument made by creationists. The claim is that geologists date fossils by the age of the strata that they are found in but date the strata based upon the age of the fossils found in them. This issue is addressed by Andrew MacRae in his excellent FAQ found at:|
|Comment:||It is remarkable that creationists continue to trundle out erroneous and dishonest claims, the support for which would cause any real scientist to lose his or her position in a heartbeat, and nevertheless continue to claim to make scientific arguments. Few of them put forth any theory of their own, and if they do, readily acknowledge that they could not admit to the possibility of being wrong, taking the theory out of the realm of science. My question is (hopefully not too ignorant): Is the creationist argument about the Second Law of Thermodynamics debunked by the simple fact that photosynthesis occurs?|
|Response:||Among other things, yes. Evolution depends upon natural processes--birth, death, reproduction, genetic changes (including mutation), and selective effects (including natural selection and genetic drift)--that are observed and harmonious with the Second Law of Thermodynamics. Creationist arguments about thermodynamic laws inevitably involve mistated or fabricated laws that do not resemble those used by physicists and chemists.|
article Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd Edition:
"Why stop with the Flood story? If your style of Biblical interpretation makes you take the Flood literally, then shouldn't you also believe in a flat and stationary earth? [Dan. 4:10-11, Matt. 4:8, 1 Chron. 16:30, Psalms 93:1, ...] "
i thought i would note to you that i am in the middle of an active debate with a creationist... in debating the truth of the bible, Daniel 4 was brought up. however, it can be easily defended against by simply realizing it's a dream, and that King Nebby was being warned about his ego, about his feeling of power over all the world he could see.
you gave me a couple of other good ideas though, thanks! good in-depth article :-)
|Author of:||Problems with a Global Flood, 2nd edition|
that Daniel refers to a tree visible from all points on
earth implies (if taken literally) that such a view should
be possible, even though the tree does not exist. What
would you think of my conception of the earth if I said
that I have dreams of a single cell phone antenna so tall
as to be visible from everywhere on earth? The passage
shows that Daniel thought the earth was flat. Unless Daniel
can't be trusted on the matter (which, I expect, would be
heresy to a Biblical literalist), that means the earth was
However, a better example might be the solid firmament referred to in, among other passages, Gen. 7:11, 8:2; Psalm 104:2; Isaiah 34:4, 40:22, 64:1. If the Bible is literal, then the sky must be solid.
|Comment:||The first law of thermodynamics states that energy can be neither created or destroyed. It may be changed from one form to another but not created or destroyed. Second law-spontaneity causes degradation (the tendency to run down). In one direction. Cause and effect-For every cause there is an effect. How does evolution relate to these or explain them?|
|Author of:||The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System|
evolution does not create or destroy energy, and therefore
does not violate the first law of thermodynamics. Living
systems maintain themselves in opposition to the
tendency to "run down" by generating excess entropy
in their environments, while keeping their own entropy at a
minimum. This process follows the dictates of the second
law of thermodynamics, as one would expect; life does not
violate the laws of nature. Biological evolution is a
natural process that takes place entirely within the
nonequilibrium living systems, and likewise does not
violate the second law of thermodynamics. As for cause and
effect, biological evolution is the observed consequence
("effect") of changes in genetic structure ("cause") that
necessarily occur in nature. So biological evolution
likewise follows strictly along the road of cause and
effect. Biological evolution does not explain any of
these laws of nature, nor should it be expected to. It is
bound to obey them, not to explain them.
Likewise cosmological evolution. The long term evolution of the universe, the formation of cosmological structures, is a necessary and unavoidable consequence of the second law of thermodynamics (the low entropy structures transfer large amounts of excess entropy to their environments). The first law of thermodynamics only appears to be violated by the primoridial event of the Big Bang, but in fact it is not necessarily so. We do not know (nor do we even think) that the universe ws created from "nothing". Rather, the Big Bang simply represents a moment in the history of the cosmos, beyond which we cannot yet see. So there is also no reason to believe that the universe came into existence without a cause, be it "natural" or otherwise.
|Comment:||Hey, i was
just looking around and i found that your info was
interesting! I just have a few questions:
How do you create live matter out dead matter? If you put an ape into a cage from the time it was born to the time of its death, would it turn human? If scientist have found eveidence about most everything have you found the missing link in dna from the ape, and if not why not? How does natural selection support Evolution? If the big bang is the reason why this earth exists, arn't exploions soppse to destroy things, not create them? When i was born deaf and the doctors said that my hearing would get worse or stay the same how come i can hear perfectly now? Who are you and what is your purpose here on earth? Can you proove there is not a God? What force moves the seasons, can you see the force that moves the tide in and out, can you see the air molecules that we breath in and out? Why do we have everthing we need on earth to help us live? Are you afraid that if there is a God, that you would have to be accountable or surrender to the supernaturnal being? and what does ad and bc stand for? If fossils take a long time to to be pemerable and take a long time to fossilize, how come mount st. helens erupted but than about four years later the trees have become fossilized?
Im a bio 20 student that needs these answers for my experiment for shool we need both views form eculutionists and creationists for this project? thanxs it would help alot!
Rilla Blythe my adress is Rilla_7777_blythe@hotmail.com
Pass the 'dead' matter through a plant or bacterium. They will turn 'dead matter' into new plants or bacteria. Now how did 'dead matter' turn into 'live matter' in the first place? Nobody knows for sure. There are some ideas how this may have happened naturally but neither these ideas nor supernatural explanations have been observed to work yet.
Comparisons of chimp and human DNA show about a 2-3% level of divergence. In protein sequences these difference shrink to about 1% or less. Somewhere in that relatively small difference is most of what it takes to differentiate between a human and chimp organism. Actually, there are probably relatively few 'key' mutations that separate the two species.
Natural selection is thought to be one of the underlying factors behind change.
Explosions like the Big Bang and supernova produce many of the elements necessary for the formation of planets and life.
A lot about biology and medicine remains unknown.
Evolution does not mean that "purpose" and "God" do not exist.
Changes in the axial tilt of the earth with respect the sun. This causes some parts of the earth to receive different amounts of sunlight over the course of a year. This is also why the the hours of daylight are longer during summer in the northern hemisphere and shorter during the winters.
No, only the effects of the force.
With the naked eye, sometimes on a cold day. Spectrophotometers that monitor wavelengths of light outside the visible range can detect (see) these molecules.
We have everything needed for now. However, judging from the record of the past extinctions of other species, it is possible that the earth may run out some things we find necessary to live. If we didn't have everything necessary to help us live we probably wouldn't have evolved to become what we are and we certainly wouldn't be here now.
Evolution does not mean that "purpose", "God", or "accountability" do not exist. Biological evolution is a physical mechanism, not a moral or spiritual guide.
"ad" can be short for 'advertisement'. In tennis, it means 'advantage' as in 'ad in' and 'ad out'. In dates, it stands for 'anno domini'. "bc" could be the abbreviation for 'British Columbia' or 'before Christ'.
"Fossilization" is a very general term. The trees in Mount St. Helen are not fossilized in the same sense as trees in the Petrified Forest National Park of Arizona and trilobites in rock. The samples at Mount St. Helen have just begun the process.
|Comment:||Why can I not find anything about Darwin's arguments against creation on the net? Creationists have all their arguments published over and over and accessible from every corner of the globe. All I need is one list of his arguments, and yet all I can find are creationist arguments and refutations of them.|
|Author of:||Darwin's precursors and influences|
argument against creationism as an explanation of the
adaptedness and distribution of organisms is entitled
The Origin of Species. It is online at this site.
More broadly, the modern arguments against modern creationism are more to the point. See The Talk.Origins Archive.
|Comment:||What do you say about scientists having calculated that at the rate the sun is shrinking now, if there was millions of years ago, then the sun would have been touching(!) the earth?|
|Response:||This argument is addressed in several different places in the archive already, so there's no point rehashing it again. If you go to the search engine at The Talk.Origins Archive and type in "shrinking sun", you will find several different files that discuss the shrinking sun argument and debunk its use.|
|Response:||I say that the sun is not shrinking. You would also have found that the sun is not shrinking in the archive, had you bothered to look. It is telling, I think, that creationist base a major argument on an abstract for a paper that was later withdrawn when the authors discovered that it was wrong. Now that's scholarship. Besides that, even if we did find that the sun was shrinking, why would it be appropriate to arbitrarily assume that the rate was constant with time?|
recall how I had a note posted to your May 1998 feedback
page. A follow-up was posted on the June 1998 feedback page
which, curiously enough, included a rebuttal from Kyle
Cowden (which he would later retract elsewhere) and, low
and behold, a posting from Bert Thompson,Ph.D., Executive
Director of Apologetics Press, which was false but has yet
to be corrected.
Recently, someone investigating me managed to get Bert Thompson, Ph.D. to send him a report about me (still substantively false) which that person then posted on a list (BaptistDebate on Yahoo) intending to hurt my image. In that lengthy note Bert Thompson, Ph.D. referred to Talk.Origins and said:
That's it. I would appreciate it if you would publish this on your feedback page with whatever comments you feel might be appropriate. Bert Thompson, Ph.D. has refused for years to address his false reports about me and these matters.
You may want to publicly address how you have recently been represented.
Sincerely, Robert Baty
P.S. I originally sent this in July, but now I see that your things have been fouled up since then. So, I am trying again to solicit your response to Thompson's representations of my involvement here.
|Comment:||Evolution is not like gravity or like electricity. Evolution has never been witnessed and is apparently not going on right now. If you try to say that Darwin witnessed Evolution with the finches he say on Beagle that is totally incorrect. Accordingly, you say on species evolves to another over time. Darwins finches didnt turn into another species.|
Darwin's finches certainly did turn into another species:
quite a number of other species, in fact. Also, Darwin's
finches are a spectacular example of evolution going on
right now, which has been a significant contributor to our
deeper understanding of evolutionary processes.
Highly recommended, as a gripping and illuminating read, is The Beak of the Finch : A Story of Evolution in Our Time (a Pulitzer prize winner) by Jonathan Weiner (Vintage books, 1995) and also Ecology and Evolution of Darwin's Finches, by Peter R. Grant and, Jonathan Weiner (Princeton Uni Press, 1999).
The research described in these books is not of the ancient past. It is based on twenty years direct and carefully measured observation of evolution in action, proceeding at very rapid rates. From the amazon web site:
For anyone who has not already read these books or knows of this research -- do yourself a favour and read them. They will transform the way you think about life and evolution.
|Comment:||Ken Harding - "Evolution does not require faith. There are mounds of physical and experimental evidence which support the theory." Evolution most certainly does require faith, were you there when it happened? NO! Therefore you have to believe it happened. Also, please show me the mounds of evidence which support the THEORY of evolution.|
|Response:||This is a
very common, but very misguided, argument. You say that
evidence requires faith, and your criteria for
distinguishing between positions that require faith and
positions that don't require faith is whether the person
taking the position was actually there to witness the
event. This is a nonsensical standard. Leaving aside the
issue of how one defines "faith", the question is really
one of epistemological certainty - how much confidence can
we have in the conclusions we reach and why? You suggest
that the only standard by which we judge certainty is
whether we saw it ourselves or not and this standard
quickly becomes ridiculous when applied to other things. A
person who has never been to Italy, according to this
standard, has no good reason to believe that Italy actually
exists because he has not seen it himself and he merely
accepts it on faith. This presumes a false dichotomy - that
a claim is either certain or uncertain, no in between. In
reality we assign varying degrees of certainty to an idea.
No sane person would say that Italy doesn't exist just
because they've never been there themselves.
The best analogy to the type of reasoning we use in determining common descent is a criminal trial. The jurors have not seen the crime take place, but that doesn't mean that they merely decide guilt or innocence on "faith". They weigh the evidence and they use deductive reasoning, which is exactly what scientists do.
As far as the evidence that supports evoluion, it is found in a number of fields of science. The exceptionless order of appearance of plant and animal life in the fossil record cannot be explained except by evolution. That explanation is then confirmed by evidence in a number of other fields, including biogeography, population genetics, comparative anatomy, and so forth. I suggest you actually read the FAQs on this site, they comprise an enormous amount of information discussing the evidence for evolution.
|Comment:||Do you know Ken Ham? He is the director of Answers in Genesis ministries. He says (and I agree with him) that evolution gives the world an excuse for Racism, Abortion, Euthanasia, Drugs, Nazism, and the list goes on. The reason evolution gives the world an excuse for these things is this: If we evolved from monkeys, then we are really just another type of animal. Therefore if were are just animals, there is no right or wrong. We can do whatever we want. This is the message evolutionists want.|
Fundamentally, evolution has nothing to do with morality or
immorality. Ethics tell what should be; evolution only
describes what is and makes reasonable deductions about
what was. The claim that evolution is immoral is a claim
that accurate knowledge about the world is sometimes
Even the claim that behaving like animals promotes immorality is baseless. Humans have evolved to be social animals, so their success depends upon them behaving and getting along socially. "Behaving like animals" means, in our case, acting towards other people with kindness and respect. (Incidentally, evolution does not say we evolved from monkeys, and the fact that we are animals remains true whether we were created or evolved.)
But ideals don't mean nearly as much as actual practice. Here again, evolution comes out innocent. Almost all the crimes that evolution is blamed for have been around long before the theory of evolution, making the claim that evolution caused them ludicrous. And nobody has shown any actual statistical connection between any of them and evolutionary belief. I suspect the same cannot be said of creationism.
If problems like abortion and drug abuse are to be lessened, it will be through objective consideration of the many social factors that affect them. People like Ken Ham, who use such issues to demonize people they disagree with, only get in the way of real solutions.
Personally, I cannot turn to creationism over evolution because creationism goes against too many of my values. Foremost, I value honesty, including honestly admitting the implications of what I see. The sciences encourage such honesty, while creationism discourages it. Ham's style of creationism requires a belief that all other religions, not to mention most people's version of Christianity, are wrong. I cannot accept religious bigotry on such a scale. I keep seeing claims of certainty in creationism (such as the ICR tenets), and certainty is incompatible with my need for humility. And creationism requires that I accept that God acts a certain way based on human interpretations. If I were to become a creationist, I would have to abandon faith in God and worship people instead.
Finally, I will note that Ken Ham can't be a very good creationist. He seems to disagree with Bible passages such as Matthew 7:1 and Luke 6:37 about not judging. If he treats those parts of the Bible as wrong, how can you trust him on anything else in the Bible?
|Comment:||This is from your FABNAQ. 12. "Why has God given us all the evidence for an earth more than 100,000 years old and for evolution and the intelligence to infer that? Why has God given us a Bible with all of the evidence that it is not to be read according to the norms of modern western historical and scientific writing?" God has NOT given us any evidence for an earth more than 100,000 yrs. old or for evolution. My question is, why do you continually reject the Creator who formed you, who knows everything, and reject His Word, the Bible? The Bible says God created the heavens and the earth, not God started evolution.|
|Author of:||Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field|
|Response:||Since you seem to be quite familiar with the Bible, please cite the verse which states that the age of the Earth.|
|Comment:||While I don't know all the answers to your prolem with the flood. I can certainly tell you that The "Big Bang" is fictional also. My question would be: If the big bang happend how did all the planets get to be round? An explosion and gravity would certainly not not make order and round planets like we have in the Solar system. An explosion such as the big bang creates disorder not order. How did we get such perfect order on this planet and our solar system? THE "BIBG BANG" DID NOT DO IT!!!|
|Author of:||The Recession of the Moon and the Age of the Earth-Moon System|
|Response:||The Big Bang
was not an explosion, nor does it even resemble an
explosion, except perhaps in some simplistic first
approximation. Your attempt to understand the Big Bang as a
kind of explosion is therefore guaranteed to fail.
Rather, the Big Bang is better thought of as analogous to the rapid expansion of a balloon (think of a balloon in a pressure tank when the pressure is released). The expansion forces cooling which forces condensation (water vapor will form clouds and ice, for instance). Under such conditions, the expansion coupled with gravity will, in fact, necessarily result in the unavoidable formation of stars, planets, and planetary systems such as our own. The formation of order is a necessary consequence of the rapid expansion of the Big Bang.
the space for the universe come from?
Where did matter come from?
Where did the laws of the universe come from (gravity, inertia, etc.)?
How did matter get so perfectly organized?
Where did the energy come from to do all the organizing?
When, where, why, and how did life come from dead matter?
When, where, why, and how did life learn to reproduce itself?
With what did the first cell capable of sexual reproduction reproduce?
Why would any plant or animal want to reproduce more of its kindsince this would only make more mouths to feed and decrease the chances of survival? (Does the individual have a drive to survive, or the species? How do you explain this?)
How can mutations (recombining of the genetic code) create any new, improved varieties? (Recombining English letters will never produce Chinese books.)
Is it possible that similarities in design between different animals prove a common Creator instead of a common ancestor?
Natural selection only works with the genetic information available and tends only to keep a species stable. How would you explain the increasing complexity in the genetic code that must have occurred if evolution were true?
When, where, why, and how did: Single-celled plants become multi-celled? (Where are the two and three-celled intermediates?) Single-celled animals evolve? Fish change to amphibians? amphibians change to reptiles? Reptiles change to birds? (The lungs, bones, eyes,reproductive organs, heart, method of locomotion, body covering, etc., are all very different!) How did the intermediate forms live?
When, where, why, how, and from what did: Whales evolve? Sea horses evolve? bats evolve? Eyes evolve?
Hair, skin, feathers, scales, nails, claws, etc., evolve?
Which evolved first how, and how long, did it work without the others)? The digestive system, the food to be digested, the appetite, the ability to find and eat the food, the digestive juices, or the body?s resistance to its own digestive juice (stomach, intestines, etc.)? The drive to reproduce or the ability to reproduce? The lungs, the mucus lining to protect them, the throat, or the perfect mixture of gases to be breathed into the lungs? DNA or RNA to carry the DNA message to cell parts? The termite or the flagella in its intestines that actually digest the cellulose? The plants or the insects that live on and pollinate the plants? The bones, ligaments, tendons, blood supply, or muscles to move the bones? The nervous system, repair system, or hormone system? The immune system or the need for it?
There are many thousands of examples of symbiosis that defy an evolutionary explanation. Why must we teach students that evolution is the only explanation for these relationships?
How would evolution explain mimicry? Did the plants and animals develop mimicry by chance, by their intelligent choice, or by design?
When, where, why, and how did man evolve feelings? Love, mercy, guilt, etc. would never evolve in the theory of evolution.
*How did photosynthesis evolve?
*How did thought evolve?
*How did flowering plants evolve, and from that?
*What kind of evolutionist are you? Why are you not one of the other eight or ten kinds?
What would you have said fifty years ago if I told you I had a living coelacanth in my aquarium?
*Is there one clear prediction of macroevolution that has proved true?
*What is so scientific about the idea of hydrogen as becoming human?
*Do you honestly believe that everything came from nothing?
After you have answered the preceding questions, please look carefully at your answers and thoughtfully consider the following questions.
Are you sure your answers are reasonable, right, and scientifically provable, or do you just believe that it may have happened the way you have answered? (Do these answers reflect your religion or your science?)
Do your answers show more or less faith than the person who says, "God must have designed it"?
Is it possible that an unseen Creator designed this universe? If God is excluded at the beginning of the discussion by your definition of science, how could it be shown that He did create the universe if He did?
Is it wise and fair to present the theory of evolution to students as fact?
What is the end result of a belief in evolution (lifestyle, society, attitude about others, eternal destiny, etc.)?
Do people accept evolution because of the following factors? It is all they have been taught. They like the freedom from God (no moral absolutes, etc.). They are bound to support the theory for fear of losing their job or status or grade point average. They are too proud to admit they are wrong. Evolution is the only philosophy that can be used to justify their political agenda.
Should we continue to use outdated, disproved, questionable, or inconclusive evidences to support the theory of evolution because we on?t have a suitable substitute (Piltdown man, recapitulation, archaeopteryx, Lucy, Java man, Neanderthal man, horse evolution, vestigial organs, etc.)?
Should parents be allowed to require that evolution not be taught as fact in their school system unless equal time is given to other theories of origins (like divine creation)?
What are you risking if you are wrong? As one of my debate opponents said, "Either there is a God or there is not. Both possibilities are frightening."
Why are many evolutionists afraid of the idea of creationism being presented in public schools? If we are not supposed to teach religion in schools, then why not get evolution out of the textbooks? It is just a religious worldview.
Aren?t you tired of faith in a system that cannot be true? Wouldn?t it be great to know the God who made you, and to accept His love and forgiveness?
Would you be interested, if I showed you from the Bible, how to have your sins forgiven and how to know for sure that you are going to Heaven? If so, call me.
|Author of:||Creation Science and the Earth's Magnetic Field|
|Response:||Most of your questions are easy to answer. However, nobody will bother. In case you missed it somewhere along the line, this is the feedback page, not the post a 1000 questions page. To answer properly would take much time and effort, and an aswer far longer than your post. Try submitting questions one at a time (and not all in the same month). The volunteers who make this archive work deserve at least that much respect, even if you do think we are all nuts.|
|Comment:||your not very smart|
|Response:||But we know that in that sentence the word "your" should be "you're". Thank you for playing.|
|Comment:||If you want to know how accurate the book of Genesis is, please read this essay which I wrote. It's available at: Radiocarbon Dating and Scripture|
|Response:||I read your
essay. You seem to be burdened by numerous misconceptions.
For example, you say:
Note that from Fig 1, that around 4500 years ago, the amount of C14 present was only about half that of 1950AD. This would cause an error of about 5700 years. Hence, if the book of Genesis is accurate, the flood would yield a radiocarbon date of 4500+5700 years. 10200 years bp.
Floods can't be dated with radiocarbon. A flood is an event. You might be able to date an artifact buried by a flood, and hence date the flood, but if you want this to stand as an accurate radiocarbon date for the Genesis flood, you'll have to find such an artifact. For that matter, you'll have to find the deposits from that flood.
You further state:
Ofcourse geologists say that the flood is fantasy. But atleast they admit that during the great ice age which occurred 10000 years ago, ice covered the earth. If the bible had recorded that ice covered the earth, I'm sure geologists would say, "No, there is no reason why the earth should have cooled down to such low temperatures, it could only be water."
This belies an incredible ignorance of geology, and is quite an insult to geologists. It might interest you to know that the primary man responsible for our knowledge of ice ages was Louis Aggasiz. He was a Christian and a creationist who wrote extensively against evolution. At any rate, your argument is basically that the biblical flood was really the ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago and that scientists are just saying it was ice rather than a flood because they're against the bible. This is pure poppycock. Do you really think that floods and glaciers leave behind the same types of evidence? We've seen floods, they occur all the time. We see what kinds of deposits they leave behind. Shockingly, they leave behind subaqueous sediments - sediments deposited in water. Imagine that. We've also seen glaciation. There are still lots and lots of glaciers in the northern latitudes. As they move they leave behind entirely different types of evidence, like loess and other wind borne deposits, and of course incredible jagged gouging of the earth under them. A first year geology student can give you a huge list of differences between glacial and flood deposits. This is not because they are all part of some conspiracy to deny the bible, it's because we've observed such deposition and can therefore identify them.
|Comment:||I read in Harun Yahya's website (www.harunyahya.org) that Darwinism is linked to Zionism, Freemasonry and Illuminati. Any comments?|
|Response:||Well, we could tell you, but then we'd have to send the black helicopters to your house. Seriously, this is nothing more than the lunatic ravings of conspiracy nuts.|
|Comment:||Check out this web page Creation / Evolution Debate - What Darwin Didn't Know I can't find anything wrong with the logic.|
|Response:||I can find
lots and lots of errors of both logic and fact on that
page, and if you had taken the time to view the FAQs on
various issues raised on that page in the Talk.Origins
Archive, I bet you could too. A few examples:
Extinction and the formation of fossils are more consistent with a catastrophe like Noah's flood than they are with Uniformitarianism, because only very unusual circumstances (like mud slides) would cause animals to be buried before they could be eaten or rot away.
This is false. First, whether an animal was eaten or not would not normally affect whether the skeleton could fossilize, since scavengers would eat the meat and not the bones.
Second, fossilization does not require mudslides, though that is one way it can happen. Most fossilization, in fact, takes place in marine environments (we have far more fossils of marine animals than terrestrial animals) where the anoxic environment preserves the skeleton until sub-aqueous sedimentation covers it up. Skeletons are often also preserved because an animal is trapped in a hole, fissure or cave opening, or in something like a tar pit. Often times skeletons ARE preserved by flood sediments, we see this quite often, but not on a global scale all at once. In order for the young earth creationist position that page espouses to be correct, virtually all fossils and species must have lived and died simultaneously, which is absurd and impossible to maintain in light of a vast range of evidence.
Third, the fact that Russell Humphries says that there are proofs that the earth is only a few thousand years old does not mean that such proofs are true. In fact, each of the proofs that he and other YECs list is debunked in numerous places in the Talk.Origins archive. Feel free to read them.
To estimate the age of volcanic rocks, you have to assume that when the rock was formed there was a certain ratio of radioactive chemicals to other chemicals that are the byproduct of radioactive decay. The assumption that none of the parent chemical was added or lost except due to radioactive decay can't be verified, and the assumption that all of the decay byproducts only came from the parent chemical in the rock or that nothing was lost can't be verified either.
This is also false in most cases. First, we don't have to assume that decay rates were constant. The decay rates of radioisotopes have been tested and tested time and again, under every possible condition including changes in pressure and heat and the largest change ever measured was less than 1% (again, all of this information is available in the archive if you just bother to read the FAQs). This is expirementally verified, not an assumption. Furthermore, we know that if decay rates HAD been significantly faster in the recent past the resulting release of radiation that quickly would literally sterilize the planet of life. Radiodecay = release of radiation into the atmosphere. If the decay rates were fast enough in the past few thousand years to release 4.5 billion years worth of radiation, the earth would still be molten.
Second, we don't have to assume a ratio of mother/daughter elements in the rock at the time it was formed in most cases. The most common dating technique is K/Ar dating. We don't have to assume that there was no Argon40 at the time the lava cooled because we know that Argon40 cannot be trapped by the rock matrix until it cools to a specific temperature (like all noble gasses). Therefore we know that there was no Argon40 present in a lava flow until the rock formed and cooled.
Third, the example of using recent lava flows to perform radiometric dating on is irrelevant. You cannot date recent flows accurately because the amount of daughter product present is too small to get an accurate measurement. It's like using a hammer to fix a television set - use the wrong tool for the job and you get bad results.
Another scientist filed down the tooth of a pig and persuaded fellow scientists that this single item was evidence for a human ancestor he called Nebraska man.
There is not a single word of that sentence that is true. Osborn did not "file down the tooth" at all, it was found as is. There was absolutely no fraud involved in this whatsoever. Not only did he not claim it was a human ancestor, he went out of his way to say he didn't think it was. And when he revisited the site 2 years later and found the rest of the skeleton, he recognized his error in classification and immediately retracted it. This is an example of good science - he had a find, he made a preliminary classification, he returned for more research and promptly reported his findings. Once again, all of this is available in the archive, which has a search engine that works quite well.
There are lots of other errors as well, but that will do for now.
|Comment:||To Whom it
I am an 18 year old high school senior and yesterday, in my chemistry class, we watched a video about your organization. I listened and tried to have an open-mind, however, I believe that whomever believes in this "flat-earth" theory-which is all it is-is a moron. Your reasons for believing in this are not justified, nor do they make ANY sense whatsoever. I hope that you all someday realize how foolish you are and that the earth is, in fact, globular as opposed to being flat.
P.S. Get a real job!
|Response:||So, if the
earth isn't flat, how come people in Austrailia don't fall
off the earth?
Try to argue against that Mr. "18-year-old-high-school-senior-with-a-severe- reading-comprehension-problem-that-makes-him-mistakenly-believe-this-site-is- about-flat-earth-theory-and-not-about-evolution-as-is-so-clearly-stated-on- practically-every-page"
P.S. Get a real job!
Been there, done that, and now seriously worried that the 40+% of my income taken for taxes will only get bigger because the class of 2002 will be such a bunch of no-account, dull-witted slackers (such as the self-nominated author of the above comment) that employment won't be an option for most. My guess is that McDonalds will need to put pictures of the food on the cash register buttons and scan the money automatically before they can hire this year's graduates. If there ever was a more appropriate feedstock for soylent green production than the less-than-stellar Mr. "high school senior", I'm not aware of it.
|Comment:||There is a new example of a beneficial mutatuion that seems superior to ones used in your articles. it is a mutation that causes people to be almost immune to malaria. More information can be found at Blood gene saps malaria|
|Comment:||My IQ (97 percentile) and two degrees in Science promotes difficulty in accepting "The Theory of Evolution". No religous point of view. Perhaps if I were of the mindless population, Status Quo.....|
I test out higher than that, I have two science degrees in the bag and a third on the way, but I don't seem to have the same difficulties in accepting evolutionary biology that you do. I can't claim to have no religious view; I'm a United Methodist.
Any time that you want to get down to the empirics rather than simply engage in polemics, post something to the talk.origins newsgroup.
|Comment:||the bible tells us that 1 day with christ is = to 1000 years. how many years with god would 1 day be = to? many creationists beleave that it was all done with the snap of a finger. i think god did a lot of experimenting before coming up with the modern plan. for example dinosaurs! just think about it. remember that einstein beleived in a soul and that it existed somewhere after death.|
|Response:||I'm not sure
where you get the idea that Einstein believed in a soul
that survived death. Einstein was asked about his religious
views quite a bit and he discussed them in many letters and
speeches on the subject. Here are a few statements which
would seem to belie your contention:
"I do not believe in immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it."
"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."
Having said that, I'm not sure what your point was. Even if Einstein did believe in a soul that survived death, what would be the point? That we should believe it because he did? That is illogical.
|Comment:||I love your site...very informative, but who holds the copyright for the theory now considering Mr. Darwin is deceased? I just want to know who can claim legal ownership I need it for some credits.|
|Author of:||Evolution and Philosophy|
held for works, not ideas. Plagiarism is a sin in academic
cases not because it infringes on copyright but because it
is deceitful and implies originality that is not earned.
The copyright to Darwin's books lapsed many years ago, although copyright to the facsimile editions brought out rests with the libraries that hold the editions that were imaged by the publishers. In that case the copyright is held by agreement with the publishers.
"Darwinian theory" is not a thing that can be copyrighted. So if you wish to pay royalites, send them to me.
|Comment:||What happened to your feedback for July, August, and September?|
They met a boojum. :-)
Ah, well, we did experience what you might call "technical difficulties". We have the text of certain messages and responses in July and August, but the data concerning who entered which message, and which message responds to which other message got messed up. The system was taken down for the month of September. In October we were able to get it working again. There is automatic backup of the critical data which occurs every six hours now, so if our gremlin strikes again, we should lose at most six hours worth of feedback messages rather a month at a time. That's the plan, anyway.
|Comment:||From the study I have done on Evolution, it appears to me to be total madness. None of the assertions have any proof in nature. The fossil records don't show micro-evolution, the gradual change in one creature to another. There are gaps everywhere. Also, random mutation has never been shown or witnessed. No one has ever seen a different creature born from a certain species. Natural selection does not actually select the fittest of the species. It deselects the least-fit. If it selected only the fittest, there would be few creatures left. In any case,it can't change the genetic structure of the creature. The greatest strike againest evolution, however, is the fact that it can't be reproduced! First we were able to reproduce the image of the creature by painting and sculptures. Now we can reproduce the mechanics of many creatures, as well as computerized movements imitating the mind and choices of creatures. But we can't reproduce the random mutation factor. The only way to do that would be to create a complete mind, with the intelligence to alter and create mechanisms for adapting to the environment. If we can't do this yet with all our design knowledge, how can nature reproduce animals with only random chance? Everyone should read Richard Milton's book 'Shattering the Myths of Darwinism'. Thanks.|
|Response:||A recent article ( The Scientist 15(23):12, 26 Nov. 2001) tells of the start-up company Morphotek, which aims to produce organisms with tailored genomes via evolution. They can greatly increase mutation rates by turning off the DNA proofreading, and then they select the varieties with the traits they want. Venture capitalists are confident enough of the process to invest $12 million in it already.|
certain fossil sequences do show microevolution;
particularly for marine invertebrates where the
fossilization is most common. Mutation is easily and
Your comment on selection "de-selecting" the least fit is very apt. I like it; and it is actually a reasonable insight into selection. You are also right that it does not change genetic structures. That is why evolution requires mutation as well as selection. One process introduces variety, the other prunes away the least fit. Sometimes the variety introduced is more fit that the norm, for a given environment: in this case the variation is, I would say, selected for by natural selection.
But then you go off the rails again. We can actually induce mutation in a laboratory. But there is usually no need. Quite enough mutations occur naturally for lab experiments to use resulting variation in experimental demonstration of the process of evolution.
With respect to Richard Milton, it is rather illuminating (and very amusing) to read the debate he had with Jim Foley, author of the fossil hominids FAQ. Read Milton's book, by all means; but also read some of the critiques. Milton is not particularly competant when it comes to understanding what he claims to refute.
|Comment:||i curse you and your site! not because i disagree with any of your assertions, but because, since i discovered the site, i haven't been able to tear my eyes from it. i'm going blind, i'm losing sleep, i'm missing my favorite television programs, and it's ALL YOUR FAULT, for creating the single most cogent refutation of creationist nonsense that i've ever seen. KUDOS! keep up the GREAT WORK, and perhaps the day will come when sane people will no longer have to argue against the fundamentalist drivel you so handily consign to the dust bin.|
|Response:||Just one point. I'm not comfortable calling it "fundamentalist" drivel. Rather, I prefer to view it as "uninformed", or "ill-informed" ideas. It's not religion per se, that is at fault but bad science, rumor and in some cases, questionable theology. There are many religious fundamentalists that recognize the poor arguments as drivel so let's not paint with too broad a brush, eh?|
noticed a post earlier in your feedback section where
someone mentioned "unfossilized dinosaur bones." You
answered that you had not heard of this one, and I noticed
there are no FAQ's about this subject. I believe I can help
you out on this one. I am a theistic evolutionist and have
been studying the creation/evolution controversy for about
10 years. The "unfossilized dinosaur bones" argument comes
from a group of creationists led by Buddy Davis, a dinosaur
sculptor, to Alaska in 1998. I have discovered several
problems with the claim, as evidenced by these creationists
own admissions in their book. They admit that they dug
through several layers of muds, permafrost, coal, and shale
to get all of their dinosaur bones out. They also admit
that the "unfossilized" dinosaur bones were found in the
top layers. If this is true, then they did not find
dinosaur bones at all; rather, what they seem to have are
either frozen mastodon or mammoth bones. These creationists
also admit that they found no dinosaur bones in the coal
layer. They also admit that they found completely
fossilized dinosaur bones in the underlying shale. This, I
discovered, is only because this layer is the well-known
Liscomb (Cretaceous) dinosaur bone bed. They did manage to
find a near-perfectly preserved hadrosaurine dinosaur lower
jaw bone with a full battery of teeth. Just to show how
incompetent they were, they also admit that they were
fooled into thinking they had a "unfossilized" dinosaur
bone which actually turned out to be a piece of driftwood.
It seems fishy to me that they also say that they are
analyzing these bones themselves. Funny that world-renowned
hadrosaur expert John Horner was not consulted to verify
the "unfossilzedness" of these bones. I would love to write
an FAQ for you guys on this one since you don't already
have one. Please let me know if I can. Thanks much.
At www.creationism.org, the following is stated with regard to Mount St. Helens:
In the five months following the eruption two canyons were formed by mud and pyroclastic flows, establishing drainages for the 1.5 x 2.0 mile crater. The primary drainage, Step Canyon, is up to 700’ deep. To its east is Loowit Canyon. Both canyons cut through 100’ of solid rock. Creeks flow through each canyon. The typical evolutionary explanation is that a creek slowly forms a canyon over vast ages. In this case we know that the canyons were formed quickly; then a stream began to run through them. Textbooks say the most spectacular canyon in the world, the Grand Canyon, was formed by stream erosion over a hundred million years. Now scientists who specialize in geological erosion believe it was formed rapidly just like these canyons at MSH.
In a Jan 2000 feedback it was stated that these "canyons" were cut through ash, not rock.
Were these canyons carved through ash or rock or whatever? And, where can I found the information to confirm the answer?
Canyon formed like Mount St. Helens" argument is primarily
the creation of Dr. Steve Austin, of the Institute for Creation
Research. Jonathon Woolf has examined and refuted
Austin's arguments in detail at this
site. Karen Bartelt's discussion of her
visit to the ICR also discusses Austin's claims in some
That the May 18, 1980 eruption of Mount St. Helens deposited a tremendous amount of ash and loose volcanic debris around the area is undisputed. In fact, you can see some pictures of the area yourself from a field trip by the University of Washington's Department of Earth and Space Sciences. The hiking trail in Loowit and Sheep Canyon is described in Hike through wildflowers as "dry and ashy."
The website for the Mount St. Helens National Volcano Monument contains a great deal of information about the mountain, the eruption, and the recovery of flora and fauna in the region. Furthermore, the United States Geological Survey has information on the eruption itself and many great pictures of the site.
|Comment:||I am a
Christian, and like many others, I'm undecided about
evolution. However, whether it is true or not, it is not
advantageous to downplay the moral implications of the
theory. Influential philosophers of the past century or so
have drawn from Darwin to make all kinds of ethical
judgments that have been transmitted, especially in the
USA, through public policy and all levels of education.
Often accompanying these ethical formulations are,
curiously, very critical analyses of scientific
materialism. So, philosophically speaking, it may not be
helpful to resort to scientific objectivism because, in
many circles, it is no longer accepted.
This is where I think the conservative Christian community still has a lot of work to do. There are many "creationists" arguing in the name of objective scientific evidence, which places them at a double disadvantage. This approach also makes it appear that the truth of Christianity is incumbent upon both the literal Genesis account and scientific evidence, of which it is absolutely not.
Thus, I leave the door open to possibility of literal creation, evolution or some unknown theory. However, if Christians want to be heard, we must enter the contemporary arena and not the one that is now at least a century old. Though topics such as fossil records are no doubt important, there is much, much more to the phenomenon of Darwin's theory than the empirical evidence.
your comments. With respect to addressing the moral
implications of evolution, I too have serious concerns
about what's been claimed. I do not believe one can create
much of an ethical or moral system based on natural
mechanisms or natural history and I'm highly skeptical of
arguments that purport to do so.
Simply put, "is" statments do not translate well to "ought" statements. These are orthogonal systems. That "influential philosophers" of the past century have drawn from Darwin to sustain ethical judgements and remain influential suggests to me that no profession is immune from pockets of uncritical thought.
I'm not quite sure how the pros or cons of scientific objectivism plays into this debate... at least not logically. I know it's popular in some circles to debate objectivism and the utility of science but I don't see how that impacts discussions of ethical or moral systems. So I guess I'm curious too, about how these ethical formulations are at once derived from observations of the past history of life and at the same time critical of the process of observation. Perhaps the best question to ask these oracles of non-objective thought is: "How do you know that you know what you're talking about?"
I agree that some in the conservative Christian community would do better to enter a fairly recent century (either of the past two would be helpful in some cases) -- Basically, there are times when we all could. However, I don't think "arguing in the name of objective scientific evidence" places anyone at a specific disadvantage. In theory, at least, this suggests that everyone is at least reading off the same "page". Arguing that Christianity is incumbent on the literal truth of Genesis is another matter, however. That approach suggests that there is a single, self-evident, indisputable interpretation of scripture and that it is in strict opposition to current scientific thought. Ultimately, that becomes a theological, not a scientific or philosophical, question.
|Comment:||Response to "age of the earth; the accumulation of helium in the atmostphere. There is a response to this in the book 'Shattering the myths of Darwinism' by Richard Milton. I quote: "there are two things that make Banks and Holzer's findings unsuitable for the purposes to which Dalrymple tries to fit them. The first is that the figure he cites for escape may be great enough to account for the production whose figures he gives, but that is only because he has selected a low estimate for production. In reality the excape rates he cites are not remotely great enough to account for the amount of helium 4 that must have been created and lost- remember we are looking for more than 10 to the 20th power grams of missing helium. This means that if the Earth really is 4.5 billion years old, then its atmosphere would have to lose helium at a rate somewhere around 10 to the 16th power atoms/cmsquare.sec., or some ten orders of magnitude faster than Dalrymple's figure, to account for the missing helium.|
|Response:||Where in the
world does Milton get his numbers? He says there are
1020 grams of "missing helium"? But the measured
flux rate of helium from the surface of the Earth is no
more than 106 atoms/cm2/sec
(Helium flux from a sedimentary basin, N. Takahata
& Y. Sano, Applied Radiation and Isotopes 52(4):
985-992, April 2000). Over a total surface area of about
5.1x1018 cm2, that's only
5.1x1024 atoms/sec global rate, and that comes
to about 34 grams per second. If that rate were constant
over 4.5 billion years (probably not a good assumption),
then the total helium mass emitted over the age of the
Earth is about 4.8x1018 grams, something like 1%
of Milton's number.
But if the Earth is now producing about 106 atoms/cm2/sec, then it only needs to lose helium at the same rate to establish equilibrium. Milton's 1016 atoms/cm2/sec is insane, many orders of magnitude larger than required. Where did he come up with a number like that?
Aside from that, we already know that creationists usually ignore the loss of ionized helium along magnetic field lines, does Milton ignore it too? The evidence from observation & models shows that the loss rate is, as a matter of fact, in equilibrium with the production rate (Helium Escape from the Terrestrial Atmosphere - The Ion Outflow Mechanism, O. Liesvendsen & M.H. Rees, Jouranl of Geophysical Research - Space Physics 101(A2): 2435-2443, February 1, 1996)
I would say that Milton's argument looks a tad shakey.
|Comment:||I have noticed that you have no FAQs about the recent creationist claim of the finding of "fresh, unfossilized dinosaur bones." I found this claim in a creationist book, "The Great Alaskan Dinosaur Adventure" by Buddy Davis (1998). In this book, Buddy and four other creationists with the ICR and CRS claim to have found "unfossilized" dinosaur bones in the Alaskan tundra. I have discovered their fallacies and would like to write an FAQ for Talk.Origins about this one. How do I do this?|
|Response:||See our Submission Guidelines. Pretty much, you just need to write it. When you've finished, post it on the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup with a descriptive header like "Proposed FAQ on unfossilized dinosaur bones." Revise until good, then submit it to .|
|Comment:||It seems that you won't post feedback contrary to your evolutionary thinking - hmmmm. Look around how many things in this world have just been created by accident? Also, if evolution is correct, the black man is inferior to the white man. Please make note of my name. One of my decendents will be the first human to fly. Since evolution is born out of need, I've flapped my arms for most of my adult life and I've instructed my kids to do the same, and I'm confident they'll carry on the family tradition and have their kids do it as well. Mark my words, eventually one of my great, great grandkids will sprout wings. A buddy and myself had evolution all figured out. However, since I became a Christian and started living in the truth, I realize more than ever that "The word of God is foolishness to those who are perishing". God Bless you guys. I hope you'll find the truth of God's word before it's too late. Doug|
A) Hmmm, what the hell are you talking about? The posted feedback on the archive is full of anti-evolutionist nonsense (your message made it). Or perhaps you mean "feedback contrary to evolutionary thinking" posted unopposed. You're right there isn't much of that, by design.
B) Evolution (via natural selection) is not a purely chance (accidental) process (assuming that is what your question about things being "created by accident" is getting at). Variation is more or less random, but selection is non-random, non-accidental.
C) The factual status of evolution does not logically lead to the conclusion that certain sub-groups of any given species are inherently inferior or superior in some objective sense to other sub-groups of that species. So no, if evolution is correct it does not mean that the "black man" is inferior to the "white man".
D) Evolution is not "born out of need" at all, and if you had even the most tenuous grasp of evolutionary biology you would know that evolution has nothing to do with organisms instructing their offspring (outside of passing on genetic traits during reproduction) to do anything. Apparently you don't have evolution as "figured out" as you think.
E) You should not assume that because someone accepts evolution that they are not theists, or even Christians, who have already found (at least in their opinion) the "truth of God's word". Just because they see the "truth of God's word" differently from you doesn't mean they don't see it.