modernized archive preview
TalkOrigins ArchiveStable legacy routes with responsive reading, corpus-aware search, translation staging, and reviewed study support.
Feedback Compilation
Selected reader letters and TalkOrigins responses from November 2004.
A point I never see the creationists address -- and one which I'm sure they're loathe to dwell on -- is that of scientific majority opinion. First, creationists will say that "more and more scientists are turning to ID" or "more and more, evolution is collapsing", or some variation -- and, of course, that's not true. A simple comparison of pro-ID and pro-evolution positions as represented by peer-reviewed publications, science faculty at ALL major universities and even popular science magazines demonstrates that there is effectively NO pro-ID scientific faction. So, of course, the creationists change their argument (as they often do, rapid-fire, to avoid scrutiny) to what has got to be the weakest link in their chain of tenuous claims -- that the reason scientists embrace evolution and natural selection isn't the preponderance of evidence and 150 years of good science, but because doing so acts as some kind of philosophical end-run around God.
As demonstrated in many examples in this Feedback section, they will deliver the argument flippantly and obliquely, then quickly move on, and for good reason: examined in any detail, the argument is preposterous. It seems to imply the following thinking, not just in one, but in hundreds of thousands of modern scientists:
"I hate God. I believe he exists, in my secret heart, but I hate him and am afraid of him and want to go to Hell, for some bizarre reason, so I will choose to adopt belief in, and promote, a scientific theory (which secretly has no evidentiary support), but which, by implying that a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of Genesis is factually inaccurate, calls into question the inerrancy of God's Word the Bible, and therefore the Fall and Redemption, judgment, etc. and the whole shebang. Therefore, by convincing myself that evolution is true, I can believe that I am not subject to God's judgment."
I know that doesn't make any sense. It isn't something a sane person would ever think. Yet creationists want to accuse, not just you or I, but EVERY pro-evolution scientist (which is, effectively, every scientist) of this bizarre line of "reasoning".
I would be very surprised if any creationists who visit this site ever have any alternate explanation for the overwhelming scientific support evolution enjoys among the people who are supposed to be the experts. I would be happy to see them expand on their own argument, to see how much dancing they can do before they make themselves sound totally absurd.
Millions of people over the past 100 years -- many of them Christians -- have dedicated their lives and their souls to learning the truth about the natural world. Demonstrating the falsehood of as venerable a theory as evolution would have meant instant scientific immortality. The idea that evolution enjoys its scientific popularity owing to a logically absurd, almost schizophrenic conspiracy amongst scientists to thwart God the Judge through a tortuous metaphysical self-deception is to me an example of unconscionable intellectual dishonesty amongst creationists. Either that, or they are so muddle-headed in how they distribute their own belief that they really think that you can believe "A equals 1" and "A does not equal 1" at the same time.
Meg Wrote,
One of the easiest to find was Dr. James Allan (although his PhD was Zoology, not Genetics) at the University of Edinburgh, top of the "Additional listings" at the bottom of this page: http://icr.org/creationscientists/biologicalscientists.html
The difference in discipline should have alerted Meg that she was potentially off base. It would seem the James Allan in question apparently never worked at University of Edinburgh merely received his doctorate from there. He retired in 1992 and AIG tells his story here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/jumping_ship.asp
If the Allan she contacted is presently at the University of Edinburgh she might want to call him back and have him forget the libel lawsuit because the libel would have been totally in Meg's mind.
Hopefully everyone is satisfied now.
Editor's note (added December 19, 2004): The letter was a reply to an October 2004 feedback by "Meg".
I have been 'introducing' the theory of evolution by natural selection to a Christian Fundamentalist forum. I am even discussing evolution/creation with someone who was involved in the starting of 'True Origin', your 'counterpart.' ;)
I must admit that discussions with people that know a bit about science are more fun than the usual 'you will burn in hell'-kind of comments I often get. I would like to say: Keep up the good work!
I just wanted you all to know that your site IS making a difference. Many of my friends are really starting to grasp what evolution is all about, because of Talk.Origins and I have inspired some Christians to at least think about evolution, using your site. You would be surprised how many misconceptions there are about evolution. (No wait, you actually DO!)
You are one of my favorite sources to get information from (besides of course Darwin, Dawkins and Gould).
Suggestion: Have you ever thought of using evolutionary psychology as further evidence of evolution, or do you think that's 'off-topic'? (Or did you do it and did I miss it?)
Although I disagree with many of your articles, I am very pleased to see the relative civility with which you conduct yourselves. I know there are bad examples on both sides of the fence, but this does not mean that civilized debate cannot take place.
Personally, as a biochemist, I am still unswayed in my conviction about the design I see in proteins (my pet field). However, I always welcome factually-supported debate and fully agree with you that the current methodology favored by many creationists is neither factual nor convincing.
I commend your efforts at keeping the ID / Creationism community honest (My pet peeve is thursdayism), and ask that you continue to do so. I especially enjoy reading your rebuttals of common ID literature. They are needed to keep material accurate and on-point. I hope to possibly post some replies of my own, time permitting.
-Elihu
My apologies if I misunderstood you. Also, please understand that I truly enjoy your site. This made it doubly annoying when I saw what I took to be a POLITICAL stance by some on your site.
I would like to continue visiting, and amusing myself with the fundies. (I’m easily amused), as well as being instructed in the finer points of evolutionary biology.
BTW - Kerry DID lose (heh!)
Uranium-iron testing has been found to be very inaccurate. anexample is the effect water has upon it (and scientists said water had no effect on it). A sample a few hundred years old was found to be several million years old by uranium-iron testing. It was known for sure that it was only a few hundred years old. Im sure that you already know that carbon dating is also very inaccurate.
How then is evolution, requiring many billions of years possible on a planet not nearly 1 billion years old?
The first issue regarding the depth of the meteoric lunar dust is a commonly promoted misconception. It is so popular with some young Earth creationists that it had received its very own TalkOrigins FAQ Meteorite Dust and the Age of the Earth as long ago as 1996. In fact, even ur-creationists such as Answers in Genesis have highlighted this as a leading "Arguments we think creationists should NOT use."
The parenthetical comment regarding the Earth's magnetic field resulting in a 10,000 year age of the Earth is simply false. The residual magnetism that can be measured in archaeological features such as hearths, or ovens can be used to date some sites, but the method is fundamentally correlative. Similarly, magnetic field polarity reversals can be used to bracket geological and paleontological events.
However, I suspect that our YEC friend is referring to the bogus claim that the Earth's magnetic field is weakening, and that this so-called effect can be projected in some way to estimate the age of the Earth. "The Age of the Earth" FAQ by Chris Stassen easily debunks this one. (Mr. Stassen also addressed the Moon Dust claim). A more detailed examination of this phony argument is again by Dr. Tim Thompson in his T.O. article "On Creation Science and the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field."
Troza's next bit of logic is quite puzzling. Neither archaeologists, geologists, nor paleontologists use the stratigraphic position of an object to "measure" its age. Independent dating methods can be used to determine the age of a particular strata, and then this can be correlated to other strata. This can be confusing to some. What is the most difficult to understand is how our corespondent could imagine that starta can be deposited "sideways?" The nearest I can imagine are the field observations of tilted, or folded deposits having been confused for original in situ formations. These are of course events that occurred long after the original deposition of the sediments in question. Creationists have used tilted strata to concoct spurious "proofs" of the Noah's Flood story, for example "A Whale of a Tale.
Uranium-iron dating is of course "very inaccurate." In fact, it is impossible because uranium does not decay into iron. From the context of these bold declarations, I would guess that troza had misremembered something from a YEC denial of radiometric dating. Many of these exist, and have in turn been debunked by several TalkOrigins FAQs. In addition to "The Age of the Earth" mentioned above, I recommend "Radiometric Dating and the Geological Time Scale." And specifically for those few people who would not credit anyone not expressly giving a Christian perspective, I can suggest that they read "Radiometric Dating: A Christian Perspective" by Dr. Roger C. Wiens.
So then, finally the real question, "How then is evolution, requiring many billions of years possible on a planet not nearly 1 billion years old? "
Evolution is simply an observed fact, see "Evolution is a Fact and a Theory" and also, "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent." There are multiple mechanisms operating, and scientists differ on the relative merits and significance of these mechanisms. There is no logical demand that evolution happen in a specific time frame, other than those imposed by our data. We know that certain evolutionary events happened at certain times, but there is no theoretical device that insists that evolution follow a strict time schedule. Oh, and besides, the Earth is about 4.5 billions of years old. Quite ample evidently.
If you look, you find evidence in the bible that Sun, Moon AND stars MOVE around the earth, and the earth is immovable!
You have been deceived!
Found this web site for much more proof: http://www.fixedearth.com
See also Psalms 93:1 and over 100 other verses in the bible (The ONLY scientific LAW BOOK on earth - Only people, ignorant people for that matter are 'RELIGIOUS')
I've found this website since 3 years ago. I found this website is very helpful, especially for my school work. One of my favourite section is Creationist Arguments by Mark Isaak. That's very useful.
I wanna ask some questions :
1. What species is claimed to be the closest ancestor to Homo sapiens sapiens, that evolved to modern humans?
2. Is Archaeopteryx closer to reptile or to bird?
3. Any other fossils that can be claimed as the transitional fossils between reptile and bird?
4. Is the existence of 'sternum' in Archaeopteryx chest disprove Evolution? (I read this from Harun Yahya's)
Many hominid fossils were found in my country. The last one is Flores Man.
Mike Morwood and Peter Brown from Australia claimed that it was Homo floresinensis, a different species than modern human. But Prof. Dr. T Jacob from Gadjah Mada University said that it was Homo sapiens. Prof.Jacob said something about um.. micro-cephali (??). Do u know that? Which one is correct? Is it a homo sapiens or a new-found species?
Thanks a lot. Sorry my English isn't good.
I'm no specialist, so take this with a grain of salt, but:
1. The most likely ancestral species for humans (Homo sapiens) is either H. ergaster or H. erectus. The erectus species (called Erectus for short, but that's not the scientific name) is widespread throughout Asia, and probably evolved from Ergaster itself, which would make it a "sister" species to us, along with the Neandertals (Homo neanderthalensis, which evolved from a prior descendent species of Ergaster, Homo heidelbergensis. The Flores species looks to be an island dwarf species of Erectus. When large bodied mammals are isolated in small islands, there is strong selection for them to become smaller.
2. Archaeopteryx is, as I understand it, a member of the "avian" group because it has what were thought at the time to be bird-characters despite its obvious dinosaurian teeth, skeleton and tail. Incidentally, modern taxonomists do not treat "reptile" as a natural group, but birds are well within the dinosaurian group. In fact, Archie can easily be mistaken for another kind fo dinosaur on the basis of its skeleton, a Compsognathus dinosaur. It's the feathers that give it away. But now, based on fossils found in China, we know that many non-avian dinosaurs had feathers too, including the group from which the famous T. rex comes.
So the short answer is that in terms of taxonomy, Archie is in the bird "clade", but it is a mosaic of avian and non-avian dinosaur traits.
3. Yes; in particular the Confuciornis fossils, also from China.
4. No. If it is a transitional fossil, then the existence of features that we might expect from one group to another do not disprove evolution, they strengthen it. Harun Yahya is unreliable, as are creationist sites in general.
We have read here (Australia and on the Internet in my case) of the challenge to Flores being an Erectus sister species, but as I understand it, as at the time of writing, the researcher had not even examined the specimens before declaring it not to be non-human, so how reliable the press reports, not to mention the critical faculties, of this are is unclear. Microcephalics have a particular skull shape this specimen does not have - it is beyond belief that an entire research group of physical anthropologists, trained in these matters, would fail to consider this, not to mention that the disease would independently occur in 7 randomly fossilised individuals.
There are other similar claims elsewhere on the site.
I'm well aware that this is fairly involved organic chemistry (I'm reading http://www.ictp.trieste.it/~chelaf/summariescontrib.html at the moment!), but it might be worth adding more details on this area; the 'Simple Chemicals -> Polymers' stage is probably the most important one to explain.
After reading the FAQ where creationists argue against evolution and the evolutionist rebuttal is given, I naturally went to find the other FAQ where the evolutionists would argue against creationists and they could have their rebuttal. I was then mildly suprised to see the quote "With just enough of learning to misquote." at the top of the creationist section. In fact I couldn't find any text where the creationist perspective wasn't denied absolutely beyond any doubt and often disrespected, with the evolutionist view always having the final word.
Based on how you have handled the feedback I have looked at so far I don't exactly expect a great response from you, but I think you should change the title of your site. If you want to have a page promoting evolution and arguing against creation then that is fine, but to describe this site as "Exploring the Creation/Evolution Controversy" is misleading to people like me who expect a site which presents the arguments of creation and evolution impartially. A site which describes the theory of evolution as fact is pretty useless in that regard.
Ah. You evidently did not read our welcome page:
"Why doesn't the archive contain any articles that support creationism?"
The Talk.Origins Archive exists to provide mainstream scientific responses to the frequently asked questions and frequently rebutted assertions that appear in talk.origins. The archive's policy is that readers should be given easy access to alternative views, but those who espouse alternative views should speak for themselves. Hence, the archive supplies links to relevant creationist web sites within many of its articles. It also maintains a frequently updated and extensive list of creationist and catastrophist web sites so that readers may familiarize themselves with anti-evolutionary perspectives on scientific issues.
Just because we are exploring the creation/evolution controversy doesn't mean we don't already know the lay of the land. Many of those who have contributed to this site have extensive libraries of works supporting creationism, and have reached their conclusions regarding the subject after years of study.
You say that you were expecting impartiality. It is precisely because we wish to be impartial that we have not tried to summarize the views of various creationists, many of which are (to our view) contradictory. If we summarized them incorrectly, we would certainly be accused of bias on that score. For that reason, we provide an extensive list of links to creationist sources. To my knowledge, it is the largest list of such links available anywhere. In addition, we provide direct links from most of our articles to creationist articles on the same subject.
We don't expect our readers to simply take our word for it; in fact, we encourage them to follow the applicable links and, most importantly, to read the peer-reviewed literature we cite in our articles. Evolutionary biology is an enormously large subject; we've tried our best to summarize it and give supporting details, but in the end, you may have to do some work and wade into the details yourself
One final point: There really is no such thing as "the theory of evolution." "Evolution" includes both a massive quantity of facts and numerous theories ("theory" = "model," not "guess") to explain those facts. The theories of evolution, which include not only natural selection, but also sexual selection, genetic drift, and others, have been supported by the facts--observational and experimental data. They are as well-confirmed as any other scientific theory. This is why we say that evolution is both fact and theory.
See the Spontaneous Generation FAQ for a full historical review of this.
USENET is a worldwide bulletin board system that can be accessed through the Internet or through many online services. USENET contains more than 14,000 forums, called newsgroups, that cover every imaginable interest group. One of those newsgroups is talk.origins.
"NNTP" stands for Network News Transfer Protocol. It is the protocol by which USENET messages are passed from computer to computer.
Many Internet service providers have a USENET news server. If the ISP is named "isp.com," the news server will often be found at "news.isp.com."
If your ISP does not have a news server, you can still access newsgroups through portals on the World Wide Web. Probably the most used portal is Google Groups. You can access talk.origins there.
He makes the statement "Let me guess: you work in a college and have never had a real job, correct?" Wow, what a loathing for educators. Maybe there is a link between neo-conservatives and the religious fundamentalists. The fundies want to undermine education by turning it into some sort of state funded Sunday School, while so many neo-cons undermine education by making statements demonizing educators. Also, if he has such a problem with college professors then why is he "agree[s] with the ToEv" and reads it on a site that is written by people that are those horribly lazy college professors, and cites studies done by other horribly lazy college professors. He must be just infuriated by Dawkins and Gould and Chompsky!
That is the real problem, if one really wants to get it across to people about the scientific validity of evolution it would be a good idea to maybe not slander the living crap out of the people that are trying to do so?
What is so ironic and hypocritical is that he condems Mr. Wilkins for doing exactly the same stuff he does in his post!!
"Leave your political prejudices at home". Which is followed with "Get over yourself, leftie." And then it turns out Mr. Wilkins is also a conservative. Then in his next childishly profane submission he concludes with "framing 'neocons' makes it a POLITICAL not a SCIENTIFIC discussion". Yet this was preceded by "Kerry WILL lose".
Basically, all I can say is: What a doofus.
My experience is that there is nothing so strongly felt as a political affiliation. This is probably something that goes right back to our proto-human ancestors. Frans de Waal has shown how chimpanzees make alliances and express "political" views (sometimes violently). It is no shock that we do too. So we can perhaps cut him a little slack, as it arose in the context of a rather bitter election campaign in the US.
A conservative liberal...
John
Secondly, if you had read what Dr. Myers wrote in the FAQ you would already have learned much of what I am about to tell you (and presumably wouldn't have sent a feedback message containing such silly comments). I suggest you go back and read it again.
Third and finally, Wells does not point "out a very good point" about pharyngeal clefts here, this is because his claim that pharyngeal clefts in reptiles, birds, and mammals "are never "gill-like" except in the superficial sense that they form a series of parallel lines in the neck region" (Wells 2000, p.106, emphasis in original), is misleading to the point of deception.
The clear meaning of Wells' statement quoted above (as Ms. Riendeau paraphrases here) is that the only similarity between what we call pharyngeal clefts in fish and what we call pharyngeal clefts in terrestrial vertebrates are some folds in the skin of the neck region of the embryo. This is simply counterfactual.
The pharyngeal clefts are only the exterior parts of a whole collection of anatomical structures which all vertebrates have at some point in their lives. In fact the presence of this collection of structures is one of the defining characteristics of vertebrates. At the bottom of each pharyngeal cleft there is a thin membrane of skin that separates the outside of the neck from a corresponding (pharyngeal) pouch in the throat. This membrane opens up permanently in adult fish to allow water taken in through the mouth to flow out over the gills. It also opens temporarily in the larva of amphibians and in the embryos of some reptiles and birds. The ridges running between the clefts (and pouches) each contain a cartilaginous rod, a nerve, and an artery. In adult fish and amphibian larva these arteries develop extensions which form the actual gills, in reptiles, birds, and mammals they do not.
Dr. Wells, is a Ph.D. developmental biologist (who worked with frog embryos), and therefore has to know about these further similarities. The readers can draw their own conclusions as to why he neglects to inform his audience as to their existence.
Wells goes on to argue that "the only way to see "gill-like" structures in human embryos is to read evolution into development." However this is easily falsified by the facts of the history of science. The use of the term gill-slits to refer to these structures predates Darwin's publishing of the Origin Of Species(1859), which brought evolution into the scientific mainstream. How is it that pre-Darwin scientists, who were mostly creationists of one sort or another, would "read evolution into development"?
In fact the only scientist I know to have claimed that the embryos of terrestrial vertebrates actually use their "gill-slits" as gills was Louise Agassiz, a creationist and ardent opponent of Darwin's theory.
The higher Vertebrates, including man himself, breathe through gill-like organs in the early part of their life. These gills disappear and give place to lungs only in a later phase of their existence. (Agassiz 1874)
The existence of these gill-like (or more accurately "embryonic gill-like") structures in terrestrial vertebrates is understandable under the theory of descent with modification. Under creationism it is a complete mystery.
Reference:
Agassiz, Louise (1874) "Evolution and Permanence of Type", reprinted in Darwin and His Critics (1973) by David L. Hull, p.440
Wells, Jonathan (2000) Icons Of Evolution
(feedback to AnswersInGenesis)
I notice that while (for example) The Talk Origins site has a link to yours, you do not return the favor (unless I just didn't see it). Why is that?
Dear Jeff,
Thank you for contacting Answers in Genesis Ministries. Talk Origins is a site that attempts to put down Answers in Genesis and refute many of the points we make. Thus, we would not ever link to their site. However, for a much broader reason you need to realize is that Talk Origins is not a site with peer reviewed material. It is actually a lay site disguised as scientific. Many of their technical articles that appear there, have never been peer reviewed and even have extensive amounts of speculation. We tell people to ask them what peer reviewed journal the article appeared in and then check their sources to evaluate if their claims are fact or an interpretation of fact.
If the Talk Origins are truly reputable articles, then they will appear in a reputable peer reviewed journal and then we will take interest in them. If they don't make it there then there is no sense wasting our time with those lay opinions since they can't pass other scientists' approval. You shouldn't waste your time there either.
One thing you need to keep in mind is that the people involved in the Talk Origins website do not believe in God. Therefore, they have no reason to believe in 'good' or 'bad'. If they did, then they are admitting that there is a God who sets what is good and bad. As Christians, we believe the Bible which says not to lie. Those who don't believe in God or the Bible have no reason not to lie. It is neither good nor bad in their eyes. Thus, another major reason not to link to their site.
Since they believe in concepts such as 'no right and no wrong', they have no reason to speak the truth. So be wary of their claims and check every fact all the way back to a single source document and their logic. Please take some time to review an article regarding Talk Origins:
http://www.trueorigin.org/to_deception.asp
I pray this helps and have a great day, God bless.
Ryan McClay, B.Sc Answers Representative Answers in Genesis P.O. Box 510 Hebron, KY 41048
Hi, I’m going to assume that you were over-tired and stressed when you wrote this. First off Talk Origins isn’t a "put down" site (unlike the link you sent me which IS) they attempt to answer evolution bashing, much of which is flat out wrong. Since they openly state that their comments, etc. are mostly personal opinions and advocate checking for yourself, I don’t see where the "peer review comment came from". Next, your letter is an incredible example of hubris, ignorance and bigotry. Some examples:
1) "They attempt to refute…": So what? If you get into a scientific discussion people are going to try and poke holes in your arguments. That is why the overwhelming majority of scientifically educated people accept Evolution since it has withstood over 100 years of scientific questioning. 2) "…do not believe in God..": first, you would have no way of knowing this, second it has no relevance to a scientific discussion, third some of them are Christians. Therefore your statement is not only irrelevant but wrong. 3) "therefore no reason to believe in good or bad…": You probably didn’t INTENTIONALY insult several billion people, but you did anyway. This is an incredibly ignorant, bigoted and self-serving statement. Do you REALLY believe that only people who share your narrow view of the Bible are capable of good? Think about it. 4) Your statement about the Bible and lying: Another example of unbelievable arrogance and prejudice. Many statements on your site (including the ones about the Nazis, etc.) indicate that your own hold on the truth is somewhat weak.
In short the only real reason you will not link to them is that they disagree with you. This does not speak well for either your ethics or your honesty. It is worthy of note that THEY link to YOUR site even though YOU attempt to refute THEM. Who is being more fair here?
Sincerely, Jeff Webber
A quick search shows that there are nearly 100 references to AiG in the archive, and not all are even critical.
One of my favorite bits from AiG's responce to you was: "If the Talk Origins are truly reputable articles, then they will appear in a reputable peer reviewed journal and then we will take interest in them."
The AiG crowd has negligible publications, and they apparently don't even read science journals competently. This was evident in when I wrote Dino-blood and the Young Earth (linked above). They are also mistaken that reviewed science journals would waste the vast amount of ink that it takes to refute creationism. And finally, I have a good number of refereed journal articles and have read for several journals over the years. The amount of critical review for a TalkOrigins FAQ article generally exceeds my experiences with professional journals.
I also got a good laugh when I read: "As Christians, we believe the Bible which says not to lie."
Now, as Christian, or Hindu, or Buddhist, or Jew, or Muslim, or Taoist, or moral humanist, and so on, we have all agreed that it is destructive of our personal relationships and the credibility of our arguments to tell falsehoods. This is why I find it so odd that AiG persists in it so diligently.
As a case in point, when friend Ryan writes, "... and check every fact all the way back to a single source document and their logic," he seems to have forgotten the very focus of your question: why doesn't Answers in Genesis facilitate their readers by fully citing and/or linking sources? AiG commonly fails to properly quote, or cite their sources, much to their discredit.
Thanks for your efforts.
Yes, some of the people who contribute articles, time, and effort to help keep the TalkOrigins Archive running are atheists. Others of us are not atheists. I have corresponded with most of the TOA volunteers for years, and have found only scrupulous honesty in their actions, and a willingness to correct error when it is found. It's a far better record than what I've encountered in the antievolution ranks.
As for the article that Answers in Genesis recommends, we do have a response here.
If the Talk Origins are truly reputable articles, then they will appear in a reputable peer reviewed journal and then we will take interest in them. If they don't make it there then there is no sense wasting our time with those lay opinions since they can't pass other scientists' approval. You shouldn't waste your time there either.
First, while most of the material in the Talk.Origins Archive regards science and scientific evidence, it is not, nor is it intended to be original scientific research such as one would find in peer reviewed scientific journals. Rather much of the material in the Archive are rebuttals to the (non-peer reviewed) pseudoscientific claims of antievolutionists, rebuttals that often cite the peer reviewed literature as sources of information.
The debunking of (non-peer reviewed) pseudoscience doesn't require peer review, and peer reviewed scientific journals usually have better things to do than rehash settled arguments such as the scientific merit of evolutionary theory.
That being said interested readers might want to review our Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices page which lists favorable mentions in peer reviewed science journals, science magazines and by scientific organizations. It also lists numerous college courses which use Archive material.
Compare this with the corresponding list on the Answers in Genesis page…
Oh wait, there isn't one.
Never mind.
Second, It amazes me how creationists continue to misunderstand evolution in the feedback. Maybe this will help to stop the confusion...
CREATIONISTS:
1. EVOLUTION DOES NOT DISPROVE GOD.
2. EVOLUTION DOES NOT EXPLAIN, OR ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE.
Couldnt evolution be a method of creation by God? If it was, would God attempt to explain a complex science to a largely un-educated population via the Bible? It would be like explaining the theory of evolution to a bunch of 5 year olds. Hence the wonderful story of Genesis. I have been told by Christians that the most important message of the Bible is not our origins, right?
Hope this helps.
Again, fantastic website!
-Eric
May I suggest you consider to include the following book into your recommended reading list, just for the benefits of those Christians who happened to have an interest in this subject.
Mark A. Noll, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind",(1994).
From page 196:
"Creation science has damaged evangelicalism by making it much more difficult to think clearly about human origins, the age of the earth, and mechanisms of geological or biological change. But it has done more profound damage by undermining the ability to look at the world God has made and to understand what we see when we do look."
In page 203, Prof Noll cited Augustine's writing in the fifth century (shown in the next paragraph in 'single quote', that Augustine "had no patience with those who used the early chapters of Genesis to promote views about the natural world that contradicted the best science of his day" -
'Usually, even a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other elements of the world, about the motion and orbit of the stars and even their size and relative positions, about the predictable eclipses of the sun and moon, the cycles of the years and the seasons, about the kinds of animals, shrubs, stones, and so forth, and this knowledge he holds to as being certain from reason and experience. 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.'
If you decide to publish this comment, kindly obtain proper permisisons from the publishers before posting the paragraphs taken from Prof Noll's book.
Thank you.
"Plus, let us not forget the scientific facts brought to human attention by the bible such as the earth being a sphere... MANY centuries before science even had a clue."
That is totally false. In the first place the Bible does not indicate the earth is a sphere. Isaiah 40:22 is the passage that Bible believers refer to justify that it does. That verse states "It is he that sits on the circle of the earth..." They say that "circle" here means "sphere." In fact, the original Hebrew word is "chuwg," which in fact means "circle." It does not mean "sphere." In fact, according to the Bible, the earth is a flat, immovable disk (hence, "circle"), supported by pillars that suspend it above the abyss of the deep, and covered by the solid vault of heaven in which are set mere lights that are the sun, moon, and stars.
In the Isaiah passage, the rim of the solid vault of heaven rests on the rim of the disk of the earth. Since God's throne is on top of the solid vault of heaven, he is literally, sitting on the circle (the rim) of the disk-shaped earth.
That is the only view of the earth that can be derived from the plain, unaltered words of the Bible. Every single passage in the Bible that says anything about the shape of the earth indicates that the earth is flat. There is not one single passage indicating the earth is a sphere.
In the second place, contrary to it being "MANY centuries before science even had a clue," the ancient Greek scientists knew that the earth is a sphere. In the fourth century B.C., Aristotle summed up four scientific arguments for the sphericity of the earth, and Democritus argued that the earth must spin on its axis. In the third century B.C., Eratosthenes measured the circumference of the earth and arrived at a figure very close to the actual.
It turns out that most Bible believers are just as ignorant about what the Bible says as they are about evolution and the history of science.
In fact the legs were supposed to telescope against a deformable foam core to absorb the shock of landing. It was a once only system. On the first landing Armstrong fired the thrusters longer than he was supposed to and the landing was slower than expected, as a result the legs didn't compress as far as they were supposed to and there was some concern that the ladder was toofar above the surface.
www.clavius.org is the talkorigins of Apollo. it's all on there.
Cheers
Shooty
There is no barrier to the origin of life simply because that old hypothesis turned out not to be true.Science. 2004 Oct 8;306(5694):283-6.
Carbonyl sulfide-mediated prebiotic formation of peptides.
Leman L, Orgel L, Ghadiri MR.
Almost all discussions of prebiotic chemistry assume that amino acids, nucleotides, and possibly other monomers were first formed on the Earth or brought to it in comets and meteorites, and then condensed nonenzymatically to form oligomeric products. However, attempts to demonstrate plausibly prebiotic polymerization reactions have met with limited success. We show that carbonyl sulfide (COS), a simple volcanic gas, brings about the formation of peptides from amino acids under mild conditions in aqueous solution. Depending on the reaction conditions and additives used, exposure of alpha-amino acids to COS generates peptides in yields of up to 80% in minutes to hours at room temperature.
The discussion that the evolution of the Earth's began with a reduced atmosphere is an ongoing effort quite independent of origin of life speculations. The first substantive data came in the 1932 observation that Jupiter had a reduced atmosphere containing major amounts of ammonia and methane. The earliest clear linkage between the origin of life (non-magical) and a reducing atmosphere was made in by A. I. Oparin in 1936. Harold Urey was primarily interested in the origin of planets and his first important article on the origin of life was not published until 1952. It was following a lecture based on this topic that prompted Stanley Miller to approach Urey and propose an experiment to test the hypotheis that a reduced mix of gases plus energy could generate complex organic molecules. This was the famous Miller/Urey experiment that showed that amino acids could be produced by purely chemical means. First published by Miller in a 2 page, 1953 Science article titled "A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions," this result has been the creationist's "boogy-man" ever since. Miller and Urey jointly published a paper in 1959 which also gives a good review of their reasoning about the Earth's early atmosphere and its bearing on the origin of life. Also important is the 1983 paper by G. Schlesinger and S.L. Miller which presents the results of experiments with gas mixtures other than the first highly reduced mix Miller used 30 years earlier. Additional information is on the TalkOrigins Archive in Nic Tamzek's review of Icons of Evolution, "Icon of Obfuscation.
As pointed out by Dr. Wilkins, origin of life research has progressed significantly since the 1950s, as has the geochemical study of the early atmoshpere. Based on current geochemical data, the atmosphere nearest the origin of life minimally was anoxic (no free oxygen) and had highly reduced oases. Upper atmosphere photo-disassociation of water interestingly would be a good source for UV blocking ozone, which can also have been produced by the photodisassociation of water in ice.
The primitive chemistry of the cell is reducing, and most scientists today who study the topic conclude that the Earth's earliest environment was reducing. One observation did not drive the other, but they are mutually supportive of abiogenesis. If you have access to a decent library, I suggest that you read "Dating the rise of atmospheric oxygen" A. BEKKER, H. D. HOLLAND, P.-L. WANG, D. RUMBLE III, H. J. STEIN, J. L. HANNAH3, L. L. COETZEE & N. J. BEUKES Nature 427, 117 - 120 (08 January 2004) which gives a good review of the current understanding. Geochemist Hiroshi Ohmoto is the strongest advocate for an early oxygen rich atmosphere working today, and he places this much later than the apparent origin of life prior to 3.7 billion years ago.
Miller, Stanley L., 1953 “A Production of Amino Acids Under Possible Primitive Earth Conditions” Science vol. 117:528-529
Miller, Stanley, Harold C. Urey 1959 “Organic Compound Synthesis on the Primitive Earth” Science vol 139 Num 3370: 254-251
Oparin, A. I. 1953 Origin of Life. New York:Dover Publications (Re-issue of the 1938 Morgulis translation)
G. Schlesinger and S.L. Miller 1983 PREBIOTIC SYNTHESIS IN ATMOSPHERES CONTAINING CH4, CO, AND CO2. I. AMINO ACIDS. J Mol Evol 19:376.
Urey, Harold C. 1952 “On the early chemical history of the Earth and the origin of life” PNAS vol. 38:351-363
I was just about to gripe about the tardiness of the monthly feedback on this site, when I wandered on over to http://www.trueorigin.org/feedback.asp out of curiousity and found no feedback update since June/July 2001, and the curious statement;
Where’s the rest?... Each month the backlog of feedback (and responses) destined for “publication” becomes ever larger. Due to the webmaster’s limited schedule, however, the formatting and posting of feedback material (already a lower priority than original articles themselves) faces consistent delays. Bringing the feedback posting up to date (eventually) is very much his intention.
Could it just be that "TrueOrigins" is just a little weary of debating their original articles? Judging by their most recent feedback updates, I'd say they are.
I contradict 'creationist', who said that Darwin said that: (1) it's OK to kill weaker people or people that have disabilities; (2) it's OK to lie to get ahead; (3) it's OK to steal wives from your neighbours. This is false. Darwin doesn't say any of those things. Now that he's dead, it can't hurt him to be defamed in this way, but I still don't like it. (I know that the response from Dr. GH casts doubt on whether 'creationist' is sincere. But I still want to contradict the statements even if they're facetious.)
The other comment I have is on Chris Thompson's response to the anonymous feedback which asks whether science can answer the question 'when someone dies, where does that person go?' The response is, 'No, science does not address the supernatural'. But it's quite possible that the things that happen to people when they die are exclusively natural, in which case science can discuss them. The assumption that the original question involves the supernatural is unsupported.
He definitely didn't think this was what he had said or meant, but the canard, as so many with Darwin, is an old one. Darwin was, in fact, a strongly moral man who supported charities and the welfare of many others. He opposed slavery forcefully, and paid money to public works (almost always anonymously).I have received, in a Manchester newspaper, rather a good squib, showing that I have proved "might is right," and therefore that Napoleon is right, and every cheating tradesman is also right.
As to the second one, yes, it is true that we might have an afterlife in a natural manner (suppose there was a physical essence that made us the individuals we are), but, as it happens, we do not. All our physics, biology and knowledge tells us that if we survive death, it is not in physical terms; at least, not yet. So Chris' assumption can be taken as read, I think.
I've been through the Observed Instances of Speciation pages here, but I haven't found a solid example to refute this charge. The 1983 Boraas green-algae work is listed as "ambiguous." Is there a clearer-cut example?