Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article

from oceanboy Sunday, June 01, 2003 - 15:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I just happened upon this board and I thought I'd let my ramblings join the fray. Like many here I left the family in my late teens with a lot of questions. I grew up accepting that what I was told was fact. It wasn't until my teens that I began to question a number of notions fed to me in the group. Considering many of our parents barely made it through high school and saw higher learning the work of the devil its not surprising most of us were raised without any concept of critical thinking. The questions I had after I left the group are part of the reason I went to university and completed a BSc. One of the greatest questions I had was regarding evolution. When I first entered university I was quite skeptical of anything to do with evolutionary theories. Now I see it was my own ignorance and fears that had kept me from learning some of the truths of the world around me. I wonder how much more accepted evolution would have been had humans been given clear evidence that we had been dropped onto this planet from a mothership or a god. Would we still question the evolution of lower animals if our own origins were pure, if our concepts of immortality could not be questioned? Evolution forces us to ask uncomfortable questions about ourselves, and our importance as a race. The fact that we may just be a higher order species whose timespan in the day of the planet amounts to no more then a fraction of a second frightens us. It brings us face to face with an aspect of our own mortality that we care not to acknowledge: that we may be mortal, hairless apes and this life is all we have. I once took a walk with a friend still in the family. Overall he's a pretty smart guy, but I realized he had many questions he would rather not confront. He scoffed at idea that the earth was far older then Bible led us to believe. We went for a walk along the beach and I was able to point out the layers on a sedimentary rock formation, and how you could see how these layers had been built up over time (like the rings of a tree). This formation had been built up over 500,000 years; it had seen ice ages and rising sea levels, tropical plant life and barren desert. This clearly troubled him as he was a smart guy and couldn't just shrug off what he saw with his own eyes. I saw him a month or so later and his world made sense to him again. It turns out God put that evidence on the earth as a test for us and I was clearly failing God's test. His answer was a shelter from having to deal with difficult questions he was unwilling to face. Sometimes I wonder if ignorance is bliss. Is it better to go through ones life never asking these questions. For my part it has made me realize that, unlike my parents, life is much too short to waste. My parents have wasted their lives believing that they will sacrifice this life for immortality, I say if this is our only kick at the can make it a good one. Evolution is a concept that cannot be understood listening to the opinions of others; it has to be discovered for yourself. It means getting a good background in science and then cracking the books for a few years to decide if what has been put forward makes sense. If you don't have time for this undertaking, no matter. Just be sure to lead your life with an open mind, and remember the words of Shakespeare: "Out, out, brief candle! Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player That struts and frets his hour upon the stage And then is heard no more.  It is a tale Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing." For those that are willing to ask some hard questions, maybe even family members happening upon this board, I'll leave with an example I learned when I first started questioning if what I grew up believing was true. Take a map of the world and cut out the continents. You'll notice the continents look as if they were pieces of a giant jigsaw puzzle, they seem like they could all fit together to make one giant land mass. The bulge of Africa fits the shape of the coast of North America while Brazil fits along the coast of Africa beneath the bulge, ect. Now take your map and prepare to do some traveling. If you were to travel to where the continents joined in your puzzle you would find broad belts of rocks identical to each other, even though they are half a world away. In some of these areas you will even find identical markings left by glaciers, as if at one time these land masses had all fit together. For an example draw lines across a piece of paper and rip the paper in half, you'll see that you can match the paper together based on these lines, it’s the same principle. Many scientists did not believe that land masses as large as the continents could spread apart or move. It wasn't until the 60's when we had the technology to go view the sea floor that seafloor spreading was discovered and that clear evidence that the continents were indeed moving apart could be obtained (lack of evidence before then had required a leap of faith). Not only was sea floor spreading discovered but the rate at which the continents were drifting apart could be determined from the rock record. The geological record shows us that over millions of years this spreading rate varies between 1.8 to 2.4 centimeters per year. Since then we now have satellite technologies like GPS and can determine the current spreading rate of 2.5 cm/yr.  Now for the fun part, take your map and measure the distance between North America and Africa (continental shelf distances) I estimate it to be about 4550 KM or 455,000,000 centimeters. Now we know the rate of continental spread has varied from 1.8 to 2.4 by looking in the rock record, but for arguments sake let’s take the maximum rate of spread of 2.4 centimeters per year. 455,000,000 cm / 2.4 cm a year gives us the length of time it took for North America and Africa to move apart: 190 million years. If we used the minimum rate of spread (1.8 cm/yr) we get a time length of 253 million years. Now if you can begin to accept the fact that the earth is truly ancient you can start to understand how processes that need millions of years to occur can indeed have occurred. Most theories to do with origins of the planet and of the species have real world examples that can be followed, and if you want to take the time you can discover the evidence for yourself and decide whether you want to believe it or not. There are many questions still to be answered, and there is will always be debate from all sides of the fence but if you spend the time you will see that even though there are aspects of the theory of evolution under debate, other aspects are irrefutable and clash head on with creationism. Given a choice would I rather choose the creationist theory vs. the evolutionary theory? I would rather choose creationism but the overwhelming truths I have learned forces me to choose the latter, as unpalatable as my own mortality is to me. (reply to this comment)

From Mixza Wednesday, September 01, 2004, 22:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Is accepted by evolutionists and creationist that the continents may have all been joined, in one great land mass, in the past. As far as I know, no one is arguing about that... However, you say that the land masses are CURRENTLY spreading at rate of 2.4cm per year, this AT THIS RATE it would take 253 million years... Your calculation ASSUMES a constant rate (+/- a few millimeters) over millions of years...there is no proof of this... A cataclysmic event could very well have caused the continents to spread at a much much faster rate in the past… so this example does little to prove evolution... (reply to this comment)

From night_raver Friday, September 03, 2004, 10:49 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey, I understand that Creationism is necesary for some people to have "faith in what they can't see". However, the hypothesis of an older earth fits better WITH THE INFORMATION GIVEN than the young earth theory (creationism) Let me explain how I came to that conclusion, the FACTS we have are: 1) The land-masses under the Atlantic Ocean are moving at a rate of 2.5 cm/yr (unless some conspiracy theorist is going to say that the GPS satellite system is being manipulated by an anti-creationist techie) 2) The distance between the continents in the Atlantic Ocean is 450,000,000 cm. wide. (Okay, I didn't look it up, I am taking this at face value from the comment above BECAUSE it's easy to verify from an objective source (how 'bout a map), and I dont have time to verify) SO, the old-earth (evolution) proponent divided 2.5 cm. into 45 mil cm. and came up with a figure of 253 mil yr old earth. Now our creationist doesn't like the above answer that is the simplest and most likely, GIVEN THE ONLY 2 FACTS ABOVE THAT WE ARE AWARE OF. The scientific method says that the best hypothesis that explains a set of facts is the one that requires the FEWEST ASSUMPTIONS or conjectures to support. Note: If the Creationist doesn't like the Scientific Method, then we get into that whole faith argument; the old-earth theory has the 2 facts above to back it, while the young-earth creation proponent has not given us any facts to support his/her theory, at this point we cant discuss anymore cuz it's apples and oranges -- the creationist goes off to have faith in his/her beliefs no matter what, and the evolutionist trys to see if there are any other events that either can or cant be explained by evolution So, in order to debunk evolution, he/she must introduce a new SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE fact*** (a fact that can stand up to scientific peer review) that BOTH demonstrates a flaw in the theory of evolution AND offsets that demonstrated flaw by showing significant factual support of creation. ***Otherwise anything off the top of your head is a "fact" to support your theory If you can only demonstrate that evolution cant prove ONE of the facts, you still dont have any facts to prove creation (more facts supporting evolution than creation = evolution would still be the most valid explanation). And if you could find a fact that could be explained by creation, but could also be explained by evolution, YOU STILL HAVENT CAST DOUBT ON EVOLUTION -- and in this case, with more facts supporting old-earth theories than young-earth, we are left with old-earth (evolution) theories as being the most likely explanation. SO WHAT DID THE CREATIONIST DO? Mixza did not give us any new SCIENTIFICALLY VERIFIABLE facts that could either cast doubt on evolution, or support creation. Mixza gave us CONJECTURE, or "what-if" scenarios that IF true COULD support creation OR could support evolution (if the land-masses didn't move fast enough during Mixza's proposed "cataclysmic event", you cant get your 6000-yr creation). -- so we still have 2 facts that can be explained by evolution WITHOUT extra conjecture (since land-masses have been moving about 2.5 cm/yr ever since the movements can be measured AND we don't have evidence to the contrary, a constant 2.5 cm. is a more scientifically-accceptable fact than that the idea that it changed speed). -- and then we have Mixza's creation theory which could be supported by the same two facts PLUS an assumption that the land-masses moved faster at one time to let Mixza's creation theory work; the conjecture raises more questions than it answers: What evidence supports any "cataclysmic event" that could speed up the land-mass movement? Can we even propose a type or class of cataclysmic event that would accelerate land mass movt? If there is a phenomenon known as a "cataclysmic event" that a direct link between it and acceleration of land-mass movt has been established, is there evidence to show it could happen? That it did happen? That it happened for long enough or accelerated the land-mass movt fast enough for her young-earth creation theory to explain land-mass movt? See what happens when conjecture is even considered or discussed? We need more conjectures to support the first conjecture, and eventually we could assume that a magic fairy sped up the land-mass movt so the creation theory can be supported. Bottom line: the same interconnected and easily observed sciences of chemistry, biology, geology that are used to predict earthquakes, weather, send men to the moon, forensics to prove a murder even though they dont have a "fossil record" (a videotape by an independent party of the guy shooting the victim) also support evolution. We have "faith" in evolution the same way we have "faith" that astronauts landed on the moon, that asprin helps a headache, that internal combustion is what causes a gasoline engine to work, etc. The young-earth theory, 7-day creation by god, etc, requires alot of conjecture, it's on the level of the people who believe they got cholera cuz god was mad at them vs. the guy who saw the link between excrement falling into drinking wells -- when the latrine was moved, miraculously God wasn't mad at them anymore cuz they stopped getting sick. So either believe facts-supported evolution, or conjecture-supported creation. (reply to this comment)

from doubter Monday, May 26, 2003 - 00:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Can you believe in Evolution a little bit? Can you believe in our "creation by another force" a little bit? Most people would say no you can not. I still stand by what I stated in my last post: We want it black and white. And yet it invariably is not. So we wrap it up in our "bundle of faith." I feel that the desire to want to believe something can help us forgive a few indiscrepancies. No one here is going to admit to "wanting" to believe in evolution. But think of the advantages: You can get away with so much more that might otherwise prick your conscience. And for those of us who have left the Family it helps us justify our contempt for TF, to name a few. Hopefully we have bigger minds than that, but I admit for myself these thoughts are not easily dismissed. I'm certain that we are well versed in the advantages of believing in "Creation". Or perhaps not. For a person in TF it is certainly a basic supporting belief which can not be disposed of without the entire structure crumbling. It's surprising there isn't more published on the subject, considering that fact! But that's one of the things I had a problem with: The choice of things published, for which I was paying, seemed to be of a waste of paper. However I did find a number of supportive reasons through my own research, not only from the internet, but from some books too (Facts of Life by Richard Milton, a non-Christian) And yet, I have not been convinced either way. When I have more time I'll write about the "myth" of Atlantis and how it has influenced my thoughts both for disproving Evolution and Creation (as we know them). (don't talk about Atlantis until you've read "Atlantis" -by Otto Muck) (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Thursday, May 29, 2003, 01:24 (Agree/Disagree?) Doubter:  you're not in a science field are you?  Just a guess since in science there are very few things that are "black and white".  Why would "believing" in evolution be an ease on one's conscience?  Does that mean that if you accept the theory of evolution as being true based on the evidence presented so far you have no conscience?  I think that statement is very unfair!  I for one was raised around lots of people who believed in creation and apparantly had/have no conscience.  There may be a few indescrepanices in evolutionary theory but they are nothing compared to the indescrepancies (I use that term very loosley in this application) in creationism.  Evolution does not "justify" my contempt for TF, it only supports it! (reply to this comment)

From Hanna_Black Saturday, May 31, 2003, 05:58 (Agree/Disagree?) frmrjoyish, I found your article very interesting and enjoyed reading it. I have not made up my mind about believing ANYthing as of yet, and that is the thing that bugs me when it comes to evolution. Why do you have to believe in it? Why can't it be proven to me in such a way that  I would not be able to doubt it. It is just as hard for me to believe a big-bang theory than God creating the world. I guess, like you said, "in science there are very few things that are black and white". I have just read and heard so much, a lot of it contradicts each other, and it still boils down to the fact that you have to "believe" in it. I don't want to "believe" in anything, I want it proven. Guess that could be unrealistic as it might never happen.  Anyhow, I enjoyed your post and am givin' ya the thumbs up.   (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, May 31, 2003, 10:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Hanna Black:  You're absolutely right! "Believing" in evolution is not the same thing as the blind faith "believing" people put into creation just because "God's word said so". One "believes" evolution to be true because of the overwhelming evidence to support it. To have an opinion on anything dealing with science you have to take the evidence presented so far (from all sides, pro and con) and make up your mind from there and that takes research and learning, not just in college but the average intelligent person can find enough info to reasonably make up her/his own mind.  As far as the origins of the earth and the big bang theory and all that, my area of research does not deal with that.  It takes extensive knowledge of physics, math, and astronomy to really research it enough to give a scientific opinion.  Since those are not my primary areas of study, I just have to say that personally I don't know!  There's not near enough evidence supporting the big bang theory as there is supporting evolution, but that's my personal opinion, as I've studied evolution far more than the big bang theory.  It seems to be the generally accepted theory currently, but there's a great deal that's unknown about it (esp. by me:) ).  (reply to this comment)

from mex Friday, May 23, 2003 - 13:58 (Agree/Disagree?) I have no specific belief on this issue, as I have not yet found an explanation that satisfies me, so I take what I like from both sides, form my own opinion take another hit, reject both and spring for pizza. Most recently though Buddhism has caught my attention. This is part of what the Dalai Lama answerd when asked: Interest in the discoveries of modern astrophysics and the "Big bang" theory reveal both a great fascination in the cosmos and a probing interrogation by members of our generation into their origins, their destiny and the meaning of their existence. The "Big bang" theory has had a significant impact on our way of looking at matter and nature; it has introduced considerable conceptual innovations. The formation of the structures of the universe, which function in interdependence, and which new research continues to reveal, is a seemingly endless source of wonder. Like all spiritual traditions, Buddhism conveys a cosmogonic myth. And yet Buddhism rejects the idea of creation. Why? “Why is there no creation possible in Buddhism? It has been said that one cannot find living beings at the becoming of the universe for the essential reason that causes have no beginning. If there were a beginning to the universe, there would also have to be a beginning to consciousness. If we accepted a beginning to consciousness, we would also have to accept that its cause has a beginning, a sudden cause which would have instantly produced consciousness; this would lead to a great many other questions. If consciousness had arisen without cause, or from a permanent cause, that cause would have to exist on. a permanent basis, always, or not exist at all, ever. The fact that a phenomenon exists intermittently proves that it depends on causes and conditions. When all the conditions are met, the phenomenon is produced. When those conditions are absent or incomplete, the phenomenon does not appear. As causes have no beginning and stretch back to infinity, the same thing must apply for living beings. Creation is therefore not possible.” The complete text can be found here for those who care. http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html">http://hhdl.dharmakara.net/hhdlquotes22.html> Having to cut and paste this has drained me. Fuck all of you with your existential questions.         (reply to this comment)

from 2 Cents Thursday, May 22, 2003 - 20:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast on nature - Jacob Bronowski (reply to this comment)

From Look ... I can do it too! Friday, May 23, 2003, 00:42 (Agree/Disagree?) (Copy, copy)... Man masters nature not by force but by understanding. This is why science has succeeded where magic failed: because it has looked for no spell to cast on nature - Jacob Bronowski (Paste, paste)   (reply to this comment)

From WW Friday, May 23, 2003, 00:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh come on, it was a good quote.(reply to this comment)

from Lauren Saturday, May 17, 2003 - 13:33 (Agree/Disagree?) I realize I'm entering this debate a bit late. I've been following it with interest but have hesitated to post anything, because although I have feelings or inclinations on the matter, I've not studied it thoroughly enough to have a set opinion on it. I notice that one train of thought that pops up several times in this thread is that Creationists do not come up with any of their own hypothesis or theories to back up the claims of creation but rather simply try to debunk Evolution. I did some research on the internet. One site that I found particularly interesting in this whole debate is: http://www.creationscience.com/ http://www.creationscience.com/">http://www.creationscience.com/> What stood out to me were the facts that 1) The person who has written the book (content of the site), although a Christian, was a former Evolutionist and also keeps his arguments pretty much in the "scientific" realm of things. It seems he has offered to go into a written debate against any Evolutionist (or group of Evolutionists) to be mediated by a third party and any mention or notion of religion or concepts based on the Bible or religious principles should be struck from the arguments (which, obviously, if he were arguing based on religious principles would be to his disadvantage). 2) This person presents a theory or hypothesis in argument for creation. I realize I am rather naive and unstudied on this subject, so what I found to be fascinating may in fact be comic reading material for someone else. I am aware of the fact that the hypothesis and theories provided on this site have been attacked by others -- although they have refused to debate the subjects -- but I am not familiar with the counter-arguments. I would be particularly interested to hear comments on the material at http://www.creationscience.com/http://www.creationscience.com/">http://www.creationscience.com/> (after thoroughly reading it, not skimming it -- please) from the Evolutionists among us. I would like to get your take on it. There is a lot of material on the site, and although I have not read all of it, what I have read seems to be laid out in a very chronological way. I am sincere in wanting to know what the Evolutionists think about this material, but as I will have finished reading it all by the time any posts are put up, I emplore you to please also read the material thoroughly (front to back), otherwise any comments to it will not be helpful in giving a thorough opinion. Thanks in advance to all who respond. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Sunday, May 18, 2003, 14:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Ok, so far I've read Brown's Hydroplate Theory.  As most of it deals with geology, a subject that one geology class in college hardly establises me as an expert in, after reading I looked on the web for other scientists who have coroborated his findings independantly.  I was unable to find any.  I did find many creationists saying that finally a creationist had come with scientific proof verifying what the bible had to say.  I also found many other creationists and evolutionists alike who tore his argument to pieces.  One in particular was a phyicist by the name of Glenn Morton (a creationist) who used basic laws of math and physics to refute Brown's theory. He begins his paper with 18 geological features which he claims modern theory has not yet proven.  A quick web search is all that is needed to confirm that he is not exactly telling the truth in this matter.  Not only are there current explanations, but these same explanations also are valid for many other areas of geology as well.  They all support each other. Now, I may not be a geology expert, but I know enough about science to know that one of the key steps in the Scientific Method is to formulate one's one obeservations, not to begin by trying to prove something else as Brown did by formulating his whole theory trying to prove that the biblical flood did in fact happen.  His numerous references to the Bible as proof of his theory also damage his credibility from a scientific point of view.  Another key step to science is having any work repeated and verified over and over again by ones peers with these peers (other scientists) drawing the same conclusions.  Brown has refused to have his paper published in scientific journals claiming bias against him.  In my web search I was unable to find a single scientist who verified his hydroplate thoery by that scientists own independant hypotheses and tests.  For that matter, I was unable to find a list of Brown's actual hypotheses and resulting tests that led him to come to his conclusions and thus prove his theory he states in his paper.  To even call something a scientific theory requires extensive work and verification of data by a number of scientists in the area in question.  So, I'm really not convinced that the Hydroplate theory even qualifies as a theory at all. As to his claim that noone will debate him, well, I found four people who have submitted to Brown in writing their acceptance to this challenge.  It was Brown who refused to debate by changing his own rules and refusing to allow a third party to review the material presented for debate. All this leads me to the conclusion that Brown's Hydroplate Hypothesis ( I refuse to call it a thoery on the grounds stated previously) has been repeatedly disproved by opinions worth far more than mine. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Sunday, May 18, 2003, 05:55 (Agree/Disagree?) OK, I read the book (speed reading, I admit). I’ll keep my comments brief: Firstly, here are links which provide counter-arguments to many of Walt Brown’s arguments. I suggest that anyone who’s really interested read them and decide which explanation makes more sense: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/wbrown.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-meritt.html http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-noahs-ark.html (Note that the first page is dedicated to Walt Brown’s older arguments, and the third deals specifically with Brown’s hydroplate hypothosis) It seems Brown is wrong in saying his challenge for a debate has never been accepted. See this link: http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may97.html Now for my own opinions (I’ll start by admitting I know very little about many of these sciences): Though I will not argue in favor of macroevolution, common decent or abiogenesis since I haven’t formed a clear opinion yet, it’s clear that Brown uses many arguments which have already been addressed and debunked. IMO he fails to address the important evidence indicating macroevolution. Important points Brown seems to overlook (only two of many, these are most important to me): The geological record shows quite clearly that the forms of life buried in lower layers of the earth’s surface are decidedly different than today’s life forms. Brown speaks of a few exceptions where “human-like” footprints are found in deeper layers (note that the layers he mentions are not very deep). Even if a few human-like footprints were found, why are actual human remains only found in the most recent layers? The fact that animals and plants are sorted in the geological column was noted before Darwin presented his theories, and I haven’t seen a decent creationist explanation for this to-date. The idea that water sorted them all is absurd, and doesn’t come close to explaining the order in which fossils are found. Brown doesn’t even attempt an explanation for why independent dating techniques consistently give older ages for deeper rock layers, and the logical conclusion that deeper strata are in fact older. The dating techniques he found fault with are not the major ones in use today. In order to present a credible young earth hypothesis, it seems one would have to demonstrate that isochron dating is faulty. Interesting points in Brown’s book: The sudden appearance of fully-formed species: I’ve always wondered about this myself, if common decent is true, why do so many genera appear in the Cambrian layer fully formed? Why does life seem to go straight from one-celled organisms to fully functional fish and other marine life? His hypotheses about asteroids and meteorites. Since I know little about astronomy I haven’t a clue how realistic his ideas are, but they sound interesting. I especially wonder if it’s true that living bacteria was found in a meteorite, anyone know about this? (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Sunday, May 18, 2003, 15:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Wolf, I found the links you supplied above to be very interesting. I have not studied them in detail yet but I did notice a few discrepancies in the comment from Joe Meert. 1) "As per #22 in his agreement...": Either this 22nd article has been deleted, or it never existed (the agreement has only 20 articles). Either way, I cannot verify what was stated in "#22" of the agreement. 2) Mr. Brown on the Homepage of his Web site under the heading "Written Debate" has stated very clearly that: " [T]he debate should be limited to scientific evidence." He says, "[N]ote that a few initially agreed to a strictly scientific debate, but later changed their minds, insisting they would only take part if the exchange included religion. One evolutionist is so upset that a written debate will not include religion that he now misleads by saying that Walt Brown has refused to debate him." -- I can only assume this is in reference to Joe Meert. 3) I believe it should be quite obvious as to why the debate is to exclude religion--it has absolutely nothing to do with it. Religion can be shredded in any debate because it is entirely a matter of belief and thus has no validity when it comes to science. Furthermore, I find it ironic that a non-believer in the Bible would insist on including it in a scientific debate. It's quite apparent that Mr. Brown is basing his hypothesis and theories of the flood on geological findings and archeological discoveries rather than the book of Genesis--as Mr. Meert claims--or, for that matter, any of the of myths about the flood found in the worlds diverse cultures. If the book of Genisis has provided Mr. Brown a springboard for his hypothesis, where is the harm in that? Anyone with a scientific mind is granted that liberty. According Mr. Brown, the flood provides a "common denominator" answer to issues that evolutionists (forgive me...I tend to use this term in the broader sense) need several varying explainations for. This brings to mind my favorite scientific principle: Occam's Razor (http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~js/glossary/occams_razor.html) face="Times New Roman">(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, May 17, 2003, 17:13 (Agree/Disagree?) Lauren:  I do appreciate the fact that you bring this up without trying to preach about God in the same breath.  You obviously are sincere in trying to come to your own answers and I respect that.  I briefly looked at the site you mentioned and some glaring inaccuracies already stood out, but as I have not yet read it in depth I will respect your request and save my comments for a when I have. I would also like to mention that there seem to be many misunderstandings about evolution as well as lots of misinformation about the subject. Evolution is a change in the gene pool of a population over time nothing more, nothing less.  The creationist argument is commonly based on the fact that intermediate creatures are not seen today or in the fossil record.  Individuals retain the same genes all their lives, it is the gene pool makeup of the population that changes, not individual organisms. Evolution does not address common descent or abiogenesis in its purest form.  These are other hypotheses that have been formed.  There are three key elements to the evolutionary theory:  Genes mutate randomly, individuals are selected based in the phenotype (physical characteristics) of these mutations, populations then evolve.  As populations evolve its the ratio of genotypes (genetic makeup) that change, not the genetic makeup of individual organisms.  This is where many people get confused. Here's an example of recently observed evolution.  Keep in mind the definition of evolution:  changes in the gene pool of a population over time.  Prior to the industrial revolution in the 1800's, a species of moth in England was made up of individuals with 98% of them having a phenotype with light wings and only 2% exhibithing the dark wing coloration.  As the industrial revolution progressed, the soot from the factories darkened many of the surrounding trees that the moths landed on.  The light colored moths, who formerly blended into the light birch trees better, over time became easier prey for birds than their darker colored counterparts.  Over time the lighter colored moths ratio went way down.  Fifty years later (study conducted from 1848-1898), the ratio of dark moths was 95%.  Only the genetic makeup can change a phenotype, so the gene pool of this particular population did in fact change over time due to the selection pressure excerted against light winged phenotypes and in favor of the darker variety.  I'm sure someone will have comment that this was a long time ago, relative to our life spans, yes, but over all it is not. Darwin observed the effects of natural selection and thus formulated many of his hypotheses, some have been accepted others have not.  He did not however understand the mechanism by which evolution takes place, genes.  A man named Mendel actually discovered the answers to the questions which had stumped Darwin and many others.  Hopefully this will clear up any obscurities as to what people are actually talking about when they mention evolution.  I for one may have been guilty of not making this clear enough in the beggining. (reply to this comment)

From Mixza Wednesday, September 01, 2004, 22:33 (Agree/Disagree?) Natural Selection does not prove evolution. Evolution calls for new species to evolve from old ones, this has never, and will never happen... There is no new information being created, only lost...(reply to this comment)

From Lauren Saturday, May 17, 2003, 17:58 (Agree/Disagree?) Frmrjoyish, thanks for the response. I'm confused and I'm hoping you can help me out. Right now it seems to me that pretty much everyone agrees that microevolution is true/exists. Even the Creationists are in agreement on this one (I think). It seems to me (and like I mentioned before, I really have not studied all of this thoroughly as you yourself have, and also the others who have posted on the subject) that the issue of debate between Creationists and Evolutionists is really in regards to the origin of life on our planet -- ie, did it happen by chance or were we created. The points that you brought up (the moths of England, the research by Mendel, etc) I was already aware of. These examples (in my limited opinion on the matter) point towards microevolution. If the definition of evolution is limited to microevolution, then of course, I would have to say that I have an opinion on the subject because there is evidence all around us that these changes exist & of course I believe in this aspect of evolution. So again, it would seem to me that the big "debate" on the matter is not in regards to microevolution, but rather to macroevolution and abiogenisis. I believe you covered your position on this somewhere in this thread already, I realize that this is not what you were referring to in your post. In my mind, the issue I want cleared up is whether or not life originated by chance or if it was started by someone/something -- whether or not that something was God, Aliens or any other possible theory doesn't make much difference to me at this point. Getting the chance vs creator scenario out of the way first, will allow me to know which step to move to next in what I do/do not believe. By the way, I lived with you in Osaka and then later in Fukuoka. I always wondered what happened to you. You look great! (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, May 17, 2003, 18:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Lauren, are you a brunette and was Lauren your name in TF?  I'm pretty sure I remember you too.  It's nice to finally get back in touch with you.  For most of my life out of TF I haven't been in touch with a lot of exmembers other than Sara in San Diego, so its nice to talk to someone familiar! As to your statement that most Creationist tend to believe in micro evolution, I'm not sure that they do.  In order to believe in what the Bible says they must believe that each and every species appearing today is exactly as God made them in the Garden of Eden.  Any variations on this would actually have them believing a "watered down" version of creation, if you will.  Thus, the many arguments pointing to the fossil record of "complete" organisms. My example with the moths was microevolution, but macroevolution, the appearance of a completely new species, from all the research I've done is just a larger picture of microevolution and takes much longer and requires additional selection pressures from the enviornment as well as competition amongst other species.  In order for a new species to appear, the gene pool of a population must change by a tremendous amount, of course, this would lead to phenotypic changes some obvious and some not so obvious.  My opinion is backed up by many hypotheses tested by various scientists.  However, having said that, there are differing opinions among other scientists who have, to say the least, much more education and research done than I. As far as the origin of the world, Creationist research from everything I've come across tends to focus on looking for things that back up Genesis and the Bible, not on any real new or inovative hypotheses based on their own observations in the natural world.  I'll comment more on this once I've had a chance to read over that site and others I'm currently reading.  But that will have to wait as it's Saturday night, and I plan on having some fun!!!:)  Common descent seems to be a real trigger for Creationists as they refuse to believe that we came from monkeys (trust me, I have huge arguments with my boyfriend on this one and he's not even a Christian).  Noone says we came from the monkeys see today, rather that we and todays monkeys and apes share some of the same ancestral origins.  Modern Humans are in fact listed as great apes.  Genetics tell us that there is less than a two percent difference in our genes between us and chimps 98% of our genes are exactly alike and interchangeable.  Seems to suggest some common ancestry to me.  If micorevolution is taken as fact then it contradicts what the Bible says, so if Creationists believe that, then why would they believe what it has to say about the beggining of the earth?  Maybe they do as I've noticed Christians have a bad habit of picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible.  I do agree with you that there are many more questions than answers as to the origin of the world.  To me, that's what makes science, particularly this branch so interesting.  There is endless amounts of information we have yet to find out.  I'm interested in reading over the material on that website and finding out for myself what its all about. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, May 17, 2003, 18:54 (Agree/Disagree?) Hey Lauren, are you a brunette and was Lauren your name in TF?  I'm pretty sure I remember you too.  It's nice to finally get back in touch with you.  For most of my life out of TF I haven't been in touch with a lot of exmembers other than Sara in San Diego, so its nice to talk to someone familiar! As to your statement that most Creationist tend to believe in micro evolution, I'm not sure that they do.  In order to believe in what the Bible says they must believe that each and every species appearing today is exactly as God made them in the Garden of Eden.  Any variations on this would actually have them believing a "watered down" version of creation, if you will.  Thus, the many arguments pointing to the fossil record of "complete" organisms. My example with the moths was microevolution, but macroevolution, the appearance of a completely new species, from all the research I've done is just a larger picture of microevolution and takes much longer and requires additional selection pressures from the enviornment as well as competition amongst other species.  In order for a new species to appear, the gene pool of a population must change by a tremendous amount, of course, this would lead to phenotypic changes some obvious and some not so obvious.  My opinion is backed up by many hypotheses tested by various scientists.  However, having said that, there are differing opinions among other scientists who have, to say the least, much more education and research done than I. As far as the origin of the world, Creationist research from everything I've come across tends to focus on looking for things that back up Genesis and the Bible, not on any real new or inovative hypotheses based on their own observations in the natural world.  I'll comment more on this once I've had a chance to read over that site and others I'm currently reading.  But that will have to wait as it's Saturday night, and I plan on having some fun!!!:)  Common descent seems to be a real trigger for Creationists as they refuse to believe that we came from monkeys (trust me, I have huge arguments with my boyfriend on this one and he's not even a Christian).  Noone says we came from the monkeys see today, rather that we and todays monkeys and apes share some of the same ancestral origins.  Modern Humans are in fact listed as great apes.  Genetics tell us that there is less than a two percent difference in our genes between us and chimps 98% of our genes are exactly alike and interchangeable.  Seems to suggest some common ancestry to me.  If micorevolution is taken as fact then it contradicts what the Bible says, so if Creationists believe that, then why would they believe what it has to say about the beggining of the earth?  Maybe they do as I've noticed Christians have a bad habit of picking and choosing what they want to believe from the Bible.  I do agree with you that there are many more questions than answers as to the origin of the world.  To me, that's what makes science, particularly this branch so interesting.  There is endless amounts of information we have yet to find out.  I'm interested in reading over the material on that website and finding out for myself what its all about. (reply to this comment)

From Lauren Monday, May 19, 2003, 13:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks, Frmrjoyish, for the response. If it is true, as you say, that there are Creationists that cannot accept microevolution because they believe it contradicts the Bible, then all of a sudden I begin to see more clearly the wide range of issues involved between Creationists and Evolutionists. I am also coming to understand that there are many Evolutionists that believe in common decent, macroevolution, etc. but also believe that some sort of non-natural force was involved in creating the first form of life that it all evolved from. For some reason I have always accepted microevolution. Maybe I didn't know what it was called way back when I was a kid, but for some reason the notion was always in my head that changes, mutations, what have you, are a normal part of nature. For instance, as a child I understood that God didn't create every single kind of cat or pig or sheep or cow that we have today. He/she/it merely created the first pair of cows with the entire genetic patern of possibilities inside of them & today we have a huge variation of different breeds. I don't know where I got that notion. Maybe I came up with it on my own, maybe it was in Family literature, I'm really not sure. I always assumed that my version of "Creation" was the one everybody believed in too & I realize now that there are a lot of different versions of "Creation" from the Christian camp. (I mention Christians because that is what I am familiar with, but I assume there are a number of other religions that also adhere to some sort of God creating the world & what is in it). As for what the Bible actually says, I find it rather odd that someone would insist that microevolution contradicts the writings. Let me clarify that I am not someone that takes the Bible literally as the "written word of God", but even if I were, I find nothing in those writings that indicates against microevolution. I also find nothing in those writings that indicates the actual age of the Earth or how long the Earth was around before humans came along. I also find that there are two distinct and separate accounts of creation in the Bible. I have asked Biblical scholars about this and there are no answers. (The differences are found in Genisis 1 and Genisis 2. The primary difference being the creation of woman, time frames between creation of plants, animals, man, etc.) Considering that the Torah (from where we get the book of Genisis) was originally the book of the Jewish religion, I intend to find out from a local Rabbi what the Jewish perspective on Creation is. I understand that there are also many Jewish evolutionists & that the Jewish religion is nearly as factioned as the Christian religion. I find it interesting to note that while many religions have wide and varried accounts as to the creation of the Earth, a large percentage of them contain stories, legends or myths of some great calamity in the form of a flood. While I don't take this to necessarily mean that there was a global flood as told in Genisis, it seems to me that some kind of event took place that was impressive enough to get written into the legends of a vast number of cultures. Something must've happened. This is what I found rather interesting in the writtings at creationscience.com. (Thank you for your insight & opinions on that too, by the way. I agree with most of what you said.) On a slightly different note: As far as science is concerned, I do not see it as an "end all" or the final answer on anything. There are some aspects of our physical universe that are known quantities, certain laws that are considered universal. Those I figure are pretty safe to trust. But there is also a lot of science that is still pretty much guesswork with many, many unanswered questions. Most likely, 1,000 years from now, our decendents will be looking back on the 20th & 21st century going, "back then, people believed such & such", much the same way we look back at the middle ages and say, "back then, people thought the sun revolved around the Earth and that the Earth was flat". I see science as a way to discover answers, but I keep my mind open. The way I see it is that in the overall context of what there is to yet discover, we, as humans, do not really know enough to say that we know anything. (reply to this comment)

From alt Friday, May 23, 2003, 14:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Lauren, an alternative explanation for the recurring themes in creation stories could be that, rather than relating an actual event (i.e., "Something must've happened"), there are certain myths that form part of a shared "collective unconscious," as Jung would call it, or an equivalent shared aspect much like biological heredity, but of a spiritual/mental/cultural nature, that is passed down among humans, its rendition varying in certain respects according to our "translations" as we put it into words.  Jung spoke of Archetypes and myths, and to me it makes a lot of sense that certain elements recur from culture to culture that may come from the "imaginaire" (a French term that connotes the imaginative function of mental life).(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, May 19, 2003, 14:43 (Agree/Disagree?) You have a great attitude, Lauren.  Science is by no means an "end all" claiming to have infinite knowledge about everything.  Science is the search for answers by adhering to tried and proven methods.  A scientific law or theory are accepted, until proven otherwise.  I should mention that a when refering to a scientific theory, it has much more weight as it has extensive research and data behind it than a common theory which is little more than a guess. I've studied some on the different religions in the world and one thing they all have in common is some type of creation myth, someway to explain our existence.  It's the same for Judaisim, Christianity, and Islam, but the eastern religions vary a great deal as to their own creation myths.  If you get time you should check out the Shinto beliefs in creation, its actually quite a beautiful story, although its still religion. As for my self I only have personal experience with Christianity, but my boyfriend is a Muslim and he believes the book of Genesis and its account of creation.  Granted, I've studied Islam and from what I can see, his form of Islam is from a very western perspective and not true Islam by the book (he would kill me if knew I just said that! :))  He grew up in Italy and went to Catholic school, very unlike most other Muslims, so I'm not sure if his views are similar to other Muslims or not. From what I remember in TF I was taught that nothing about evolution was true, I believed that until I actually studied it for myself.  It seems like you must have been a much more independant thinker than me. By the way, I e-mailed all the professors in the Geoscience Department at UofL to get their opinions on the Hydroplate Theory and most of them have responded saying that they never heard of it.  Only one had heard of it, but he said as the author was unwilling to put his thoery in a scientific journal to be corroborated and examined by other scientists that the scientific community generally dismisses his ideas.  Many scientists theorys have been proven false upon further examination by others.  Its just a part of science, learning by trial and error. The fact that there are many more questions than answers is why people keep going into the science field.  I know in Biology there are new things being discovered all the time and information from five years ago may not still be valid.  Like I said before information is only accepted after rigorous scrutiny and then is still only accepted until a better understanding comes along.  People should remember that and continue to keep an open mind like you! (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, May 17, 2003, 16:29 (Agree/Disagree?) I haven't read the book yet and don't know if I will so I'll refrain from specific comment, but in looking over the topics I see these are the typical arguments always used by creationists. Take a look at www.talkorigins.org. You'll find the evolutionist's answer to each of these arguments there. I'm not advocating either side, I suggest you read both arguments and decide which one makes the most sense to you. Happy reading!(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Saturday, May 17, 2003, 15:49 (Agree/Disagree?) I am going to start reading it, but I am pretty sure that I will never have time to finnish it. (if I could get a prc or pdb format version that might not be the case) Can anyone tell me if the book adresses the asian culture and history, which are generally ignored when creationists talk about the age of the earth? (the language not being very similar, etc.) I personally think asians are more closely related to our common alien ancestors than the rest of us, because our alien genes were weakened when we mingled with their simian pets (naughty, naughty) and so asian history is not necessarily earth history, and in fact much of it took place on the distant planet we all came from. (hence all of the dragons and kung-fu midgits with magical powers and stuff) Of course I'm, not actually foolish enough to believe any of my own theories, but I wouldn't mind feeling they were safe from creationist contradiction none the less. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Saturday, May 17, 2003, 14:55 (Agree/Disagree?) I have just begun reading this book, In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood, by Walt Brown from http://www.creationscience.comhttp://www.creationscience.com/">http://www.creationscience.com>, and intend on reading all of it; however, I must say that I’ve barely read five pages and the Bible is already being quoted to support or strengthen a particular argument:   If one set of DNA (one cell’s worth) from every person who ever lived were placed in a pile, the final pile would weigh less than an aspirin! Understanding DNA is just one small reason for believing you are “fearfully and wonderfully made.” (Ps 139:14)… [T]he debate should be limited to scientific evidence.   And yet, there’s the claim that “any mention or notion of religion or concepts based on the Bible or religious principles should be struck from the arguments.”  I’m curious to see how the rest of this book “evolved.”   Regards, Anthony (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Saturday, May 17, 2003, 15:04 (Agree/Disagree?)  Unbelievable, I turn the next page and Mr. Science is at it again Isn’t it ironic that many science teachers and professors uncritically teach outdated and illogical theories in the very subject that should encourage critical thinking? Far too many textbook authors and popular science commentators, who influence teachers and students alike, do not understand that “the heavens declare the glory of God.” (Ps 19:1)  And he has more Bible quotes on the next pages as well.  This guy’s gotta be joking. Regards, Anthony   (reply to this comment)

From An Old Friend Saturday, May 17, 2003, 20:06 (Agree/Disagree?) Ant, I wonder if you would have objected as much if in the excerpts you quoted above Walt Brown had used similar verses from the Quran, Gita, another Holy book or even a celebrity. Although Walt Brown doesn't reference much scripture in the rest of his book, it's obvious he is a Christian and respects the Bible's teachings. I, for one, see no harm in his use of Biblical exclamations so long as he doesn't base his conclusions on them, which, if you'll read his comments again, he is not.(reply to this comment)

From Anthony Sunday, May 18, 2003, 15:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony, beware of those who call themselves "old friends" as they may be "new enemies." In answere to your question, I say "yes," empahtically.  I'm not objecting to his quoting the Bible as much as I am against his hypocrisy and apparent self-contradiction.  A burning flame doesn't need a match, (Anthony 3:16).  While not completely basing his conclusions on the Bible, he certainly attempts to strengthen them in this manner.  The only "harm" done is too his credibility and integrity, but that's his problem.  After all, they were his rules of argumentation. As far as quoting celebrities, please don't don't get me started on that "species," which I hold in no high regard.  By the way, who are you?  Were we really friends or mere acquaintances forced to live together? (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Sunday, May 18, 2003, 16:31 (Agree/Disagree?) answer*(reply to this comment)

From Lauren Saturday, May 17, 2003, 15:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Yes, I noticed this too at the beginning of the book and it bothered me as well. There are a few more of those, but it does thin out. Please do finish it because if anybody on this site is going to be vocal on this issue, it will be you. Anthony, the witnessing Athiest. Disclaimer: Comment meant in fun, not to be taken as a personal attack. I also notice that he makes a lot of references to "the flood". At first this bothered me too and I was thinking, "oh here he goes again with the Bible stuff", but then after getting further along in the book I realized that this has to do with his hydroplate theory. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Saturday, May 31, 2003, 13:53 (Agree/Disagree?) I certainly hoped I'm remembered as being something more than an Athiest, and not a witnessing one at that. :P (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Saturday, May 31, 2003, 20:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Erm, not to be a grammar nazi, but it really is spelled "Atheist" (one of the exceptions to the i-before-e rule, I'm afraid) not "Athiest". Also, from the "I believe in Evolution" thread, I think all y'all are talking about common "descent", not "decent". (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Sunday, June 01, 2003, 14:37 (Agree/Disagree?) Guess I'm due for some time in the grammar Auschwitz. (reply to this comment)

From Vicky Sunday, June 01, 2003, 10:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Oh, so somebody else did notice...(reply to this comment)

from researcher Friday, May 16, 2003 - 16:18 (Agree/Disagree?) Sorry, but it seems your “facts” are a bit shaky…care to read on? "Tornado in a Junkyard"--By James Perloff (Arlington, Mass; Refuge Books, 1999) Speaking of definitions, what is science? Webster's New World Dictionary defines it as "systematized knowledge derived from observation, study and experimentation." Science depends on observations, not subjective opinions. What observations, then, support the theory of evolution? How can we know that fish evolved into land creatures and reptiles into birds, especially since this happened millions of years ago, before we were around to see it? The only real way to know the past is to consult records--in this case, the fossil record. I quote Pierre-Paul Grassé, the most eminent French zoologist of his day: Naturalists must remember that the process of evolution is revealed only through fossil forms. A knowledge of paleontology [the study of fossils] is, therefore, a prerequisite; only paleontology can provide them with the evidence of evolution and reveal its course or mechanisms. [Pierre-Paul Grassé, Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Living Organisms (New York: Academic Press, 1977), 4.] Yale paleontologist Carl Dunbar, a stout defender of evolution, agreed: Although the comparative study of living animals and plants may give very convincing circumstantial evidence, fossils provide the only historical, documentary evidence that life has evolved from simpler to more and more complex forms. [Carl O. Dunbar, Historical Geology (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1949), 52.] Fossils are impressions or remains of plant and animal life preserved in the earth. They are found in different media such as sedimentary rocks, volcanic ash, coal or amber. A bone or shell can constitute a fossil; so can a footprint. Of the 329 families of land vertebrates living today, 79 percent are represented in the fossil record--88 percent excluding birds (which don't readily fossilize). There are millions of fossils in museums, representing some 250,000 species. National polls usually consider just 2,000 people enough to accurately sample our entire nation. So we certainly have enough fossil specimens to verify Darwinism. This is especially true since evolution is a gradual process, requiring millions of years. Darwin stated that "the number of intermediate and transitional links, between all living and extinct species, must have been inconceivably great. But assuredly, if this theory be true, such have lived upon the earth." [Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species (1872; reprint, New York: Random House, 1993), 408.] Thus the fossil record should depict evolution's history: organisms progressing through their stages of development. As mentioned, Darwinism claims fish transformed into land animals by evolving little arms and legs over eons. If true, there should be innumerable fossils of fish with rudimentary arms and legs. Yet we do not find them! In fact, all organisms appear in the fossil record fully formed, without transitional stages. Darwin himself recognized this problem. He noted in The Origin of Species: Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory. The explanation lies, as I believe, in the extreme imperfection of the geological record. [Ibid., 408.] Interestingly, most of the nineteenth-century criticism of Darwinism came not from clergymen but scientists. French paleontologist François Jules Pictet complained: Why don't we find these gradations in the fossil record, and why, instead of collecting thousands of identical individuals, do we not find more intermediary forms? To this Mr. Darwin replies that we have knowledge of such a small proportion of fossils that one cannot construct proofs. … Consequently, according to him, we have only a few incomplete pages to the great book of nature and the transitions have been in pages which we lack. But why then and by what peculiar rules of probability does it happen that a species which we find most frequently and most abundantly in all the newly discovered beds are in the immense majority of the cases species which we already have in our collections? [Richard Owen, "Darwin on the Origin of Species," Edinburgh Review 11 (April 1860): 487–532, quoted in David L. Hull, Darwin and His Critics (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1973), 149–50.] been geologically explored and no part with sufficient care," and "We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geologic formations have been carefully examined." [Darwin, Origin, 414, 433.] But in Darwin's lifetime nothing improved, and he lamented: "When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed (i.e., we cannot prove that a single species has changed)." [Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, ed. Francis Darwin, vol.3, (1888; reprint, New York: Johnson Reprint, 1969), 25.] Are things different now? Anthropologist Edmund R. Leach told the 1981 Annual Meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science: "Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so." [Edmund R. Leach, "Men, Bishops and Apes," Nature 293, (3 September 1981): 20.] Let's hear from David Raup, curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, which houses the world's largest fossil collection: He [Darwin] was embarrassed by the fossil record because it didn't look the way he predicted it would and, as a result, he devoted a long section of his Origin of Species to an attempt to explain and rationalize the differences…. Darwin's general solution to the incompatibility of fossil evidence and his theory was to say that the fossil record is a very incomplete one…. Well, we are now 120 years after Darwin, and knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of Darwinian change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America, have had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information--what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic. [David M. Raup, "Conflicts Between Darwin and Paleontology," Field Museum of Natural History Bulletin 50 (January 1979): 22–23, 24–25] Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould, probably evolution's leading spokesperson today, has acknowledged: The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils. [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution's Erratic Pace," Natural History 86, (May 1977): 14.] Something for everyone If Darwin contributed to the development of Nazism, he did no less for its totalitarian cousin, communism. Having once been a leftist atheist myself, I'm not hesitant to say that evolution and Marxism go hand in hand. Marx denounced religion as "the opium of the people," and in nearly every nation where communism took power, the church was, if not abolished outright, neutralized in effect. George Stein noted in American Scientist: "Marx himself viewed Darwin's work as confirmation by the natural sciences of his own views…." There were many extremists before Darwin published Origin. But since religious faith prevailed among most of the world's leading scientists, it was hard persuading the masses to accept radical ideologies. Darwin, however, opened the door by providing a "scientific" rationale for denying God. While Hitler envisioned the "struggle for existence" as between races, Marx saw it between classes. He said: "Darwin's book is very important and serves as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history." Marx sent the naturalist proof-sheets of Das Kapital and offered to dedicate it to him, but Darwin declined. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin murdered millions. Like Darwin, he began as a theology student. And like Darwin, evolution transformed his life. In 1940, a book was published in Moscow entitled Landmarks in the Life of Stalin by Emelian Yaroslavsky. In it we read: At a very early age, while still a pupil in the ecclesiastical school, Comrade Stalin developed a critical mind and revolutionary sentiments. He began to read Darwin and became an atheist. G. Glurdjidze, a boyhood friend of Stalin's relates: "I became to speak of God. Joseph heard me out, and after a moment's silence, said: "You know, they are fooling us, there is no God..." I was astonished at these words. I had never heard anything like it before. "How can you say such things, Soso?" I exclaimed. "I'll lend you a book to read; it will show you that the world and all living things are quite different from what you imagine, and all this talk about God is sheer nonsense," Joseph said. "What book is that?" I enquired. "Darwin. You must read it," Joseph impressed on me. [Emelian Yaroslavsky, Landmarks in the Life of Stalin (Moscow: Foreign Languages Publishing House, 1940), 8–9.] Stein noted that "even Mao Tse-tung regarded Darwin, as presented by the German Darwinists, as the foundation of Chinese scientific socialism." Mao was yet another who decimated millions. And why not? Darwin had "proven" that men were not God's creation. Instead, they were descended from bacteria, fish and lizards. So in the minds of Hitler, Stalin and Mao, who not treat people as animals? Why not herd them like cattle into boxcars bound for concentration camps and gulags? Of course, evolution was not solely responsible for every ideology it helped foster. The genocides of the Nazis and communists would have revolted Darwin. However, evolution's deadly influences cannot be denied. GOOD COMPANY Is it true that scientific minds don't believe in God or creation? Let's check it out. What shall we say of Isaac Newton (1642–1727), who discovered the law of gravity, formulated the three laws of motion, developed calculus, constructed the first reflecting telescope, and whom many consider the greatest scientist who ever lived? Newton wrote an estimated 1,400,000 words on religion--more than on physics or astronomy. He wrote papers refuting atheism and defending the Bible; he believed in the Flood, a literal six-day creation, and the Ussher chronology (which dated Earth as a few thousand years old). Here are a few quotes from him: I have a fundamental belief in the Bible as the Word of God, written by men who were inspired. I study the Bible daily. All my discoveries have been made in answer to prayer. We account the Scriptures of God to be the most sublime philosophy. I find more sure marks of authenticity in the Bible than in any profane history whatsoever. How about astronomer Johannes Kepler (1571–1630)? Reasoning that the universe must be orderly if designed by God, he discovered the laws of planetary motion and conclusively demonstrated that the sun is the solar system's center. He explained that he was merely "thinking God's thoughts after Him" and said: I had the intention of becoming a theologian … but now I see how God is, by my endeavors, also glorified in astronomy, for "the heavens declare the glory of God." And: Since we astronomers are priests of the highest God in regard to the book of nature, it befits us to be thoughtful, not of the glory of our minds, but rather, above all else, of the glory of God. What of Robert Boyle (1627–1691), regarded as the father of modern chemistry, and whose name is wedded to the fundamental law of gas pressures? He determined that gases consist of particles, made early discoveries concerning vacuums, and even invented the first match. Boyle also read the Bible daily, was governor of a missionary organization, wrote The Christian Virtuoso to show that studying nature is a religious duty, and in his will established the "Boyle lectures" for the proving of Christianity. Then there was Francis Bacon (1561–1626), credited with developing the scientific method. He said: There are two books laid before us to study, to prevent our falling into error; first, the volume of the Scriptures, which reveal the will of God; then, the volume of the Creatures, which express His power. How about Blaise Pascal (1623–1662), the brilliant French mathematician who developed the science of hydrostatics and helped formulate the laws of probability? From 1658 until his death, he worked on a defense of Christianity. He said: Except by Jesus Christ we know not what our life is, what our death is, what God is, what we are ourselves. Thus, without Scripture, which has only Jesus Christ for its object, we know nothing, and we see only obscurity and confusion in the nature of God, and in nature herself. Hmmm! Sounds like something a "narrow-minded fundamentalist bigot" would say. We previously mentioned Carolus Linnaeus (1707–1778), who laid the foundations of modern taxonomy, still known as the Linnaean system. He too was a believer. Isaac Asimov acknowledged that "Linnaeus himself fought the whole idea of evolution stubbornly." The Dictionary of Scientific Biography says of him: His view of nature was deeply religious; central to all his work was God's omnipotence…. "I saw," he wrote in the later editions of Systema natura, "the infinite, all-knowing and all-powerful God…. I followed his footsteps over nature's fields and saw everywhere an eternal wisdom and power, an inscrutable perfection." Astronomer Sir William Herschel (1738–1822) discovered Uranus and built the greatest reflecting telescopes of his day. He said: "The undevout astronomer must be mad." His son, John Frederick Herschel, who discovered more than 500 stars and nebulae, declared: All human discoveries seem to be made only for the purpose of confirming more and more strongly the truths that come from on high and are contained in the sacred writings." John Flamsteed (1646–1719), who made the first great map of the stars, was founder of the famous Greenwich Observatory, first Astronomer Royal of England--and a clergyman. Besides being a great statesman, Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790) invented the lightning rod, rocking chair, Franklin stove, and bifocal glasses. He organized the first U.S. postal service and first fire department. Some count Franklin as an unbeliever, but although he poked fun at dour ministers and entertained some doubts about the divinity of Christ, his belief in God was uncompromising. He stated: Here is my creed. I believe in one god, the Creator of the universe. That He governs it by His providence. That He ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable service we render to Him is in doing good to His other children. That the soul of man is immortal, and will be treated with justice in another life respecting its conduct in this. He declared before the Constitutional Convention: I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth--that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?… I therefore beg leave to move--that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business…. Some evolutionists like to call creationists "flat earthers." This is ironic since Christopher Columbus, famed for showing the world round, wrote: I prayed to the most merciful Lord about my heart's great desire, and He gave me the spirit and the intelligence for the task: seafaring, astronomy, geometry, arithmetic, skill in drafting spherical maps and placing correctly the cities, rivers, mountains and ports. I also studied cosmology, history, chronology, and philosophy. It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from here to the Indies. All who heard of my project rejected it with laughter, ridiculing me. There is no question that the inspiration was from the Holy Spirit, because he comforted me with rays of marvelous illumination from the Holy Scriptures…. Shall we add to the list of believers Cotton Mather (1663–1728), the clergyman/Harvard president who introduced a smallpox inoculation; Jean Deluc (1727–1817), the Swiss naturalist who coined the word "geology"; or James Parkinson (1755–1824), the first physician to recognize the dangers of a perforated appendix, and to describe the disease named for him? We could also mention John Dalton (1766–1844), who revolutionized chemistry by developing the atomic theory; Benjamin Barton (1766–1815), who wrote the first U.S. textbook on botany; and chemist-physiologist William Prout (1785–1850), who was the first to identify basic foodstuffs as fats, proteins and carbohydrates. And does the famous painting The Last Supper not convey the faith of Leonardo da Vinci (1452–1519), considered by many the father of modern science? I hear atheists grumbling, "OK, OK, maybe a few of those old dudes had some smarts, but they were only religious because that was the prevailing view in their day. They lived before Darwin. If they had read The Origin of Species, they would have seen things totally different." But hold on. Most scientists in Darwin's time weren't thrilled with his theory either. Contrary to the popular impression, it was scientists, not theologians, who primarily opposed evolution in the nineteenth century. The Catholic church, still smarting from its wrongful condemnation of Galileo, wanted no risk of another embarrassment. Although the church maintained an index of forbidden books, The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man were never placed on it. When Darwin died, the Anglican church even insisted he be given a hero's funeral and state burial at Westminster Abbey. On the other hand, 717 scientists, including 86 members of the Royal Society (Britain's most prestigious scientific organization), signed a manifesto entitled "The Declaration of the Students of the Natural and Physical Sciences." Issued in London in 1864, it affirmed their confidence in the Bible's scientific integrity. Earlier we quoted several scientists whom evolution failed to convince. There were many others whose faith it could not shake. Louis Pasteur (1822–95) probably saved more lives than any other scientist. He established the germ theory of disease and the process of sterilization; he isolated pathogens and developed vaccines to combat them--including rabies, diphtheria and anthrax. He also introduced milk pasteurization, which is named for him. Pasteur was also a humble Christian. He did not patent his discoveries, but gave them to society freely. Though tragedy marked his life--three of his children died young--faith sustained him. "Science," he said, "brings man nearer to God." And he observed, "The more I study nature," the more I stand amazed at the work of the Creator." In a series of experiments, Pasteur disproved the false notion, then pushed by evolutionists, that bacteria "spontaneously generate." Lord Kelvin (1824–1907) was, according to the Encyclopedia Britannica, "foremost among the small group of British scientists who helped to lay the foundation of modern physics." He established a scale of absolute temperatures, with degrees "kelvin" named for him; supervised laying of the first Atlantic cable, for which he was knighted; held 21 honorary doctorates, published more than 600 scientific papers, and patented 70 inventions. As Chairman of England's Christian Evidence Society, Lord Kelvin said: I have long felt that there was a general impression in the non-scientific world that the scientific world believes Science has discovered ways of explaining all the facts of nature without adopting any definite belief in a Creator. I have never doubted that that impression was utterly groundless. [Lord Kelvin, address of 23 May 1889, quoted in Stephen Abbott Northrop, A Cloud of Witnesses (c. 1899; reprint, San Antonio: Mantle Ministries, 1988), 460.] Kevin opposed Darwinism and published a paper refuting uniformitarian geology. He said: "Overwhelmingly strong proofs of intelligent and benevolent design lie around us … the atheistic idea is so nonsensical that I cannot put it into words. And: Mathematics and dynamics fail us when we contemplate the earth, fitted for life but lifeless, and try to imagine the commencement of life upon it. This certainly did not take place by any action of chemistry, or electricity, or crystalline grouping of molecules under the influence of force, or by any possible kind of fortuitous concourse of atoms. We must pause, face to face with the mystery and miracle of creation of living creatures. [Mathematical and Physical Papers, Lord Kelvin (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1911), quoted in Thomas G. Barnes, "Physics: A Challenge to 'Geologic Time,'" Impact 16 (July 1974): 1–2.] Joseph Lister (1827–1912) saved countless lives by developing antiseptic surgery through the use of disinfectants. ("Listerine" is named after him.) He invented dissolving stitches and the wiring of broken bones. He was knighted, made president of the Royal Society and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. Lister was the son of devout Quakers, and would declare "I have no hesitation in saying that in my opinion there is no antagonism between the Religion of Jesus Christ and any fact scientifically established." Samuel F.B. Morse (1791–1872) invented the telegraph and Morse Code, built the first camera in America, and founded the National Academy of Design. A dedicated Christian, Morse established one of America's first Sunday schools and supported missionaries. He said: The only gleam of hope, and I cannot underrate it, is from confidence in God. When I look upward it calms my apprehensions for the future, and I seem to hear a voice saying, "If I clothe the lilies of the field, shall I not also clothe you?" Here is my strong confidence, and I will wait patiently for the direction of Providence. [Northrop, 327.] And he said: The nearer I approach to the end of my pilgrimage, the clearer is the evidence of the divine origin of the Bible, the grandeur and sublimity of God's remedy for fallen man are more appreciated, and the future is illumined with hope and joy. [Morris, Men of Science--Men of God, 47.] The first message he sent by telegraph was: "What hath God wrought." Through experiments, James Joule (1818–1889) proved the law of energy conservation, and determined the mathematic relationship between an electric current's energy and the heat it gives off. The joule, a unit of energy measurement, is named for him. He said: "It is evident that an acquaintance with natural laws means no less than an acquaintance with the mind of God therein expressed." Though born a slave, George Washington Carver (1864–1943) became one of the world's greatest agricultural scientists. Working at the Tuskegee Institute, an Alabama school for Afro-Americans, he developed over 300 products from the peanut and 118 from the sweet potato. He showed both black and white farmers how to better utilize land, and revitalized the South's economy. He did much to improve race relations, and was also an accomplished artist. Like Pasteur, Carver patented none of his discoveries, but gave them away. He turned down an offer from Thomas Edison to leave Tuskegee and work at 60 times his pay. In 1940 he donated his life savings to the Institute. A devout Christian, Carver taught his students from the Bible, in a class that met on Sundays from 1907 until his death. He said: The secret of my success? It is simple. It is found in the Bible, "In all thy ways acknowledge Him and He shall direct thy paths." [William J. Federer, America's God and Country: Encyclopedia of Quotations (Coppell, Tex.: Fame Publishing, 1994), 98] So to figure out that science harmonizes with the Bible, you don't have to be a rocket scientist--but you might ask one. Wernher von Braun (1912–1977) was director of NASA's flight center; he oversaw the team of scientists that sent the first American into space, and masterminded the moon landing. An active Christian, von Braun prayed for the safety of those on the manned missions he planned. He observed: "There are those who argue that the universe evolved out of a random process, but what random process could produce the brain of man or the system of the human eye?" He would not have agreed with the whip hand given evolution in today's classrooms: "To be forced to believe only one conclusion--that everything in the universe happened by chance--would violate the very objectivity of science itself." Physicist David Brewster (1781–1868) began the science of optical mineralogy, invented the kaleidoscope, and was founder and president of the British Association for the Advancement of Science. He said: "Knowledge, indeed, is at once the handmaid and the companion of true religion. They mutually adorn and support each other." One of his students recalled: "He thanked God that the way of salvation was clear and simple; no labored argument, no hard attainment was required. To believe in the Lord Jesus Christ was to live; he trusted Him and enjoyed His peace." On his tombstone was written: "The Lord is my Light." Shall we add Joseph Henry (1797–1878), who invented the electromagnetic motor and galvanometer, was first secretary and director of the Smithsonian Institution, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science--and always prayed for divine guidance during any experiment? Or Nobel Prize winner Lord Rayleigh (1842–1919), co-discoverer of argon, helium, and the other "noble" gases, who wrote: "The works of the Lord are great, sought out of all them that have pleasure therein." Nobel Prize-winning physicist Robert A. Millikan (1868–1953), though critical of fundamentalism, said he would still choose it over atheism: "The God of science is the Spirit of rational order, and of orderly development. Atheism as I understand it is the denial of the existence of this spirit. Nothing could be more antagonistic to the whole spirit of science." Need I mention that Gregor Mendel (1822–1884), who formulated the laws of heredity, was abbot of a monastery? Many other eminent scientists could join our list. Among all the scientists who ever lived, atheists compose a small minority. Clearly, no one is an "enemy of science" for believing the Bible. We're through discussing the Darwin side of the conflict. If evolution isn't true, and the world and humanity are designed, then we're facing God. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, May 17, 2003, 00:04 (Agree/Disagree?) If we’re going to clutter this site with cut & paste, can we please stick to more recent quotes (like 1980 on)? “We're through discussing the Darwin side of the conflict.” ...indicates the author is not willing to wait around long enough to hear a counter-argument. “If evolution isn't true, and the world and humanity are designed, then we're facing God.” ...Huh? Even if it was proven that evolution isn’t true (at least the currently accepted model), I could come up with at least 10 hypothesis for this planet’s history right now that don’t have anything to do with the Christian “God”. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, May 16, 2003, 22:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Your ability to copy down opinions of others while having none of your own is quite amusing.  Your argument, no matter how lengthyand drawn out, is no more than the simpistic views of countless other so-called Christian Scientist trying to tear down evolution while at the same time offering no valid proof of their own beliefs.  If you want to prove a point, your going to need more than just evidence against something else, you need evidence backing up your opinion.  To compare Darwin to Marx is ridiculous.  One was a scientist and the other a socialist.  How does that disprove evolution?  How does it prove creation?  For that matter, how does any of that long and lenghty babble you just spouted prove anything in favor of creationism? Of course a fossil is going to look fully formed.  Evolution never claimed that there were these "intermediate" creatures running around, fish with legs or so on.  I've got two words for you: vestigial organs.  Look it up (you seem to be good at that).  Oh, by the way, there's a fish called a frog fish or a rock fish that uses its fins like legs to walk on the bottom of the ocean, in fact, this particular family of fish barely swims at all.  And why are there air breathing mammals living their entire lives in the ocean?  Or birds with wings that don't fly?  Or mammals with wings that do fly?  Why do most living things begin as eggs?  Why are there lizards without legs and snakes with deformed leg bones that do nothing (oops... just gave a hint about vestigial organs)?    We all know plants use photosynthesis, but why have some single celled animals adopted it too? Why do some bacteria come together as one functioning organism under certain conditions and behave like a fungi releasing spores for reproduction? All these things are evidence of possible "intermediary" stages in an evolutionary scheme, but if one were to find them as a fossil, of course they would look complete.  Sorry, but that tired old creationist argument just doesn't hold up.  Maybe you should try something else, or maybe you could just give me one fact in favor of creationism that does not involve trying to attack evolutionary theory. And of course most of the people critisizing Darwin in his day were scientists, they were all under the same view that organized religion took.  And as far as trying to preach about Jesus, you have the right to your own opinion, but if your going to debate a scientific topic then you may want to have some scientific fact to back you up, not just the same tired old religious BS.   (reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, May 16, 2003, 17:58 (Agree/Disagree?) All this shows is that you can cut and paste. A link to your source with a few comments as to what you personally think would be much more effective IMO. (reply to this comment)

from researcher Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 17:02 (Agree/Disagree?) In exchanging one religion for another...you may want to take into account that Darwinism is the religion of the masses and lacks scientific evidence. HAPPY DARWIN DAY (BUT DON'T EXPECT ANSWERS) by Frank Sherwin, M.A. Zoology All religions have their patron saints, and humanism is certainly no different. On February twelfth (the birth date of Charles Darwin) secular knees reverently bowed to a man whose only degree was in theology. Darwin Day – as it is called – celebrates “humanity and science” and is now recognized worldwide. It would seem it is not enough to have “evolutionism only” in public education, the arts, much of Catholic and Protestant faiths and the media. Now February twelfth is set aside to actively celebrate this strange fish-to-philosopher idea. On the twelfth, an airplane in Australia towed a banner proclaiming “Evolution Rules” for two hours while in Britain there is a call (demand?) by philosophers and writers for a public holiday celebrating the birth of Mr. Darwin. The mayor of Ottawa, Canada signed a proclamation recognizing February twelfth as Darwin Day. What’s next? We have already seen Michael L. Dini, an associate professor of biology at Texas Tech University require student allegiance to the philosophy of human evolution if she/he hopes to receive a letter of recommendation. Darwin’s infamous book, Origin of Species, will remain second only to the Bible in addressing where plants, people and animals originated. Macroevolution - the development of new species, genera, families, orders, etc. - is at the heart of this critical origins issue, but was never discussed in Darwin’s book. Since Darwin’s death, does secular science really know anything more about the unproved, unobserved belief in macroevolution? Recently, the Journal of Paleontology printed a review of a 617-page book (containing 1,600 references) that directly addressed macroevolution.1 Peter Forey of the Natural History Museum of London was the reviewer and gloomily concluded, “Do not expect answers.”2 This is an amazing admission, not only in light of the Darwin Day festivities that all but celebrates macroevolution as a fact, but also because the Natural History Museum has a special program of Darwin-related activities! Additionally, evolutionist A.G. Fisher, writing in the 2002 edition of the Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, says, “Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remain unknown.” Evolutionist Brian Goodwin, Professor of Biology at the Open University stated in the Summary of his 1994 book, Despite the power of molecular genetics to reveal the hereditary essences of organisms, the large-scale aspects of evolution remain unexplained, including the origin of species. There is no ‘clear evidence…for the gradual emergence of any evolutionary novelty’ says Ernst Mayr, one of the most eminent of contemporary biologists. New types of organisms simply appear upon the evolutionary scene, persist for various periods of time, and then become extinct.3 While Darwin and generations of evolutionary biologists since his day continue to ponder their origins apart from God, the Christian has a supernatural Book that clearly addresses both the origin and the destiny of the species - namely, the Bible. So, Happy Darwin Day - but don’t expect answers! References 1 Levingtion, J. Genetics, Paleontology & Macroevolution, Cambridge U. Press, 2001 2 Forey, P. Book Review, Journal of Paleontology 77(1), 2003, pp. 199-200 3 Palmer, T Controversy- Catastrophism & Evolution, Kluwer Academic, 1999, p. 309 (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrrl Friday, May 16, 2003, 15:36 (Agree/Disagree?) There is a problem with the logic in Frank Sherwin's argument.  It is true that evolutionary theory is contradicted by certain scientific findings.  (It is also supported by certain scientific findings.) The fact that evolutionary theory is far from "proven" does not therefore mean creationism is a plausible alternative explanation for the diversity of life on the planet over time.  The bulk of scientific findings--from astronomy to molecular genetics--contradict the creationist position that argues the earth and its diverse lifeforms appeared suddenly out of nothing exactly as we see them today.    What Darwinism really does is take humanity out of the center of creation in the same way that Galileo's solar system took the earth out of the center of the universe.   In the Genesis creation story, humanity appears as the pinnacle of divine activity.  We are, after all, "made in the likeness and image" of a Divine Creator.   Darwinism suggests that humans are simply the product of successful evolutionary processes, e.g., a creature no greater or special or divine than the dinosaurs or trilobites or bacteria.  Gee whiz, that's a humbling thought.  I may be made in the likeness of a Divine Creator, but maybe the dinosaurs are too?  Huh.  Maybe the Divine Creator is so "almighty" that every lifeform, every molecule, every atom that ever was, is, or will be is in fact a reflection of the Creator's divine likeness and image?  Oh my, that sounds like Buddhist philosophy. Can't go there.  After all, the Bible reveals the ultimate truth about everything.  Evolutionary theory is constantly being evaluated through the rigor of scientific method.  In the hard sciences like biology, geology, physics (all of which are involved with testing evolutionary theory) scientific method is quantative.  "Quantitative" means if something exists empirically, one can analyze and test it in an equation of some sort.  We cannot subject creationist beliefs to scientific method, because there is no math or statistic that will support or fail to support the existence of a personal diety who behaves like the creative father-god of biblical revelation.  The Judeo-Christian Father-god is something you have to take on faith.  Evolutionary theory is something you can question and test with mathematical calculations. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Friday, May 16, 2003, 23:10 (Agree/Disagree?) anovagrrrl:  Very well said!  Finally someone to point out that humans are not the whole reason for the universe to exist.  I find this way of thinking arrogant and just plain ignorant.  We may appear to be the dominant species on the planet, but seeing as how we live our live according to laws of nature just like every other organism on the planet, are we really that special?  (reply to this comment)

From anovagrrrl Monday, May 19, 2003, 11:54 (Agree/Disagree?) frmrjoyish, You're to be commended for sparking a jihad (holy struggle) on this website. As a member of a dominant species, I don't believe that I'm any more special than bacteria, if "special" means more divine.  Bacteria are no more "meaningless" or "expendible" than human beings.  Like humans, bacteria also participate in a divine nature:  They can give life and take it away. And just HOW do bacteria give life?  Have you heard about Cheeses of Nazareth? Sorry if my irreverent pun offends anyone.  I could have chosen not to go there, but one thing I really like about this website is that so many folks refuse to take themselves too seriously. Christian theologians might argue that my ability to choose whether I want to be irreverent is something that makes me fundamentally different (and therefore a more perfect reflection of divinity) than bacteria.  I can choose to have faith in something other than the father-god of Judeo-Christian-Islamic revelation, but bacteria show no apparent capacity to ponder the meaning of existence and make choices between good and evil.  What I have experienced through openness to the god of my understanding is this: My human ability to ponder the meaning of existence and choose between good and evil is an atomically small, quantum fractal of the higher power that permeates creation. So I bow to the buddha (enlightened teacher) in bacteria, just as I bow to the buddha in you.    (reply to this comment)

From Monday, May 19, 2003, 20:48 (Agree/Disagree?) Maybe bacteria do ponder this stuff in their tiny bacteria world...(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Thursday, May 15, 2003, 21:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Researcher: Perhaps it would do you good to research a bit more.  The beauty of science is that it allows many different lines of independant thinking without allowing one man or one book to claim to have all the answers (unlike the creationists point of view).  Yes, there are varying view points, however, never in history has one man made so much of an impact as Darwin, the man you seem to ridicule in your comment.  I might add that as Darwin was making his observations and formulating his own theories, a man named Wallace was coming to his own independant observations which confirmed many of Darwin's.  Darwin was the first one to be published, so thus the first one to recieve credit. Not all of their hypotheses were correct, what is accepted today is only what has been confirmed over and over again by countless other scientists.  This is science, unlike the approach you seem to take concerning the Bible's views.  If one scientist wrote a book and claimed it as fact and demanded everyone follow it unquestioningly regardless of evidence to the contrary, he would be the laughing stock of the scientific world.  Darwin is regarded in high esteem because his genious and innovative observations have changed the way we view the natural world and our fellow species we share it with.  His theories have been coroborated over and over again and have stood up to rigorous scrutiny.  Can you say as much for the creationist view point? Darwin is not viewed as any sort of diety, just a man whose extraordinary powers of observation have shed some light on a belief previously rooted only in religious superstition.   (reply to this comment)

from Anthony Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 13:54 (Agree/Disagree?) In most of the Evolution vs. Creation discussion I've come across or participated in,  it seems that instead of providing proof for their theories, Creationists (or non-Evolutionarians)  prefer to point out the "shortcomings" of Evolution theories and its adherents. It's very important to consider the source of both schools of thought when discussing a topic such as this. If we were to find a book with no information about the author, yet, the contents of this book were verifiable, the lack of information regarding the author would be negligible (Not significant or important enough to be worth considering; trifling.)   For example, if the book stated that 2+2 = 4, or, (4x^2 - 8x - 21)^3 is equal to 64x^6 - 384x^5 - 240x^4 + 3520x^3 + 1260x^2 - 9261, in its expanded version, all we will need to do is apply what we know about solving algebra problems to verify that this solution is correct, and if it is correct, we wouldn't really care who the author is, except maybe to give credit.  On the other hand, if we read a book such as the Bible , a book which we agree is the source of Creationism, because of the meaning of revelation, and eye witnessed accounts, and, because some of what the Bible claims cannot be verified such as a math problem, any and all information regarding the author(s) is prerequisite to believing any of its claims, ideas, theories, revelations and "truths."  And as we all know, the Bible fails to provide us this.  It is simply not acceptable to say "God wrote it," especially since we have yet to all agree on what or who "God" is or if it/she/he is. Moses didn't write the first four books Of the Bible.  Did Moses witness God "in the begining?"  If God revealed it to him, what do we know about Moses' character to make us trust his account of the events?  Why should we take his word for it?  Who described Moses's death at the end of Deuteronomy, a book which he supposedly wrote?  How do we know the "ghost author" didn't add or delete elsewhere in the book, or change things to fit his/her agenda?  And from the language used, it was clearly written hundreds of years after the time in which Moses supposedly lived and died. The Gosples, except for John, don't bear the names or information about their authors, they contradict each other and are highly questionable. I'd be really interested to hear non-religious proof or good arguments for Creation, if they indeed exist, but I'm afraid there will always be a hint of religion in any and all Creation arguments.  I could be wrong, and will say so if this happens to be the case, but given the source, it's doubtful.   (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, May 15, 2003, 16:06 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree with you about the narrow mindedness of Biblical creationists, Anthony. However, the Bible is not the only source of creationist theories / hypothesis, though it may be the only one you’ve heard from. And the theory of evolution can co-exist nicely with some creationist hypothesis. I could describe any of several hypotheses involving special creation followed by evolution, but it would be a waste of my time since anyone interested can do an internet search. Some tend to think that the most viable hypothesis will be the most popular, I disagree. I think abiogenesis and common decent are favored hypotheses because the entire process can be described, and man likes to feel in control. If life began spontaneously than we are the strongest and smartest force in our vicinity. Scientists don’t like to think about an unseen and unknown creator who may have started the whole process. They hate the thought as vehemently as a good doctor hates unknown viruses. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Friday, May 16, 2003, 14:54 (Agree/Disagree?) I've heard of several, but what I was getting at, or trying to, was the source, and being raised the way I was, I was addressing the one with which I am most familiar.  That being said, I have heard many other sources and traditions of creation, all of which beg religion, though not always conspicuously.   The very word creation presupposes a creator. Aren’t the creationist hypotheses, which can co-exist nicely with some theory of evolution, a defense of traditional “creationism” and an effort of apologists to show the “scientific-ness” of superstition and tradition?  Special Creation followed by evolution also presupposes a creator and a soul, ostensibly reconciles with evolution, and brings us back full-circle to a creator or creators. I don’t think it’s true of all scientists that they don’t like to think about an unseen and unknown creator who may have started the whole process.  Science deals with knowing the unknown; however, the issues with which I’m sure many of them, and myself, take issue is the idea that there is an “unknown creator” who is “unknowable,” is forever beyond human understanding.   That there is a contradiction in terms, for if the nature of something is unknowable, how do we know that it is unknowable, since its nature is unknowable?  We must know something of it in order to honestly state that it is unknowable. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, May 17, 2003, 00:31 (Agree/Disagree?) Anthony, of course creation is about a creator, or intelligent design. In any case, the origin of life on this planet, be it through abiogenesis or a creator, is unknown. We have evidence that the earliest life forms on this planet were quite different than the current ones, but no clear evidence for where the early life forms came from. Why is the idea of a creator superstition? In any case the force which created life on this planet is unknown to us. I’m not saying it will remain unknown forever. But the best way to figure it out is examine as many feasible hypotheses as possible, and see which one(s) fit the evidence discovered. There are many good non-religious reasons why special creation hypotheses should be included in the list. Possible “creation” models include aliens on a distant planet sending the first living organisms to earth. Pray tell, what makes this scenario religious? (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Saturday, May 17, 2003, 14:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Your possible “creation” model, which has aliens on a distant planet sending the first living organisms to earth is a good one, though it does beg the questions “who made the aliens?” and “what is our relationship with them, other than as their creations?” It isn’t necessarily a religious scenario by any means, and doesn’t have to be unless we, as their creation, along with our belief, hold reverence for these aliens whom we regard as creators and governors of the universe.  But wouldn’t that be like saying “I believe that God sent the first living organisms to earth but I regard him with no reverence, in other words, my belief in God as the creator is non-religious.”  Obviously these creator aliens would be superior to us in some way, or a least posses some higher knowledge.  I’m not trying to attach religion to every Creationist theory, at least I hope I’m not, honestly. In answer to your question, “Why is the idea of a creator superstition?”  I propose the following as an explanation on my choice of word(s):  The word superstition from Latin superstiti, means to stand over, or, standing over, as in a creator standing over us. Here’s another non-religious creation scenario:  The universe itself is one vast and powerful being, which created biological life.  No, religion need necessarily be insinuated or inject here; but, if religion were to be inserted here, it would necessarily have to be  Pantheism. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, May 17, 2003, 15:38 (Agree/Disagree?) Not that I’m try to have the last word, but the alien life could be inferior and have “accidentally” sent life our way. Maybe some completely unintelligent cells somehow escaped the gravity pull of their planet and ended up in ours. The possibilities are endless. (reply to this comment)

From Anthony Thursday, May 15, 2003, 15:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Gospels*(reply to this comment)

from Auty Thursday, May 15, 2003 - 11:14 (Agree/Disagree?) I have not studied Evolution and know just a few of the theories involved.  However, I have studied the human body to some extent & have drawn my own conclusions that Evolution is a very feasible theory.  Considering that our bodies are all chemical reactions that work in perfect harmony with each other, in my opinion, gives great weight to Darwin (and other's) opinions on our origin.  It's not that "far off" once studying the organic chemical reactions that take place in creating & maintaining life.  On top of the chemical reactions, we also have "vestigial organs" (organs & body parts that serve no purpose except to take up space), which is interesting in itself.  Why would we have these organs if they serve no purpose?  One theory is that our ancestors used these parts in adapting to their environments.  JMHO when it comes to a subject as controversial & vast as this one. (reply to this comment)

from Wolf Tuesday, May 13, 2003 - 11:47 (Agree/Disagree?) I did quite a bit of research on this subject myself when I left TF, and would like to add my 2 cents. Firstly, there seems to be a tendency to group abiogenesis with evolution, and microevolution with macroevolution. Frmrjoyish seems to have taken the overwhelming evidence supporting microevolution to mean that macroevolution and abiogenesis are also facts. I think this is a mistake. I would like to list my opinions on these issues separately: Microevolution: refers to changes that living things undergo to make them more suitable to their environment, including the appearance of completely new species within an animal family. Microevolution has been observed and in my opinion should be considered a fact. This fact, however, does not necessarily mean there is no intelligent creator, since an intelligent creator could’ve created several animal families, giving them the ability to evolve. Macroevolution: large-scale evolution involving the appearance of new genera and families. This has not been observed, and though extensive evidence suggests that none of the animals as we know them today existed several million years ago, it’s possible that today’s animals are all descendants of an originally created group of animals, containing several genera or families. Common decent: suggests that all living organisms descended from one single organism. From all I’ve read there seems to be no proof for this theory (I’d even call it a hypothesis). Even advocates say it’s almost impossible to prove that several living organisms didn’t emerge simultaneously. Abiogenesis: Some people mistakenly think that evolution is a theory about the origin of life. Evolution does not, in fact, include a theory about the origin of life, it attempts to explain how life developed to its current state. Abiogenesis is the theory that the first living organism came into being spontaneously. I think this would be impossible to prove without inventing a time machine. Age of the earth: It’s quite easy to prove that the earth is more than 6,000 years old. Creationists who’ve tried to prove otherwise ran into a truckload of problems. This, however, has nothing to do with the evolution / creation argument, it just proves that some Christians are wrong. I should mention, though, that carbon dating is known to be effective only up to about 100,000 years back, and even within this time frame there are a number of circumstances that can affect the accuracy of this kind of dating. Radio dating of uranium and other radioactive elements is used for objects older than that. Radio dating is based on the decay of isotopes with a known half-life. In other words, we know how long it takes U-238 to decay into lead-206, so by measuring the amount of lead-206 in comparison to the amount of U-238 we can tell how old the rock is. I ask myself, could an intelligent creator have created an already decayed earth – for example, maybe there was already a significant amount of lead-206 when the rock was created (if it was created). Creationists are trying to make facts fit in a certain model, which obviously doesn’t make for very good scientific research. My opinion, however, is that many mainstream scientists are also trying to fit evidence into a certain model, the most commonly accepted model of life’s origins, starting with the big bang, followed by abiogenesis, followed by macroevolution which brought about life in it’s present state. My conclusion: I can’t argue with the overwhelming evidence that this world is more than 6,000 years old and that life as we know it today (animals, plants, etc.) descended from other forms of life that existed previously. Choosing to believe in special creation or abiogenesis is an entirely different matter, and in my opinion both require faith – the former faith in an intelligent creator, and the latter faith in the lack of any intelligent creator. I think a wise person will leave himself open to both possibilities until one is clearly proven to be a more viable option than the other. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 23:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Wolf, This is one of the most intelligent and well thought out responses I have read on here in a long time. Thanks for this. I thoroughly enjoyed reading it. In regards to macro vs. micro evolution, I do have a question for you. If someone is reverse engineering a machine (which is basically what evolutionary theory is trying to do), if you can decode a certain amount of the technology, but come across a part where your knowledge fails, does it make sense to just throw your hands up and say "well this is obviously magic at this point, let's call Harry Potter", or is it more logical to reason that the same processes that built part of what you understand regarding this phenomon probably built the rest too? (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, May 15, 2003, 01:28 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks for the compliment, Jules. And for what it’s worth thanks for making this site. Good analogy about the machine. I have one of my own: you’re taking apart a burnt-out car and you find a piece of glass marked “Howard Mills, Beaverton”. Would you be correct in assuming the whole car was made there? My point concerns how the first animals and plants came into being. There are representatives of each phylum (basic animal and plant type) in the earth’s oldest layer known to have contained life (Cambrian). “Common Decent” advocates have failed to pin point common ancestors for protozoans, arthropods, brachiopods, mollusks, bryozoans, coelenterates, sponges, annelids, echinoderms and chordates. This, of course, doesn’t mean they didn’t have common ancestry, it does mean we have no significant reason to put more weight on either hypothesis at this point. I’ve read the “evidence” for macroevolution and common decent, it all centers on the similarities in life forms (the same genetic code etc.). Another analogy: There’s computer software which can successfully identify a book’s author by analyzing vocabulary and sentence structure. A “creator” would probably base all of his creations on a basic set of blue prints. Why design 1,000 genetic codes when one will work just fine for all life forms? In the event of special creation there would also be multiple similarities between certain life forms, since it would be easier for a creator to base a new design on a previous one, rather than start from scratch each time. My opinion on this subject summarized: I think we can be fairly certain that life has evolved to its current state. The unsolved question lies in life’s origins. I haven’t seen or read any evidence which lends more weight to abiogenesis and common decent as opposed to special creation of multiple organisms. Jules, special creation is no more “magic” than abiogenesis. They would both be physical processes, one deliberate and the other one “accidental”. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, May 15, 2003, 01:48 (Agree/Disagree?) On second thought my car analogy isn't very appropriate. A more fitting analogy: In reverse engineering the machine you speak of, it would be logical to assume that the machine was made in it’s entirety by the known processes. These processes don’t, however, include an explanation for the origin of the raw materials. It’s not only possible but probable that the raw materials were produced by entirely different processes. It’s also highly likely that production began with multiple raw materials.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf has a secret admirer Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 10:43 (Agree/Disagree?) Wolf, I wish you would provide an email address in your user profile. I've been wanting to write you for some time.(reply to this comment)

From Wolf Thursday, May 15, 2003, 01:29 (Agree/Disagree?) E-mail: peter_krusemark@yahoo.com (I’m not “krusemark”, I’m trying to keep certain people from guessing who I am.)(reply to this comment)

From curious Thursday, May 15, 2003, 12:25 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, who are you?(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 12:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Wolf: To assume that what I wrote in my article amounts to lumping abiogenises with micro and macro evolution is taking great liberty with what I said.  Abiogenesis, from what I've found, does not have enough support from the scientific communty as a whole in order for me to have a definite opinion.  IMO the jury's still out on that one.  I never even mentioned it in my article as I do not see how it really affects the argument for evolution, it is simply a hypothesis put forth and IMO has not been tested enough to be taken as a theory. Microevolution is looking at the small picture, while macroevolution looks at the bigger one.  They are in fact connected.  When you take microevolution "the appearance of completley new species within a family" and macroevolution "large scale evolution involving the appearance of new genera and families" can you not see how they are connected?  The term genera is used to describe groupings of animals presumed to be related based on certain shared characteristics.  A family is only one in a series of genera ranked in order of their presumed relatedness.  Genera are ranked as follows:  Kingdom, Phylum, Class, Group, Family, Genus, Species. A Kingdom would encompass a broader range of characteristics than a Phylum while a Phylum would have more shared characteristics than a Class and so on. The scientific community will be the first to admit that these understandings as well as the orgainisms in the various genera themselves are constantly and being evaluated.  Evolution does not create "genera", rather, genera is simply a classification term.  Evolution may or may not lead to species variety depending on the circumstances and the environment being selected for.  As far as my reference to carbon dating, it was not my intention to use it as a means of supporting the entire theory of evolution, only to show how flawed the logic in TF's thinking is.  You went into much more detail, very intelligently I might add, than I intended to in my article.   (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 14:00 (Agree/Disagree?) You’re right, you didn’t say you were convinced of abiogenesis, I apologize. I’m just responding to the vibes I get from some of the replies to this article that belief in evolution is synonymous with lack of belief in intelligent design (be it “God” or whatever). Some people seem to think they have to attack evolution in order to be good Christians, and others think proof of evolution supports their case against God. There is, in fact, nothing religious about evolution. I’m aware that many scientists think there is no real difference between microevolution and macroevolution. I think the main difference is one has been observed and the other hasn’t, which makes one a fact and the other a theory. BTW, I didn't intend to attack your article, I think it was well written, though it does contain some undertones linking evolution with religion -- I guess it's tough for anyone who grew up in the cult to avoid doing that. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 15:01 (Agree/Disagree?) In my own personal journey of trying to discover what I myself really believed, not what was force fed me in my childhood, I no doubt linked evolution with religion.   In coming to terms with my beliefs on religion, I was at the same time discovering more and more about evolution.  These events were seperate but occuring almost simultaneously, so yes, in my mind they may in fact be linked.  I can see the undertones linking the two you are talking about. I found that a lot of the soul searching I was doing was very similar to what Darwin experienced and wrote about. I began to find that what I was was going through seemed to be similar to the feelings he was expressing.  I found I could relate very well to what he said.  My article was intended to be more of an account of my journey in my head to where I am now, but actually turned into an argument in favor of evolution.  I actually think the comments and the thread may be more interesting than my article.  Go figure!!! (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 12:31 (Agree/Disagree?) mistake: Group in the genera should have been Order!(reply to this comment)

from Undecided Monday, May 12, 2003 - 23:34 (Agree/Disagree?) Someone else already said this, but there are very educated and intelligent people on both sides of this argument, and they both have scientific data to support their views. As is the case in most branches of science. The Family's publications were very simplistic in this regard, but the issue of dating is not considered very accurate, beyond many millennia. The dates that are given things are often revised by up to hundreds of millions of years. I would tend to think, something along the lines of evolution is more likely, but I don't like the stranglehold that modern education has given evolution as the only possibility that should be entertained by anyone with a "scientific mind". Another person made the comment that if we were taught the truth, no one should have been scared to let us hear other viewpoints, as it should have stood up to higher education. I wish a more investigative and open approach were taken by evolutions promulgators, and for that matter by the other side as well.     (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 01:18 (Agree/Disagree?) As a student currently studying various branches of evolution, I must say that the scientific community only claimed that the theory of evolution has been repeatedly tested and not proven false.  In science, nothing is proven to be true, observed data must only be proven to be not false after repeated testings.  A true scientist would never claim to have "proven" anything.  There have been other alternatives to evolution hypothesized but they have not stood up to the rigors of scientific testing that evolution has, sooner or later fatal flaws in their composition were discovered.   In science no one says there is no other alternative, its just that other ideas are not accepted until they have been repeatedly tested and not proved false. As far as I am aware there has never been any credible scientific data to support creationism.  Most of the evidence I've seen has been religious.  Religion goes on faith, to believe what one does not see or understand, not on repeatedly tested and confirmed data.  Although, one of my  professors was very active in his church and very defensive of anyone questioning evolution vs. religion and the conflict between the two. In educating the public regarding evolution, it's not a "stranglehold", its just that no other credible alternatives exist.  It would be irresponsible for an educator to present something as a scientific fact solely for the purpose of offering an alternative to evolution.  If indeed, an alternative is discovered, it will be required to stand up to numerous hypotheses and tests before its accepted, just as evolution was.    (reply to this comment)

From roughneck Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 01:03 (Agree/Disagree?) Umm, what "scientific data" do creationists have to back up Genesis? I've heard a lot of pseudo-scientific twaddle, but no evidence apart from ole' Moses's say-so. Every bit of so-called "creation science" that I know of has been roundly disproved by the laws of physics. (I dare you to argue Thermodynamics with me. Here's a hint: ole' Berg got that wrong too.) What separates Science from Religion is that Science readily admits it doesn't know for sure, but it's willing to find out, and go with the best available data in the meantime. This is opposite to Religion, which merely claims it's version of events to be correct, evidence to the contrary. Sorry, but I don't see how anyone either educated or intelligent could embrace creationism, particularly not the literalist interepretation of the Bible that we were all raised on. I would like to ask how you would have the topic be presented in schools? Would you have schoolteachers teach myth as fact, reducing Science to a mere belief? How would this benefit a student? Evolution is quite willing to stand up to rigorous scrutiny, while the merest glance at The Bible displays glaring errors that Science wouldn't let slip, much less pass off as fact. For example, in Gen 1:11 God supposedly makes grass, herbs bearing seed, etc on the Third Day. However, it isn't until the 4th day (Gen 1:16) that he created the Sun (..great lights, the greater to rule the day, the lesser to rule the night). Now, the surface temperature of our planet without the Sun's radiation would be close to absolute zero, so how did the plants survive the "evening and the morning" (also regulated by a nonexistant Sol) of the Third Day? Also, where did the light come from when God said "let there be light" if the sun didn't show up for another 4 days? Do you want more contradictions? There's plenty to go around. As for evolution's supposed "stranglehold" on education, aren't educators supposed to teach the best available evidence, no matter what some tribal writing has to say? Believe it or not, Evolutionary theory is already quite tolerant of opinion - much more so than Creationism. If you can come up with a scientific theory (not hypothesis) that disproves Evolution, you not only may change my mind, but you might get some nice Nobel cash as well. I find the Scientific method taken by evolution's promulgators to be just as investigative and open as can possibly be, however, I don't see too many "Bible Scientists" (there's an oxymoron for ya) being either investigative OR open. It's all "six days and on the seventh he rested." - Nuts to them. Below are some links I found interesting: This deals with radiometric dating et c. http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth A short (not) list of things creationists hate: http://www.rice.edu/armadillo/Sciacademy/riggins/things.htm (reply to this comment)

From k. Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 09:22 (Agree/Disagree?) I like your example, and may I add that some christians, screw logic a little further than that, Saying that each one of those 7 days could have in fact been  hundred's or thousand's of years. poor liccle plant!(reply to this comment)

from doubter Monday, May 12, 2003 - 06:39 (Agree/Disagree?) The Family's knowledge of Creation science is rather elementary, so you can hardly use the average Family published arguments to help the sceptic mind accept creationism. I've been thinking about creation vs evolution a lot, and have read several books on the subject, but find that there is an equal amount on each side to give you the opportunity to make a choice. When considering how the human being is formed and taking into account what our attributes are it would seem more likely that we are made as a slave race, but with a sensitive originator (creator/creators): we can be given incentives because we can experience enjoyment as well as pain. But on the overall we are left in the dark and not intended to understand what we are. The Bible may have something to it and there are plenty of studies showing support for its authenticity and yet there are discrepancies which are only detected by the more discerning reader. After growing up, though, a person should accept that a few discrepancies in a matter does not signify that all is false. Admittedly it does undermine confidence in it. Hopefully the outcome would be to investigate further. But sadly most of us want something that is totally transparent and holds up in face of all scrutiny. That's only natural. Although I am less and less inclined to belive that there is anything in the world that can fall under that category. --Mind you I don't care to debate that point. Here is something which you can read if you want some of the antithetical facets. One must naturally counter balance this with all the pros and come to a well balanced conclusion. But I do appreciate the thorough approach this individual has taken to the ancient histories. http://www.angelfire.com/ca2/AncientIsrael/ (reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 01:04 (Agree/Disagree?) An equal amount on both sides? Perhaps I missed the vast amount of research creationists have done, but from what I have studied, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever for "creation-science", an oxy-moron if there ever was one. While a few discrepancies do not necessarily negate a certain theory, they do suggest that it is not our final answer, but only our best guess with the knowledge we have available to us right now. Two of the most interesting books I have read on this topic are The Blind Watchmaker (Richard Dawkins), and Darwin's Dangerous Idea (Daniel Dennet). Douglas Adams (hey, I haven't quoted him for a long time) said that concluding that the earth must be designed for us because we are so suited to it, is like a puddle looking at the mud it sits in and saying "this hole is perfect for me, it must exist solely for my benefit". IMO, religious belief and science exist on entirely different planes. Faith is the "substance of things hoped for", while science demands evidence and proof of it's claims. The danger is when one imposes itself on an another. It took the Catholic church until 1979 to apologise for sentencing Galileo for insisting that the earth orbits the sun. Our universe is indeed the product of design, but that is the essence of evolution. It's a slow and clumsy process, but it is design by mother nature nonetheless. No divine consciousness or intelligence is required. One of the fascinating things about technology and computers is that they are a model of how simple algorithms, when compounded, can achieve incredibly complex operations. From what I understand, that is the basic concept of evolution. Natural selection is an algorithmic process. The development of every organism and species is built from simplistic rules of natural selection. The one loophole for a God that theorists have speculated about is the big bang. All matter in our universe expanded out from a tiny speck, and when matter is compressed past a certain point of measurement called the Planck Constant, universal laws are no longer valid, and no one knows exactly what happened at that point. Stephen Hawking, an adamant atheist, was quite preturbed in his research of this, because he felt that it did point to the exist of something outside our understanding, and seemed to be divine. However, if the universe is not expanding infinitely, but will eventually contract into the Big Crunch, (which seems to many astronomists to be the case) then this see-saw effect may have been infinitely generating random universes, of which ours, and our tiny planet is only one of an infinite number of combinations. There's the story of the little old lady discussing the universe with a physicist. She was adamant that the universe sat on the back on a giant turtle. When the physicist asked her what supported the turtle she said "well silly, it's turtles all the way down". That's the problem I have with creationism. It's a neat answer to any line of questioning. "Where did God come from, how did he get here? What created him". It closes off any futher understanding or pursuit of knowledge at a very narrow point. Again to quote Douglas Adams, religion teaches that it's gods all the way up. While research may not yet have all the answers, I think that a scientific understanding of our world answers many more questions than blind faith. The desire to understand and know drives us as a species. Only a sadistic divinity would plant the tree of knowledge, create us with the need for understanding and then deny us the right to ask and discover. (reply to this comment)

From JohnnieWalker Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 00:17 (Agree/Disagree?) Isn't an algorithm basically a complex pattern (I know, it's an over-simplification)? Where does such a pattern originate from? How did the algorithm begin? Or did a simple 2-bit algorithm mutate and breed an infinite amout of little algorithmlets? Anyones thoughts for a penny.... Baffling a creationist may be easy enough (it's ironic how a 'creationist' isn't very creative), but for the evolutionist/scientist you don't have to go as far as delving into the origin of God. A simple question like "What is life?" or "How did soil evolve?" will have any of them baffled. -- More on those subjects another time. It's late and I must be off to bed. (reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, May 16, 2003, 21:48 (Agree/Disagree?) From what I understand, algorithms, as they pertain to natural selection basically means a series of steps that are guaranteed to produce a certain result. These algorithims, according to Dennett, can be defined by three characteristics: Substrate (or medium) neutrality. This basically means they are digital as opposed to analog. (Music is digital, a painting is analog) Algorithms for chess can be carried out regardless of whether you are playing with helicopters and skyscrapers or stones and sand. This also means that it is the logical processes and causal powers of the procedure that matter, not the medium, which means that evolutionary theory (as with many branches of theoretical science) can be simulated using computers. Underlying mindlessness. Although the overall structure and design may be brilliant, each individual process in the structure is simple and can be performed by a machine. Guaranteed results. It is a foolproof recipe for a specific result. When you execute the command, the result is guaranteed to produce a certain outcome. Basically, from what I understand, this is the key to evolutionary theory: the accumulation of design. Anything that happens, happens, and anything that works, works. When something works, it keeps on working, and those that don't keep trying. This was brought up before, but a theory out there is that human thought processes work in much the same way as genetic evolution. Memetics. Ideas and concepts that have advantages to their own survival built into them will survive over those that have none. Douglas Adams (I can quote him again :D) said that religion is such a powerful idea for us because the principle that it is deeply and morally wrong to question it is built into the concept, which is a very strong evolutionary mechanism for survival. As Wolf stated, Darwin's theory doesn't address the question of where or how life originated, only how it developed from micro-organisms to us. (reply to this comment)

From Mir Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 09:20 (Agree/Disagree?)  "It's a slow and clumsy process, but it is design by mother nature nonetheless"  Sorry Jules, but IMHO there is nothing slow or clumsy about nature. And who is Mother Nature? Is that another name for God? As a Christian, I believe that we are made in God's image.  That means that He made us with the "desire to understand and know" It was He who put that desire in us.  It is wrong to think that God would create us with these attributes and then deny us the the right to ask and discover.  God is not like that.  We were brought up with the wrong, wrong, WRONG understanding of who God is.  Guys, I'm not saying that I have all the answers, I'm not even saying that I agree with Creationists 100% on everything, but I do know that God is there and that He is good.  It took me years to find this out, but believe me, He is there! (reply to this comment)

From Debzi Saturday, May 17, 2003, 13:07 (Agree/Disagree?) Evolution is BULLSHIT a scientific way of denying our creator. Do you want to hear a joke? Why did Eve eat the apple? Because she didn't realize that Adam had a Banana. hi hihihi (reply to this comment)

From Mir Sunday, May 18, 2003, 12:15 (Agree/Disagree?) Hahahahahahaa!! Trust you to come out with a comment like that Gwo! (reply to this comment)

From Jules Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 12:24 (Agree/Disagree?) By mother nature, I mean the mindless process of trial and error that has resulted in the eradication of species that have not been able to adapt. I beg to differ in that nature is clumsy. Reproduction, for example, is a lot of overkill. A normal human sperm count consists of 20 million sperm per ejaculate. Is that really necessary if only one does the job and it's all preordained and created by God? 99.9% of all species ever alive are currently extinct (we are responsible for only a tiny fraction of those). Was that part of the master plan? I respect the right of those who believe in God to their own faith. I don't really want to debate the existance of God with anyone, as that's an argument that is sort of pointless for both sides. I just don't see any evidence that the universe was created by a divine power. (reply to this comment)

From Lauren Monday, May 19, 2003, 13:29 (Agree/Disagree?) Out of curiosity, wouldn't the "over kill" in reproduction actually work against evolution instead of in favor of it? Forgive the childishness of this question, but isn't evolution supposed to eliminate what is unnecessary? If so, doesn't that mean that if humans have been evolving for around for 3 1/2 million years (or whatever the actual number is) during which time we have been reproducing by sex, that our reproductive systems would've evolved to eliminate the "over kill" & to perfect the system of reproduction to only what is necessary? From what I understand there are many cases today where the male sperm count is dropping. This would indicate that we are evolving and nature is eliminating what is not necessary. But then at the same time, in every instance that these types of situations are reported, it is discussed with concern -- as a problem -- as something that will have a negative impact on future reproduction & population rates -- not as something beneficial. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, May 19, 2003, 15:09 (Agree/Disagree?) Did anyone hear about a study finding that a percentage of the sperm were actually "killer sperm", not used for actual fertilization, but would seek out and kill sperm from any other source?  In otherwords, if a woman had sex with two men in a certain time span (short enough for sperm from both men to still be around) then certain sperm would actually attack and kill each other.  It's true that huge numbers of individual sperm cells may seem like a "waste of sperm" but I think in this case the more you have the better the odds, and seeing as how the production of sperm requires extremely small amounts of energy and resources from the man, perhaps this is why its gone on relatively untouched by evolution, thus, the "overkill". Perhaps all that sperm really is necessary and we just don't know why yet.  I admit this is going out on a limb here, but maybe the declining sperm counts in men is evolutions response to the human overpopulation problem that is currently threatening the earth today.  Just thought I'd put that one out there!!! (reply to this comment)

From Joe H Monday, May 19, 2003, 23:04 (Agree/Disagree?) Not all scientists accept Baker's findings, so read at your own risk: http://home.earthlink.net/~calknight/Sperm_Warfare.htm http://home.earthlink.net/~calknight/Sperm_Warfare.htm">http://home.earthlink.net/~calknight/Sperm_Warfare.htm>(reply to this comment)

From Mir Monday, May 19, 2003, 15:47 (Agree/Disagree?) Umm- yeah, however, I don't think the problem of male infertility is as rampant in the third world... correct me if I'm wrong???  I would've thought that "survival of the fittest" would've meant that infertility should be a "problem" in the third world, and yet third world countries suffer the most from overpopulation... (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, May 19, 2003, 18:50 (Agree/Disagree?) Like I already said, I was going out on a limb by saying that.  However, the problem in the third world is not because the males are so fertile, but because women do not have adequate means to control their own reproductive cycles, thus they are basically slaves to their own bodies.  It has been shown that the empowerment of women by being given proper birth control methods as well as a proper education, raises the standard of living for the entire community.  If not, as is more so the case in the third world than the west, women are too often slaves to their own reproductive cycles as well as the men who control them. (I'm in no way a male basher, but sorry, its the truth in this case!) (reply to this comment)

From sonny Friday, May 16, 2003, 21:00 (Agree/Disagree?) Good points Jules, but IMO you, like many scientists, have tried to figure out a superior intelligence or life force with a limited mind. It's an overkill to you that it takes only one sperm to do the job. That’s because your focal point is possibly a bit off. Who knows, maybe it takes all those other little nobody sperms to push the star through to the goal. Kind of like saying that  Iverson could take on a whole team by himself because he is the main man. It takes all the other players to make him great, but many people only focus on him. It’s a human weakness, and especially a Western Hemisphere weakness, to look too much at the biggest, strongest, best, or winner. Very unlike the way a divine power must look at things, otherwise there would probably only be a super race with really intelligent people. Boring!! Even some of the threads on this site are getting a bit too heady and only for a certain few. Alas, the masses will be left behind. It is an interesting thread, but obviously one that most will crack their Webster’s open to peruse.  Not at all important, but interesting, is the fact that both you and Mir spelled existence wrong. Someone’s copying!!! (reply to this comment)

From Mir Sunday, May 18, 2003, 12:18 (Agree/Disagree?) LOL! Well spotted Sonny! Just curious, why do you think it's interesting? (reply to this comment)

From Jules Friday, May 16, 2003, 22:16 (Agree/Disagree?) Not to get too side tracked into reproduction, but if it really took 20 million sperm to do the job, then why would the IVF method called Intracytoplasmic Sperm Injection work with just one? The thing is we do know, and if nature worked perfectly and to maximum efficiency then it would be unecessary. Also, not to get too side-tracked on religion, but isn't the whole point of religion that there are chosen (or enlightened) few with the inside track to heaven/joy/success because they believe the "Truth"? "Straight is the gate and narrow the way ... and few there be that find it." Regarding this thread being too "heady" for the masses to pursue. I think you give people much too little credit. Most of the people I have met on here are extremely intelligent, (even if sometimes we all get carried away with nonsense). There are all kinds of threads on here on all kinds of topics. I am enjoying this one because it is something that I am very interested in personally, and these particular topics fascinate me. The freedom to ask, debate, question and discover what we believe about the big questions for ourselves is something I cherish and I hope will never take for granted. (reply to this comment)

From Wolf Saturday, May 17, 2003, 00:46 (Agree/Disagree?) Jules, I’m convinced that if there was a creator he / she / it made life very resilient, with the ability to adapt and thus survive. Hence the “overkill”. Perfection need not be getting the job done with as few resources as possible; it could be supplying enough resources to make sure the job gets done no matter what the obstacles.(reply to this comment)

From Mir Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 06:02 (Agree/Disagree?) You're right Jules, it is pointless to debate the existance of God since proof of His existance is very subjective... I really don't blame people for not wanting to go there, especially we who were born in such a horribly narrow-minded and controlling cult.  Far be it from me to try and "witness" to you guys!!!! LOL! No. There is no way that I would even want to do that, as that particular journey, should you wish to travel it, is incredibly personal and in my opinion, a private affair.  I don't mind talking about it at this point in my life if invited, but it's not something that I would do uninvited... Ughh! Yuck!!! Shudder!!! I HATED "witnessing"!!!!(reply to this comment)

From Jules Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 22:59 (Agree/Disagree?) Thanks Mir. Just to clarify, I didn't mean at all to say that you were "witnessing". I do respect your beliefs. Honestly, one of my deepest hopes for myself and all of us is that we can all find peace and make some sort of meaning of our lives. If some of us have found that, then no matter what road they have taken to bring them there, I salute them and am sincerely happy that what they have found works for them. J. (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 12:43 (Agree/Disagree?) I agree, evolution is in fact "clumsy" and does not always lead to perfection.  There are other forces constantly changing and shaping it.  For example, species may evolve to adapt to their environment then end up influencing the evolution of the environment itself, then in turn the environment may end up influencing the evolution of the species again, its all a cycle that is related and never really ends.  Even the extinction of a species has an affect on the environment and other species within it.(reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 09:57 (Agree/Disagree?) Here's some quotes from Darwins autobiography I found interesting, Hopefully someone else will too. "The more we know of the fixed laws of nature, the more incredible do miracles become--that the gospels cannot be proved to have been written simultaneous with the events--that they differ in many important details, far too important as it seemed to me to be admitted as the ususal inaccuracies of eyewitnesses--by such reflections as these, which I give not as having the least noveltry or value, but as they influenced me, I gradually came to disbelieve in Christianity as a divine revelation...Beautiful as is the morality of the New testament, it can hardly be denied that its perfection depends in part on the interpretation which we now put on metaphors and allegories." "That there is much suffering in the world, no one disputes.  Some have attempted to explain this in reference to man by imagining that it serves for his moral improvement.  But the number of men in the world is a nothing compared with that of all other sentinent beings and these often suffer greatly without any moral improvement.  A being so powerful and so full of knowledge as a God who could create the universe, is to our finite minds omnipotent and omniscient, and it revolts our understanding to supose that his benevolence is not unbounded, for what advantage can there be in the suffering of millions of lower animals throughout almost endless time." "At the present day the most usual argument for the existence of an intelligent God is drawn from the deep inward convictions and feelings which are experienced by most persons.  But it cannot be doubted that Hindus, Mohamadans, and others might argue in the same manner and with equal force in favor of the existence of one God, or of many Gods, or as with the Buddists of no God." "Nor must we overlook the probability of the constant inculcation in a belief in God on the minds of children producing so strong and perhaps an inherited effect on their brains not yet fully developed, that it would be as difficult for them to throw off their belief in God, as for a monkey to throw off its instinctive fear and hatred of a snake."   (reply to this comment)

From xhrisl Tuesday, May 13, 2003, 03:55 (Agree/Disagree?) To quote a brilliant author who once wrote in response to the "God" question the last and only message attributed to God---written in flaming letters on a forgotten planet at the far reaches of the galaxy---"We apologize for the Inconvenience."(reply to this comment)

From Jules Wednesday, May 14, 2003, 23:10 (Agree/Disagree?) Not only is he incredibly hot, has a enormous gun, and writes brilliantly on feminist theory, but he is a Douglas Adams fan.  People, what's not to love? (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, May 12, 2003, 11:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Pardon me if I'm being dense, but, what the hell are you talking about????  That completely went way over my head.  Are trying to say you are procreationism because of all the overwhelming evidence to support it?  And I'm not sure what you are basing your statement that humans were made as a slave race.  Slaves to whom?  As for all the evidence to support the Bible's authenticity, I have no doubt it was written, but there is evidence showing that over the many translations it may have lost some of its original content and meaning.  I am not aware of any evidence supporting the belief that the Bible is the "word of God" other than the fact that it and other Christians say that it is.  Sorry, but you completely lost me as to the whole point of what your trying to say!(reply to this comment)

From PompousJohn Monday, May 12, 2003, 16:59 (Agree/Disagree?) He's just saying the truth is out there, Scully. Our alien lords that genetically engineered us to be their slave race planted sceptics like you among us to keep us from ever knowing the truth. How could you betray your own kind for those damn aliens? Don't you know we're just cattle to them? Sheeez... "There are none so blind..." (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Monday, May 12, 2003, 18:32 (Agree/Disagree?) Alas, Moulder, I now see the error of my ways!  How could I have been so blind?  Oh, the shame of being a pawn in the hands of the alien lords!  I've been so out of it, please pray for me to get the victory and get back in the spirit!  (reply to this comment)

from Anthony Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 13:36 (Agree/Disagree?) Well, you all can dance with the devil and his monkeys for all I care; as for me and my house, we will listen to Birttney Spears with our Great Creator!!!!! (reply to this comment)

from xhrisl Saturday, May 10, 2003 - 03:26 (Agree/Disagree?) Gotta go with you there...did you ever just wonder why TF didn't encourage self thought and higher education---because they knew it would cause you to question "your" beliefs, which were really their beliefs. And, as we all know, that leads to backsliding! (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, May 10, 2003, 11:37 (Agree/Disagree?) xhrisl:  exactly, we were kept in a "mind prison" during our childhoods.  If what they were shoving down our throats was so true then it would stand up to a little "higher education".(reply to this comment)

From Nique Saturday, May 10, 2003, 13:12 (Agree/Disagree?) Frmrjoyish: Your article was great and I also agree with you. My own studies, specifically readings for my anthropology courses, have led me to that conclusion as well. (reply to this comment)

from Joe H Friday, May 09, 2003 - 18:05 (Agree/Disagree?) Well duh!  Just kidding sweetie, how else to express my agreement with something so obviously true? (reply to this comment)

From frmrjoyish Saturday, May 10, 2003, 11:42 (Agree/Disagree?) Joe H:  Thanks!  I've read some of your scathing replies to people in regards to their grammar and spelling.  Thank you for being kind as spell check was not working on my computer when I worked on this article!  (I was holding my breath to see if I would get a tongue lashing from you!) :)! (reply to this comment)

From K. Friday, May 09, 2003, 18:40 (Agree/Disagree?) In total agreement on that one babe. It's a shame that people who have already submitted themselves to the tom foolery that is faith, won't view or read on anything other than what will confirm their own beliefs. Just the same reason we were limited in our reading and viewing in the cult. It took a while for me to renounce all faith and it took differant stages of in than out than in..The gaping casim of misinformation and pure lack of it gave me the desire to learn, not like a dumb sheep but like an investigator of knowledge. The adults in the cult just stopped learning. They lost their ability to question and evalulate.    (reply to this comment)

From K. Friday, May 09, 2003, 19:22 (Agree/Disagree?) Amendment for being too silly.*tom foolery  *minefield(reply to this comment)