Creationist Museum

by Majicaesar on November 3, 2006 · 100 comments

in Uncategorized

It’s old news perhaps, but this is a news story about a Kentucky museum that is devoted to creationism and the conjecture that dinosaurs lived alongside Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  It made me so sad upon watching it.  I despair for our sub par education system.

alphamonkey sez: The fact that the owner/curator keeps using the word ‘logically’ makes me feel funny

  • Reddit
  • Google Bookmarks
  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • LinkedIn
  • RSS
  • StumbleUpon
  • Yahoo! Buzz
  • Posterous
  • Tumblr
  • springmo

    It doesn’t help that it looks like it’s geared towards kids.

  • Alan

    I don’t know where to start, I wonder if Jonathan Rugman ever thought he’d ask the question “If you put T-Rex on Noah’s Ark, wouldn’t he just eat all the other animals?” for a serious news interview.

    Either way, bad luck Alphamonkey, it looks like you’ve got no link to us humans, luckily the Lord has seen fit to give you opposable thumbs so you can still work the internet.

  • Thewellis

    And alas these stupid creationists are spreading the word like pitch. thick murky and smells funny. and this tide of fundamentalism is slowly making its way over here. some schools called ‘acadamies’ (they’re part funded by local businessmen *shivers* and mostly by the gov, however the curriculum is up to the businessman) have started to spread the word as an alternative to Darwin even though the Darwinist theory can be proved and creationism cannot.

  • Alan

    Check out what Bill Hicks had to say about dinosaurs in the Bible, it’s on his best-of “Philosophy” album, extremely erudite.

  • Boss Robot

    A LITERAL TRANSLATION OF THE BIBLE! I can just see the incest now, in all it’s biblical glory. The more you know…

  • Majicaesar

    Unfortunately, Darwinism cannot be concretely proven.  It has a ton of physical evidence to back up the theory, true, but the evolutionary species holes sadly have not been filled.  Creationism is simply a conjecture, with no real physical evidence to back it up scientifically.  And therefore not a Theory, but a belief only.  We cannot disprove the idea of a god, its a catch all idea.  But then, you can’t disprove the existence of a giant invisible flying spaghetti monster who lives just above itallian restaurants.  After all it is a possibility, as preposterous as it sounds, that when we smell spaghetti outside the restaurant, we smell the spaghetti monster.  After all we have 1 form of tangible evidence.

  • Majicaesar

    btw, for those who don’t get the joke, I do not believe in a spaghetti monster.

  • Alan

    WTF? There is no Spaghetti Monster? I suppose you’ll try and tell me we don’t need to prepare for a rising of the undead next.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Whoa, whoa, WHOA.  That’s just crazy talk.

  • Boss Robot

    Oh they will will come…

  • Majicaesar

    your belief in the spaghetti monster is within your right to believe, don’t let naysayers like me take that away from you.  As for the undead, I suggest the Zombie survival guide.  I’m simply trying to avoid literalist flaming.

  • Alan

    At least when the dead rise up The Zombie Survival Guide will be a lot more useful than a Bible.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    In its defense, the Bible is a lot heavier, so it could conceivably do more cranial damage to a zombie.

  • Alan

    You’ve got a point, plus you never need to reload a Bible. Although it would have to be a good old fashioned one, preferably with brass corner re-enforcement, one of those little Gideon jobs like you get in hotel rooms wouldn’t even fend off the weakest of ghouls.

  • Majicaesar

    can you behead a zombie with a gold gilded paper cut?  If so then bible all the way, but it has to include the apocrypha.  The king john version doesn’t have enough heft.

  • Alan

    I bow to your superior knowledge of religous publications. In the meantime I’ll stick with my 12 Gauge Beretta and my Gransfors Small Frorest Axe.

  • Boss Robot

    I like where these comments are going

    Behold! World War Z!!!

  • Alan

    Don’t worry, I’m ready to destroy the staircase at a moments notice.

  • Majicaesar

    you can use, a beretta and an axe if you want to do it the easy way.  The zombie death (necrocide?) by bible is only if you want to do things in an unnecessarily roundabout way.  Creationists by all means are free to use their bibles, I’m sure a 4 pound hunk of loose leaf is more than enough to protect you against the undead.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    Maybe there were zombies on the ark…

    Make believe is fun! Maybe I’ll be a christian after all!

  • Alan

    I know it’s been said before, Jesus dies, three days later he is risen from the dead, Paul smashes his brain in with a hammer. OK, so I made the last bit up, but you could argue that the New Testament is one of the first Zombie stories. And why didn’t everyone freak out when he turned up again? I’m thinking that 2000 years ago if you’d have shown them a butane cigarette lighter they’d think you were some kind of Magician/God/Devil, so surely coming back from the dead would have warranted a whole book to itself.

  • psfowler

    Everyone is so harsh on the Christian scientists, as if they were pulling their theories out of thin air or something…

    The answers in Genesis stuff is probably the most easy to understand and SCIENTIFICALLY sound material I have ever seen. You all need to stop rapping on the science until you’ve checked it out for yourself.

    Besides, once you’ve read through a book like the 20 Questions book they have…you’ll think Darwin’s the biggest idiot that ever lived.

    As for Dinosaurs on the ark…don’t forget…all living things ate plant life when they were first created…AND all the animals were peaceful.

    http://www.answersingenesis.orgMuseaum Website

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    You all need to stop rapping on the science until you’ve checked it out for yourself.” You show me even the slightest hint of science in Creationism and ID and I’ll check it out.  So far there have been no traces of it.

  • psfowler

    Hey man,

    Sorry to burst your bubble…think about this:

    The Bible was written by over 40 authors over a period of 1600 years and is constantly used as a reference in archaeology because of its amazing historical accuracy…its a book worth considering.

    Almost every branch of science was either founded, co-founded, or dramatically advanced by scientists who believed the Bibles account of creation and the flood.

    The universal tendancy of systems is to run down and go from order to disorder…not disorder to order…even the universe appears to be winding down. This is in stark contrast to the views of evolutionary science’s theories.

    Observed changes in living things head in the wrong direction to support evolution…mutations currently observed in life lead to a loss, not a gain in genetic information…a gain needed to support evolutionary claims.

    Darwin expected the discovery of millions of transitional fossils to be found. What has been found is a handful of disputable fossils that make for a poor reconstruction of the fossil tree evolution claims to have.

    There are TONS of scientific observations that support a young universe: decay of the earth magnetic field, amount of helium in the atmostphere, polystrate fossils.

    There is so much more…go to http://www.answersingenesis.org and research it yourself. Read the Answers book for starters. Do the research, and then we’ll talk.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    No bubble to burst.  I have done the reading, and Creationism is in no shape or form a branch of science.  Science is about the measurable, quantifiable universe, and doesn’t rely on ‘God did it’ as an answer. Evolutionary biology continues to be tested time and time again, and it always holds up.  ID and Creationism simply cannot be tested (either falsely or positively). And no, there’s absolutely zero evidence of a young earth or young universe.

  • psfowler

    Hey man…

    You’re wrong on multiple accounts. I’ll admit when I’m wrong, and I expect you to do so as well. Sounds like you’re being narrow-minded by only considering you side of the story. If you’ve done the research, then why don’t you give us something to back up your claims…

    . There is evidence of a young earth. Where did you read that there is not any??? Where???

    . You cannot test evolutionary theory or creationist theory. they are examples of what happened in the past. You can only test theories about what is, not what was or what happened. It’s called the difference between operational science and historical science. Any valid scientist will admit that you cannot prove the theory of evolution.

    . There is GREAT evidence that Creationism is a solid theory of the origin of the universe…in fact, we’re missing a lot less evidence for our theory than you are. Where are all those transitional fossils from your MILLIONS of years of evolution??? All I see is a handful of fragments and scientists like Haeckel who believed so much in evolution that they forged their work to support it.

    Too bad you’re not in the atlanta area, or I’d get together and talk it through with you.

    At the very least, if youre going to keep the conversation up…back it up with a book or tape or name.

  • Boss Robot

    Well, according to that whole Occam’s razor principle, the solution that “God did it” is the simplest. Playing devil’s advocate by supporting the whole creationist idea. How ironic!

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    It’s much easier to shoot another idea down, than to defend your own. I still haven’t seen any evidence that the bible is anything more than a moral fairy tale. When you’re dealing with something that truly can’t be proven or disproven, there’s nowhere to get your theories but from thin air.

    Regardless, I’d like to think that whatever’s up there (if there is something up there) wouldn’t care what book I read, as long as I was a good person. I couldn’t say for certain if the Bible is right, the Koran, or even Greek mythology.

    I have no problem with religion, whatever floats your boat. It’s when you start shooting down anyone else’s ideas, or possibly just shooting the person, that I start to get a bit bothered. Fanatics bother the hell out of me. Not that I’m accusing anyone of that, just saying.

  • psfowler

    I make one post with reference to the material that defends my position, and all of a sudden, you expect me to defend a creationist position in a blog? Come on man! You couldn’t defend evolution in a blog…in fact, most evolutionists can’t defend it at all. Anyway…my defense is the Answers book, by the Answers In Genesis people. Pick that book, or pick any one of their 100’s of books & DVD’s. I don’t need a defense. There’s a reason AIG can build a 25 million dollar museaum. They’ve got the answers. You need to read up.

    Oh, and one more thing…PLEASE…whatever you do. Don’t think that God is not concerned with your life, or that living a good life is somehow going to get you to heaven. Its just not true. It’s a bet you don’t want to make…and my defense?

    Northpoint Church – Sermons – Listen to the series titled Judiasm, the Journey Begins. I think it will begin to put thigns into perspective.

    BLOG me back when you have considered my defense.

  • Alan

    Perhaps now is a good time to invoke Godwins law and throw Hitler or Nazis into the debate.

  • Majicaesar

    If we wanted to look at a modern example of evolution, we should look at mocrobiology.  Viruses, Bacteria, Germs, and other mocro-organisms.  They evolve at a very rapid rate compared to other species.  Our vaccines for Polio, Measles, and Hepatitis are now ineffective because the current strains have evolved past the vaccines’ potency.  The “Super” AIDS virus is another example, as our current AZT therapy is proving entirely ineffective towards this stronger strain. 

    If you would like to argue that these may have been here since day 1 and we just haven’t seen them until now, then I present a modern day petrie dish, the hospital.  Area are comtaminated with known strains, and they clean them with industrial cleaners.  The problem is that areas infected occasionally have a micro-organism that has a thinker membrane or can co-exist in a hostile chemical environment.  New strains of diseases are developing rapidly in these places. 

    If they have been around all along, then the same strain would have multiplied at the same rate as it is now and would have become the predominate strain, and primary focus of concern for the medical community from day 1.  Instead we fight back new and improved strains constantly.  So survival of the fittest is the name of the game here.  There is no loss in these mutations psfowler.  Just a microcosmic support of evolution previously unknown to the bible’s authors, and containing a traceable biological evolutionary trail.

  • psfowler

    Hey man…don’t mean to burst your bubble…but the “evolution” you are talking about here is always a loss of genetic information…not a gain. Site an example where a creature added genetic information in it’s “evolution” and you’ll actually be backing up Darwins claim. The problem is, there are no examples of evolution today where creatures gained information…only in theory.

  • Thewellis

    Psfowler, you seem to be an angry young man. you write with a fever against theories with the sound foundations of some book.

    sigh. look lets try to lay down some ground rules. firstly neither side can be proved fully. hence the discrepancies. evolution is just a theory but it explains why we have dinosaur fossils as opposed to dinosaur bones. (the fossilization process takes millions of years the bible said the earth was created in 4004 BC). however we haven’t seen the proper evolution of a large species (e.g. mammals) or large part of a smaller species (e.g. flies) but what we do have is differing evolutionary traits. such as those that Darwin saw when he beagled it down to the Galapagos’s islands.

    that aside the thing i fear from the creationist museum is not the changing of scientific laws but the closure of ones mind. those that support the bible seem either retarded or unable to accept new ideas. (but those on the other side of the fence seem indignant and a wee bit haughty). and blind faith is dangerous. it is why a group of men took over those airplanes on September the eleventh. so when people start to use a mere book as primary evidence it scares me. it leads to fanaticism of the 1930’s kind in Germany, the kind that occurred in late 1960’s early 70’s china.

    read the bible by all means but never assume the stories to be what happened over the morals they try to instill (and are ignored)

    oh and always remember what jesus said “if he strike me on one cheek i shall present unto him the other.”

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    I’m only haughty because I know I’m better. Now, be a good sport and fetch my monocle, would you old chap?

    *harumph* yes, yes. quite.

  • psfowler

    Thewellis,

    If I sound a wee bit mad…it’s because everyone assumes that creationism has not scientific basis…that we’re all working on blind faith…when in fact, TONS–HUNDREDS of publications and scientific studies have been published by Christian Scientists.

    the truth is, when we assume that what the bible says about how God created the earth and sent the flood…etc, and then we look at the scientific facts. There are a number of Dating methods, scientific patterns, and observations that support a young earth view of the world…a theory that in many ways BETTER explains the collection of fossils we see today than millions of years does. 

    When we look at the fossil record according to Darwin’s theory…we find a lot less fossil evidence of the evolutionary process than he expected to find…millions of fossils less. It leaves a BIG gap to fill.

    As far as religious fundamentalism is concerned…I agree with you that power and religious views have caused quite horrific things in the past. But we cannot discount religion over the few people who gain power and use it for ill means. I’ll remind you that atheism was a belief held exclusively by Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao Zedong, and Pol Pot. I’ll also remind you that atheism and evolutionary thought do not form a moral basis for anything…whereas Christianity has clearly taught, as you commented earlier, that we are to live peaceably. The Christians who committed crimes like the Crusades, or even molesting children…were at least being inconsistant with their belief system, not consistant with it.

    Lastly, let me say this … just check the science out on our side yourself. It’s there…don’t deny it. If you turn a blind eye to the volumes of material we have, you have no right to call us blind…you’ve got to be willing to look at both sides…and look to the people leading this movement, not to some priest the news media in Europe dug up to comment on how he’s teaching evolution in church.

    The funny thing is…the book I’ve been mentioning all along, the Answer Book by Answers in Genesis, has covered every thing you’ve mentioned…and it’s the entry level book for people who want to learn about creation. I’ve been referencing it all along…If they’ve anticipated all of the questions in this blog so far…they’re worth listening to for a little bit.

    Hope this helps. Just trying to set the record straight.

    “Always be ready to give an answer to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope in you…”

    1 Peter 3:15-16

  • springmo

    Lack of transitional fossils? Ok, I’ll take that one. Due to the fact that very special circumstances are required to preserve living things, i.e fossilization, we cannot expect to have a complete picture of the evolutionary record. What we do have, however, is snapshots of evolution at work such as the fossils of Archaeopteryx, Ambulocetus, and Tiktaalik. Take the Burgess Shale for example also, it contains over 140 species. These transitional species don’t last long in an evolutionary sense, which is why they are referred to as “transitional,” this also explains why there aren’t a huge number of preserved specimens.

    If you want me to address any of the other “problems” you have with evolution, feel free to ask. I just don’t feel like going through each one.

  • psfowler

    I think that the lack of transitional fossils is millions of fossils to short…and that the snapshots that you mentioned are good evidence, if there was only more. These few fossils I am more willing to believe are extinct species of animals. And here’s why…

    If we are the process of millions of years of mistakes…good mistakes…don’t you think that in the millions of mistakes and mutations of adding DNA, we might have some broken parts, or useless features that didn’t stop us from being the dominant species? Why is it that our bodies are so amazingly efficient? Why is it that of the millions of things that our bodies do, we aren’t carrying any harmless and useless features? Is evolution that efficient…I think not. We’re smart, but the stuff we create breaks all the time. Evolution created a mistake that can live 100 years on food and water and exercise. Wow. Can we get it to recreate the computer please?

    Lastly, don’t forget about the complex processes of the body. Some of our features work because of many parts spread all across the body coordinate their efforts, how did these complex systems all evolve slowly and work together? It’s like having a watch with a missing gear. These complex systems are useless without one part…did evolution really make these things.

    I’m sorry, but on one level, evolutionary theory is like setting a bomb off in a car factory and expecting to get a Rolls Royce…It’s a game of statistical nonscence…of 1 in a trillion chances. And the evidence doesn’t support it well enough. and logic gets quite questionable.

    It’s not a stupid thing to try to see the evidence through the Bibles perspective… it’s quite accurate historically and archaologically…and assuming that their might be a God, just to see things from a new perspective, isn’t going to hurt anything. It just might shed new light on the subject of life.

  • Boss Robot

    why did God give men nipples?

  • psfowler

    It’s called design economoy…we have an efficient creator…Answers book page 123…and they do functin as a sexual stimulant…God created sex too.

  • Boss Robot

    Ok ok, God wants my nipples touched but what about Albinos. Why did it create Albinos when we were doing just fine with pigment. And white people, what is the purpose of lighter pigment?

    And goosebumps? And what about supernumerary nipples? I think two are enough for stimulation. Intelligent design and evolution can co-exist! One is science the other philosophy.

    What does God want from me!? I’m a good person, I don’t sin(too much) I try to avoid violence and forgive those who trespass against me. My life has morals! And I didn’t need the help of the bible. It’s cool if you do though but i’ve learned through the teachings of God’s other children. hopefully God does not punish me with an eternity of the worst suffering ever for that.

  • psfowler

    Boss…

    For a guy who seems to have lots of deep questions about evolution…why don’t you have any of those questions about God? The fact of the matter is, God isn’t out to explain albinos or nipples, or anything like that. We can make some great assumptions and determinations from science, but the truth of the matter is, we are created in his image…that was a point he made sure he made clear. We have a choice, we have the ability to think and love…and we are eternal beings. that also means that our sin (turning from God) condemns us to separation from God…which is what Hell is. Separation from God and all that He is…all that is good. Does God work on a scale of how good you have been…NO. No one gets in on their own merit…you’re either 100% good, or going to hell…..or you’re forgiven for your sins by excepting the substitutionary death of Jesus.

    Sound weird…visit http://www.northpoint.org/messages and listen to Everybody is Invited…it might be the most important 40 minutes in your life. It was for me.

  • Alan

    Here’s evolution for you – 500 years ago if you stood up and said “The Bible isn’t actually what really happened” you’d be burned as a heretic. Today when people still insist on believing every letter of the Bible, they just look a bit silly.

    I still think that if dinosaurs were running around the garden of Bethsemany, even the most dull-witted of disciple would have mentioned it – “And lo, the Lord said – Oh for my sake! Look at that 30 cubit high lizard eating my donkey, quick Paul, write that down!”

  • springmo

    Psfowler, you didn’t present any evidence in your dispute with what I said. You didn’t even explain why there “should be” more fossils. The closest you came to an actual objection was the idea that “we might have some broken parts, or useless features that didn’t stop us from being the dominant species?” But I can simply answer that by saying I think you’re completely disregarding natural selection, which is the agent of evolution.

  • psfowler

    Springmo

    I’m not ignoring natural selection…I am just saying that we’re FAR TOO EFFICIENT to be products of a random process that relies on survivial of the fittest. AND that if there were MILLIONS of transitional forms from microbs to man, there ought to be a few more than fossils that show transitional forms…I’ve look and only found about 100 questionable ones… very questionable ones.

    Genentic disorders are poor examples of natural selection since they are always the product of a loss of genetic information…not a gain. And the tonsils and appendix actually do have very important roles in the function of the body-the appendix and tonsils contain lymphatic tissue to fight sickness…sounds like your information is a little out of date…especially since you could find these things out by simply “google-ing” the subject. 

    Again…must I say…EVERY SINGLE SUBJECT you have mentioned is answered in full in 100 pages in ONE BOOK with references to 64 other resources. Go get the answers book from Answers in Genesis, or search their site…I don’t think you’ve done your research with the right books. These are OLD arguments with faulty evidence. I’d love to debate you more, but it’s easier if you’d just get the book.

    Let me know how to get it to you, and I’ll buy it even!  How’s that?

  • springmo

    Oh and people carrying harmful features? You mean like genetic disorders? There are plenty. Useless features? How about the human appendix or tonsils.

    I’ve read several books on Darwin, not just “20 questions” and I have no reason to believe he was an “idiot.” Look, there’s nothing you can say I won’t have a response to, and not one based in pseudoscience like yours. Analogies about watches are not scientific in nature.

  • BADD

    I would like psfowler to explain Downs Syndrome to me.

    That is all.

  • springmo

    Agreed. Down Syndrome is the gain of chromosomes (you might want to google that).

    I didn’t have to “google” the appendix and tonsils, they’re common examples. I don’t admit for a second that those are not good examples. The only reason your book has a response to them is because they’re such common examples. Well, try to explain why we get scurvy when we don’t eat fruit? I can explain. It’s because the ancestors of humans used to have a lot of fruit in their diet, so they didn’t need to produce their own vitamin C in their bodies. Now that people don’t eat as much fruit as our ancestors and we haven’t needed to produce our own vitamin C, we get a defficiency when we don’t eat it.

    Also, you yet again avoided explaining why there SHOULD be more transitional fossils. The number we have is perfectly consistent with what you would expect considering the special circumstances required for fossilization. And if the transitional fossils we have are “questionable” such as a dinosaur with feathers, a whale with feet, a fish that walks on all fours, I’m not sure any evidence will ever be good enough for you.

  • psfowler

    Springmo…

    Cool. I’m glad you admit when your wrong. So tonsils and the appendix are out. (please mention any more Excuse me if you don’t mind my confusion with scurvy…to my understanding this is a nutritional problem. I can’t see how it relates to evolution. The fact that God created our bodies to operate on certain nutrients, and that they falter or die without them doesn’t relate to creation or evolution for me at all. After sin God subjected the world to sin, decay and death, which explains why we are in the shape we are in, and why we see so many malfunctions in the life around us.

    I’ll agree that Down Syndrome is an addition of genetic information…but an unhelpful one…and the only one I know about. I guess I expected more than a coping mistake to be observed in our lifetime for evolutionary evidence. Seems to me it’s just another effect of sin. But I’ll be willing to consider other examples.

    As far as the transitional fossils arguement is concerned. I am only trying to make a point that a lot of evolutionary science’s expectations are not being met. Darwin expected to see more transitional fossils in the fossil record. He also expected the aboringines to have less genetic information and be less evolved that we are…both of which were not to his expectation. I’m not saying these facts disprove his theory. I am saying that they are two of many holes in his philosophy. Holes that evolutionists are not usually willing to admit even exist, even as you used disproven examples of vestial organs.

    I’m not into making myself look great…I just want you to research both sides with an open mind. Don’t find many evolutionists with any arguements that creationists have not answered. And I cannot find a lot of evolutionists who are willing to answer my questions…like these:

    If humans never existed with dinosaurs, why do the Chinease have dragons so predominantly in their culture? Why do we have dragon legends in our medival tales? Why are there cave drawings of dinosaur animals on the Grand Canyon walls??? EVEN the BIBLE mentions a creature that breathes fire, and a creature called Behemoth with a tale like a cedar (Job 40)

    If fossilization occured over millions of years, why are there widespread occurances of polystrate fossils, the lack of fossilized layers in rock strata, and the occurance of unfossilized dinosaur bones???

    Why are there no longer any undisputable ape to man evolutionary fossils??? (Want the list? the answers book, page 126 for their names and disproof)

    How did processes and things like the blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum, teh photosynthetic apparatus, and the pupal trasnformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly come to be in evolution is a series of small gradual changes over millions of years?

    Why are there hundreds of worldwide traditions among indigenous peoples about the global flood with features common to the account of the bible?

    Why does the universe seems to be winding down and falling apart, instead of still advancing as it has in the past (according to evolution)?

    Feel free to respond…or just suggest a book. I’ve stayed true to the resource I suggested to you. I’ll be glad to consider your side…I just want to save you from typing it all out.

  • Thewellis

    its quite fascinating how a simple argument over whether a creationist museum should exist broils over into a full blown theological debate. the oddity is is that only one person seems willing to defend creationism and all its glory (psfowler) and everyone else seems to edge towards the darwinist corner. including me.

    but anyway back to the matter at hand. teeth prove intelligent design wrong, if they were perfect then why do we have dentists and orthodontists?

    secondly i went to that site psfowler was on about. the first thing i asked was about cain’s wife. dang it didn’t give me a straight answer. so much for all answers. but that merely discredits the website.

    the argument about the watch and the watchmaker was put forward by thomas aquinas. and in essence because the watch is complex it will be impossible to put the parts in a box, shake it, and hey presto a watch. however the problem in this question (the existence of a watchmaker) is that the universe is on the verge of being infinite, all possibilities being played out, and so there is just one chance that life could emerge.

    ID is also a bit of an iffy subject for it was suggested by a scientist who although believes in the concept does not like the idea of it being hijacked by the fundamentalists. ID is untrue if only because the fanatics won’t allow a rational debate over it (any scientist willing to support the idea in a debate suddenly becomes a part of the cause in general).

    richard dawkins also has a few things to say on the subject (he’s a fanatical atheist). he asks this where does god come from? and i’m inclined to ask the same question when looking at the creationists.

  • psfowler

    Dear Thewellis,

    I don’t understand all of what you are trying to say, but let me respond to what I can understand. I’ll leave the bit about Cains wife and the one chance for life to emerge for you to elaborate on…so I can respond fully. (Cains wife is explained fully in the answers book)

    Where does God come from…well, actually, the Bible calls God the self-existing one. He is the creator of everything. By definition, the uncreated one. Does God need an origin? No. Just as in evolution, something had to exist in the beginning…from most evolutionists, it was the universe. Well, okay, then on the same note, where did the universe originate from? It’s an unanswerable question. something had to exist first.

    Teeth…why does inperfection lend itself to “evolutionary proof” God created the world perfect, and when man sinned, he subjected ALL of CREATION to death and decay. Why do we need a dentist…because the world is dying…and God will recreate the world, redeem man from his sin permanently, and then…teeth will last. Come on…what kind of science is this?

    Oh, by the way. Maybe the people who visit transbuddha are leaning on the evolutionary side…but don’t forget that (at least in the US) most individuals do not believe in evolution.

    Lastly, Don’t discredit a website for not giving you the answer you wanted. The explaination of Cains wife is solid. Where did he get his wife…from the children that Adam and Eve had. Why is this correct…well, for one, the bible says he lived more than 800 years. You would probably have more kids in that amount of time too. Why was this ok? Why was it not incest? Well, because God instituted laws against incest a few thousand years later when genetically man was not capable of living as long and his genes were more likely to produce flawed children when two people of very common genes had kids…like brother and sister, etc. God was pretty smart to make that law, don’t you think? Especially since we knew nothing of genetics at the time.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Considering how poorly the US ranks in basic scientific knowledge and proficiency, the idea that evolutionary science isn’t particularly compelling. That’s just as much an indicator of educational failing as it is theological faith. Secondly, considering some of the other fun facts Americans have believed (Saddam was involved for 9/11: 70% of Americans), I wouldn’t put too much stock in that opinion.

    Look, there is no methodology that can test (either for or against) creationism or I.D. Therefore its not science. Its theology, and thereby has no place in education or scientific discussion. Evolution, however, can be (and has been) tested extensively, and it continues to hold up.  Ditto for carbon dating, paleontology, and any number of sciences that have a basis in empirical evidence, observation, and rigorous testing.

    Can you point to even a single credible peer-reviewed research paper that backs up a young earth theory?  How about one for creationism? You can’t, because there aren’t any. Science and religion don’t have to be incompatible, as they cover very different aspects of the human experience.  Frankly, as long as your arguments boil down to ‘because the bible/god says so’, there’s no point in continuing this discussion.

  • Alan

    I think this has sort of lost direction, what happened to the Zombies and Flying Spaghetti Monsters? I’m sure the bible mentioned them, well at least the Zombie.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    Indeed. I’ve been in way to many theological debates in my time, so when anyone tries to engage me in one, I just tell them “whatever floats your boat, just don’t kill anyone over it”. Then I usually eat some pie.

    Zombie pie.

  • BADD

    “I’ll agree that Down Syndrome is an addition of genetic information…but an unhelpful one…and the only one I know about. I guess I expected more than a coping mistake to be observed in our lifetime for evolutionary evidence. Seems to me it’s just another effect of sin. But I’ll be willing to consider other examples.”

    Psfowler,

    With all the respect I can muster, this admission alone unravels your whole argument.

    Benificial or not, Down’s Syndrom proves that there is instances of genetic building, not just decay.  Is it hard to make the assumption that this could also happen in a positive way?  WHy should I give more examples when one does what I needed?

    Also, if you bother to look up things that may not fit into your 20 questions book, which I have read, than you can find tons of examples of interspecies mating, Syndroms and illnesses caused by additions of genetics, and countless incidences of animal species, still alive today, refining their own genetic make up to adapt to changing environments.

    Grafting blows your theories out of the water.  Simply allowing two kinds of plants to share genetic traits, causes mutations that have been extremely benificial to man.

    You speak of research, but you provide none.  I have provided you one key place to look for evidence, and a bunch more information to study.  I have seen what you have to offer, and, quite frankly, I am not impressed.

    Do some independant research.  Start at the Library, not your church.

    Also.  A little about litteralism. 

    I think it is fine that you and others have an extreme outlook on your religion.  I would never tell someone what they should believe, or how.

    I do however hate ignorance.  It is ok to believe something with all your heart, but you cannot ignore the world around you.  Think with your mind.  Study the scientific method.  It is the only way you will ever find a way to prove anything about creationism.

    As for my personal beliefs.

    I believe god created the universe.  It did this in a way that no human could ever comprehend.  We can never understand why or who God is.  We only can look up, bow, or whatever we wish to do to honor him, and know that something made all of this. 

    I also believe god created life on this planet.  He didn’t make Adam and Eve and a bunch of animals and plants, he created one thing.  What ever it was, it was given life, and the desire to grow.  It also was given the power to multiply.  It grew and evolved.  Through billions of years, countless environmental changes, and the intense desire of survival, it transformed this planet into what it is today.

    Did God have a direct hand in this?  Who knows?  I believe anyone who feels they need to tell me what God did, is not only lieing to me, but to themselves.  Face it.  No one will ever know how the universe was created.  We tell these stories to make ourselves feel better.  It is fine if you want to do that, but do not impede scientific study (which has nothing to do with religion) and keep your beliefs where they belong, to yourself.

  • psfowler

    BADD

    Your examples of Downs Syndrome and interspecies mating and breeding plants don’t “prove” evolution. They are simply evidence that fits your theory…and poor evidence at that. You are basically highlighting the fact that God created the world using similar building blocks genes for everything…wouldn’t that make sense since we live off of breaking down and reprocessing the building blocks that make up plant and animal life on earth? When Ford and GMC build cars, don’t they tend to build them with many of the same parts? this design economy shows God’s intelligence, and the inefficiencies and problems in gene reproduction show that we’re living in a world cursed by our own sin…and the sin of other people.

    you hack away at my use of the AIG website, when it acutally references TONS of peer reviewed and time tested scientific studies. How you continue to think that we are not using science to back ourselves up when that is simply not true. We simply trust scripture as a lens through which to view science the same way you trust Darwins theory as a lens to view the very same science. The simple fact is, I’ve researched both sides, and seen the articles to represent both. I think the creationist view works better…and if you would just get over your fundamentalism belief in Darwin’s theory and look at my side of the arguemetn openly, you might change your mind too.

    Lastly–you believe in a God that created a broken, painful, and death filled universe and left humans to figure out what the heck to do with themselves. I believe in a God who created a perfect universe for the purpose of allowing the men he created in his own image to live and love, and to suffer the consequences of their own poor decisions…including the consequence of breaking the worlds perfection. you believe God cannot be defined or explained. I believe God is personal and that he left us a guidebook to life and the origin of the universe.

    your philosophy has been taken by men and used to abuse and kill millions of people because they were inferior. My philosophy has been twisted and used to spark religious wars against “sinful” people. But at least my philosophy had to be twisted first. you’re beliefs are all relative…and Darwins’ theory preaches the survival of the fittest. Should you kill me then…am I inferior for not believing in your philosophy?

  • springmo

    I did not admit that I was wrong because I’m not. What I do concede is that I guess I shouldn’t have used the word “useless” because even organs that used to have a specific use and no longer are needed for it are not necessarily useless. These organs still do not perform functions that they used to.

    I just explained why a vitamin C deficiency relates to evolution and I won’t accept the answer of “God made our bodies that way.”

    The reason Darwin expected there to be more transitional fossils than there were is because in his day, the fossil record was even less complete than it is now. The reason there aren’t more today is because of the special circumstances required, as I have said. It should also be noted that some organs used for one thing have been adapted to do something else, meaning there would be no transitional fossil. This may be the case with your flagellum.

    I’m not going to reply to any more of your problems with evolution but rest assured they can all be addressed scientifically. Also, your view that people with Down Syndrome are being punished by God is appalling.

  • psfowler

    your evidence has already been shot down…there are no truly useless organs…the appendix and tonsils do have current uses. Don’t believe me, try to get a doctor to remove one of them without cause. They won’t do it anymore.

    vitamin C is a nutritional problem…it has ABSOLUTETLY NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION.  No scientist would argue for evolution on this subject.

    you won’t answer my 5 issues, when I have answered all of yours…you won’t even provide a book title or anything…how immature is that. If the answers are out there…point me in the right direction. If I am truly lost, show me the correct way. I don’t believe you can answer me.

  • Alan

    That’s the handy thing about evolution, as time goes on it will evolve out things that aren’t needed, such as creationists. For some reason, personal faith gets mixed up with scientific fact. At best the belief systems are a result of circular reasoning “God exists because it says so in the bible/the bible is true because god says so”.

    I would also like to point out that The Spanish Inquisition, The Holocaust, Apartheid and the Christian terrorism commited by various parties in Northern Ireland and mainland Britain were all perpetrated by people expounding the true word of god.

  • psfowler

    These people expounded the false–twisted Word of God. The new testament set the record straight…love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you…God will judge the world…our job is to reach it with the forgiveness he provided through Jesus Christ.

  • springmo

    My evidence has not been shot down. Just because the tonsils and appendix may not exactly be “useless” does not prove that they were once used for something else and are no longer used for it and therefore vestigal.

    You have absolutely no basis for saying that the all too common vitamin C deficiency has nothing to do with evolution, especially because you cannot explain it scientificaaly. All you can offer is that “God made us that way.” So much for you using science to back up your ideas. The same goes for your idea that observable phenomenon are God’s punishment for “sin.” Plenty of scientists can corroborate what i said about vitamin C, just because you haven’t looked doesn’t prove that it isn’t corroborated.

    Lastly, I feel that I’ve replied to many of your “concerns” satisfactorily and that you have not acknowledged how they work against what you are saying. Therefore I don’t see the point in addressing the rest of your “arguments.” You are not looking for proof against your ideas, you’re just looking to shoot down ones that don’t support the view you already have.

  • psfowler

    and you call my arguements illogical…

    And you say that I will not answer your objections…

    and you say I have not investigated the facts…and yet you STILL have not supplied any links, books, or names for me to research…

    How do I know that you’re not making this stuff up or twisting the facts? How can you expect me to see the evidence as you have seen it if you will not provide a resouce??? How can you be assured that I will find the same arguements that you have found if I just go searching…

    If you cannot back up your claims with a resource, book, link, or name. then I say you are the religious fanatic, not me.

  • BADD

    psfowler,

    I don’t know why you would call me a fundamentalist or a Darwinist when I never claimed to be either.

    Perhaps you mis-read my post?

    Please quote my post where I make it clear that I am a staunch Evolution supporter, and claim to hold any belief to the point of fanatism.

    Perhaps you could better explain my beliefs to me, since what you wrote doesn’t coincide with what I wrote.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    I believe that all things evolved from or were created by BADD.

    I read a book that says so, and I believe it. Granted, it was written by BADD, in crayon no less, but if I read it, it must be true. And I’ll be damned (both literally and figuratively) if I’m gonna think for myself.

    Also, he said if I start telling people he’s god, I might see my parents alive again, so that’s a bonus.

  • BADD

    Yes, yes ,yes, It is true that I created the universe. 

    I did so with crayons and construction paper.

    Sorry to those who have diseases and other bad stuff, I color outside the lines alot.  By the way, I also appologize for letting the dinosaurs die off.  They were so cool……

    Um I also liked green alot.  Stop fucking cutting down my green!!

    That is all.

    PS:  elkciN, your dad says hi.

  • springmo

    What I have presented are some of the views of mainstream science, some of the things I’ve learned in rigorous biology classes. I’m not distorting the facts. The only reference you can provide is one more dubious than anything I have read in or out of class. I also doubt that you would be satisfied with any number of references I could provide you with. Your response to all the examples I have given is that they’re “not enough.” You are not looking for evidence against your already established point of view, that’s why you haven’t found it.

  • psfowler

    Where are your references…why won’t you list them…??????????????????????????????????

  • Alan

    Please, don’t even start with the “false twisted word of God” Check out Luke 12:51-53

    “Suppose ye that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, Nay; but rather division: For from henceforth there shall be five in one house divided, three against two, and two against three. The father shall be divided against the son, and the son against the father; the mother against the daughter, and the daughter against the mother; the mother in law against her daughter in law, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.”

    Or what about Matthew 24:6-7? “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom.”

    We’ve certainly had a fair bit of nation against nation, in fact it’s still going on all over the world.

    If you like, I can come up with hundreds of examples where the good book encourages all sorts of acts of barbarism, murder, hatred and even genocide. Once you start picking and choosing which bits you are going to believe in, you imediatly forefit your right to use it in an argument.

  • psfowler

    Alan,

    The fact that Jesus foretold of controversy in the world, and that he warned that his message would cause the division of relationships, the persecution of those who believed, and the death of his followers it true…as the scriptures you mentioned highlight. But show me the reference where Jesus told anyone, or his followers told anyone in the new testament to fight back…to kill, or to seek revenge.

    He stated the facts about what would happen, just as he foretold of his death and the destruction of the temple. He never commmanded or even eluded to a command for his followers to be anything but peacemakers–salt and light to a dying world.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.
  • Alan

    Don’t blame me, you and Majicaesar started it.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    My God would risk his life for his brother man. He won’t cop out when there’s trouble all about. He’s a slick private dick who’s a sex machine with all the chicks. My God is one bad mutha, and no one understands him but his woman.

    Shaft proves evolution simply by being the pinnacle thereof.

    There, I win. We can all go home now.

  • springmo

    For all the mentioning of zombies and dinosaurs, I am greatly disappointed not one person has mentioned zombie dinosaurs…until now.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Well, frankly the topic of zombie dinosaurs elicits such pants-shitting terror that its too horrible to comprehend.  The T. Rex had a brain the size of a walnut.  You’d have to be Annie Oakley to walk away from that encounter alive.

  • Majicaesar

    Personally I prefer the robotic ninja versus zombie pirate debate.  Having dinosaurs just makes the odds unfair against the robotic ninja faction.  The there is the 3rd party of werewolf mobsters, but no one really pays attention to the 3rd party

  • Alan

    “The Land Before Time of the Dead” Starring Troy McLure

  • BADD

    I was going to let the dinosaurs live longer, which could have ended up in a Dino-Zombie holocaust of some sort, but I had just invented video games, so I was busy “testing” that idea.  For 20 billion years……

    PS:  I am still testing this video game idea to this day.  Sorry for nto paying much attention to ya Earth.  Cute name BTW….

  • Alan

    Doh! I meant to say “The Land That Time Forgot of the Dead”

  • psfowler

    So I ask…is anyone going to answer my objections to evolution???

    Where are the stanch guys I tried to get to questions…here they are again in case you missed them…

    If humans never existed with dinosaurs, why do the Chinease have dragons so predominantly in their culture? Why do we have dragon legends in our medival tales? Why are there cave drawings of dinosaur animals on the Grand Canyon walls??? EVEN the BIBLE mentions a creature that breathes fire, and a creature called Behemoth with a tale like a cedar (Job 40)

    If fossilization occured over millions of years, why are there widespread occurances of polystrate fossils, the lack of fossilized layers in rock strata, and the occurance of unfossilized dinosaur bones???

    Why are there no longer any undisputable ape to man evolutionary fossils??? (Want the list? the answers book, page 126 for their names and disproof)

    How did processes and things like the blood-clotting mechanism, the bacterial flagellum, teh photosynthetic apparatus, and the pupal trasnformation of a caterpillar into a butterfly come to be in evolution is a series of small gradual changes over millions of years?

    Why are there hundreds of worldwide traditions among indigenous peoples about the global flood with features common to the account of the bible?

    Why does the universe seems to be winding down and falling apart, instead of still advancing as it has in the past (according to evolution)?

    Feel free to respond…or just suggest a book. I’ve stayed true to the resource I suggested to you. I’ll be glad to consider your side…I just want to save you from typing it all out.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    #1) If man existed with dinosaurs, that would make mankind millions and millions of years old.  Obviously that is not the case.  As for dragons, that’s pretty easy.  Massive lizards (ala the Komodo Dragon) have been around for ages.  As have crocodiles, etc.  Those kinds of creatures blend their way into the culture in fantastic forms.  Your argument could easily be used to ask ‘Why are there so many stories about unicorns?’ or Bigfoot.  or Elvis.

    #2) This gent. can handle the specious polystrate fossil argument better than I. Just because fossilization typically takes a long time, that doesn’t discount the fact that decomposition can occur very rapidly.

    #3) Because no credible evolutionist thinks we’re directly descended from apes.  The theory is that we evolved along similar lines (as evidenced by the staggering amount of similar genetic material in us)

    #4) You answered your own question.  Yes, they are the result of evolutionary growth on the cellular level.  Many cells acting in accordance with each to further their own survival benefiting from sometimes quick and sometimes prolonged periods of mutation and change to better adapt to their environment.  Rather simple, really. That’s evidenced all around us.  Viruses and bacteria continue to evolve, so what’s so shocking that all organic life is the result of the same kind of processes?

    #5) Homo Sapien is round abouts 200,000 years old as a species.  So collectively we’ve lived through multiple ice ages.  That moisture has to go somewhere when it melts, don’t it?  Mystery solved.  Huzzah for reason!

    #6) False argument. Evolution doesn’t even attempt to tackle the physical makeup of the universe.  That’s like asking an plumber to explain your calculus homework. Unless you’re trying to use entropy as a means to discredit ongoing evolution, and then you’re just being specious.

    And I’m incredibly curious as to where your evidence that the universe is ‘winding down and falling apart’ comes from. That’s been declared definitively by whom, exactly?

    Honestly? Read A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson.  It’ll explain how we know what we know, and what kind of steps were involved in the process. Hell, read Stephen Jay Gould (anything), Richard Fenyman, Stephen Hawking, etc. etc. etc.

  • BADD

    Way to bring our frivolity down dude.

    At this point no one cares anymore (at least I don’t).

    We can’t satisfy you with our beliefs and evidence, and you will never satisfy us with yours.

    I say we do the Christian thing, agree to disagree, and turn the other cheak.

  • Alan

    Why do birds suddenly appear?

    Why do fools fall in love?

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    Because of Shaft, and his army of Zombie Dinosaurs, haven’t you been paying attention? You will be when their reign of terror/womanizing comes down upon the world.

    Prepare for the quickening! There can be only Shaft!

  • springmo

    Good points by AM. I can elaborate on number 6. The “winding down effect” seems to be the common idea that closed systems tend towards disorder. What you fail to recoginize is that organisms are not closed systems. They are in fact open systems, getting energy from and swapping genes with other organisms.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    Your mom’s an open system.

    Sorry, I was bored.

  • springmo

    Good points all around.

  • psfowler

    #1) If man existed with dinosaurs, that would make mankind millions and millions of years old.  Obviously that is not the case.  As for dragons, that’s pretty easy.  Massive lizards (ala the Komodo Dragon) have been around for ages.  As have crocodiles, etc.  Those kinds of creatures blend their way into the culture in fantastic forms.  Your argument could easily be used to ask ‘Why are there so many stories about unicorns?’ or Bigfoot.  or Elvis.

    Komodo Dragons don’t look anything like the dinosaurs that evidence from different cultures suggest…and I am not speaking about accounts that were recorded as fairy tales, but legends and tales that have been regarded as true in their times. And remember, from a creationist standpoint, the earth is only a few thousand of years old, not millions.  There is a lot of evidence for that, remember? And you were not able to answer most of it…only give links to a few speculative assumptions that evolutionists make.

    What the rebuttal…here are the links:

    Everything you could have ever asked about dating methods…

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dating.asp

    Everything you could have ever asked about a young earth…

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp

    #2) This gent. can handle the specious polystrate fossil argument better than I. Just because fossilization typically takes a long time, that doesn’t discount the fact that decomposition can occur very rapidly.

    Polystrate fossils are actually a small point concerning the inconsistency found in rock layers from an evolutionary standpoint…Some other evidence for the non-existence of the eons of time and for the rapid deposition of the layers are:

    • polystrate fossils—tree trunks, for example, running through strata supposedly representing many millions of years (these are common in coal) show that the strata must have been deposited in quick succession, otherwise the tops of the trunks would have rotted away. For example, at The Joggins, in Nova Scotia, there are many erect fossil trees that are scattered throughout 2500 feet of layers. You can actually see these fossil trees, beautifully preserved, penetrate through layers that were supposed have been laid down over millions of years.The fact is, the trees had to be buried faster than it took them to decay. In other words, there’s NO WAY these layers could have been laid down slowly over millions of years. The trees would’ve rotted well before then and not fossilized. Polystrates are especially common in coal formations. For years and years, students have been taught that coal represents the remains of swamp plants slowly accumulated as peat and then even more slowly changed into coal. But there are many reasons that this swamp-idea simply cannot be true: the type of plants involved, texture of deposits, and state of preservation are all wrong; the action of flowing water, not stagnation, is evident.39 A new concept of coal formation is being developed, thanks in part to the work of creationist geologists. One of the leaders in this field is Dr. Steven Austin. In his dissertation for the Ph.D. in coal geology from Penn State, Dr. Austin40 suggests that coal was formed from plant debris deposited under mats of vegetation floating in sea water. His model already explains many features of coal that the swamp-model cannot explain. Even more importantly, his theory—a real scientific breakthrough—is the first ever to be used to predict the location and quality of coal.

    • delicate surface features preserved on underlying rock units—such as ripple marks and footprints—indicate that there was no long time gap before the next unit was deposited.

    • lack of fossilized soil layers in the rock strata, indicating no long time gaps.

    • lack of erosion features in the rock layers or between the rock units (any significant time break would result in channels being formed in the exposed strata from the action of water or wind).

    • limited extent of unconformities.  Although unconformities (clear breaks in deposition) indicate time breaks, such unconformities are localized, with no break evident in rocks of the same strata elsewhere, thus indicating that any time break was localized and brief.

    • clastic dykes and pipes—where a sand/water mixture has squeezed up through overlying layers.  Although the underlying sand is supposed to be millions of years older than the overlying layers, it obviously did not have time to harden.

    #3) Because no credible evolutionist thinks we’re directly descended from apes.  The theory is that we evolved along similar lines (as evidenced by the staggering amount of similar genetic material in us)

    Genetic material from a creationist standpoint is just building blocks…He used similar building blocks for all living things. I’ll accept your comment on one basis…let’s remove the ape to man progression picture from high school textbooks.

    Tons of info on the “evolution of man” http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/erectus.asp

    #4) You answered your own question.  Yes, they are the result of evolutionary growth on the cellular level.  Many cells acting in accordance with each to further their own survival benefiting from sometimes quick and sometimes prolonged periods of mutation and change to better adapt to their environment.  Rather simple, really. That’s evidenced all around us.  Viruses and bacteria continue to evolve, so what’s so shocking that all organic life is the result of the same kind of processes?

    Mutations are essential to evolution theory, but mutations can only eliminate traits. They cannot produce new features.

    On the contrary, biology has catalogued many traits produced by point mutations (changes at precise positions in an organism’s DNA)—bacterial resistance to antibiotics, for example.

    This is a serious misstatement of the creationist argument. The issue is not new traits, but new genetic information. In no known case is antibiotic resistance the result of new information. There are several ways that an information loss can confer resistance, as already discussed. We have also pointed out in various ways how new traits, even helpful, adaptive traits, can arise through loss of genetic information (which is to be expected from mutations).

    Mutations that arise in the homeobox (Hox) family of development-regulating genes in animals can also have complex effects. Hox genes direct where legs, wings, antennae, and body segments should grow. In fruit flies, for instance, the mutation called Antennapedia causes legs to sprout where antennae should grow. [SA 82]

    Once again, there is no new information! Rather, a mutation in the hox gene (see next section) results in already-existing information being switched on in the wrong place.1 The hox gene merely moved legs to the wrong place; it did not produce any of the information that actually constructs the legs, which in ants and bees include a wondrously complex mechanical and hydraulic mechanism that enables these insects to stick to surfaces.2

    These abnormal limbs are not functional, but their existence demonstrates that genetic mistakes can produce complex structures, which natural selection can then test for possible uses.

    Amazing—natural selection can ‘test for possible uses’ of ‘non-functional’ (i.e., useless!) limbs in the wrong place. Such deformities would be active hindrances to survival.

    Increased amounts of DNA don’t mean increased function

    Biologists have discovered a whole range of mechanisms that can cause radical changes in the amount of DNA possessed by an organism. Gene duplication, polyploidy, insertions, etc., do not help explain evolution, however. They represent an increase in amount of DNA, but not an increase in the amount of functional genetic information—these mechanisms create nothing new.

    More on genetics:

    http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

    #5) Homo Sapien is round abouts 200,000 years old as a species.  So collectively we’ve lived through multiple ice ages.  That moisture has to go somewhere when it melts, don’t it?  Mystery solved.  Huzzah for reason!

    Whatever…I don’t even think this point is worth arguing. Give me a scientist who claims this explanation and then we’ll talk.

    #6) False argument. Evolution doesn’t even attempt to tackle the physical makeup of the universe.  That’s like asking an plumber to explain your calculus homework. Unless you’re trying to use entropy as a means to discredit ongoing evolution, and then you’re just being specious.

    And I’m incredibly curious as to where your evidence that the universe is ‘winding down and falling apart’ comes from. That’s been declared definitively by whom, exactly?

    This one is a marginal argument…so I’ll let it go…

    “The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics began at the Fall.”

    This law says that the entropy (“disorder”) of the universe increases over time, and some have thought that this was the result of the Curse. However, disorder isn’t always harmful. An obvious example is digestion, breaking down large complex food molecules into their simple building blocks. Another is friction, which turns ordered mechanical energy into disordered heat—otherwise Adam and Eve would have slipped as they walked with God in Eden! A less obvious example to laymen might be the sun heating the earth—to a physical chemist, heat transfer from a hot object to a cold one is the classic case of the Second Law in action. Also, breathing is based on another classic Second Law process, gas moving from a high pressure to low pressure. Finally, all beneficial processes in the world, including the development from embryo to adult, increase the overall disorder of the universe, showing that the Second Law is not inherently a curse.

    Death and suffering of nephesh animals before sin are contrary to the biblical framework above, as is suffering (or “groaning in travail” [Rom. 8:20–22]). It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered. See Did the 2nd Law begin at the Fall?

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    Fine, let me break it down to you in a manner which will make you understand why your arguments will never have any traction with me:  There is no ‘God’.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    Next you’ll be saying there’s no Santa or Easter Bunny. Don’t lie to yourself AM. God does exist and he cares for each and every……pfffft damn I couldn’t get through that with a straight face.

  • psfowler

    now we’re on a different subject all together…but one I am more than happy to discuss…

    Why do you think there is no God???

    What has convinced you that God does not exist???

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    For me, it’s not a question of who convinced me he doesn’t, it’s a question of who hasn’t convinced me he does. Call me a rebel, but I’ve never been into believing something just because everyone else does. That doesn’t prove anything. Also, I wasn’t raised with religion, so they never got the chance to brainwash me.

    Believe what you want really, whatever helps you sleep at night. I’ve always thought that if God did make us in his image, then why would we need to ask him for help all the time? Did he make us defective? No, that would be impossible, God is infallible, right? There are too many contradictions in religious text (not just the Bible) to consider them anything more than fairy tales, and there are far to many ‘saved’ people in this world that are hypocrites.

    The Bible makes God sound like a petulant child building a lego town. It claims at the same time that God is infallible and that he has, as words fail me, a ‘God Complex’. I guess I just don’t get it.

    I suppose I’d just like to think that if there were a wise, powerful being overseeing us, that he would have done it right the first time. I’d also like to think that fine, upstanding people wouldn’t go to hell just because they didn’t read the right book. Seems kind of petty for a deity, doesn’t it?

  • psfowler

    I’ve always thought that if God did make us in his image, then why would we need to ask him for help all the time?

    Because we corrupted his image when we sinned against him. We forsook the perfect image of God – the incorruptable for the knowledge of good & evil…and a corruptible life.

    Did he make us defective? No, that would be impossible, God is infallible, right? Right. God did not make us defective, our defects came as a result of sin…which set the world into corruption. That is why genes mutate and people get sick and people die. God spoke of death before our sin…he didn’t shade the truth.

    There are too many contradictions in religious text (not just the Bible) to consider them anything more than fairy tales, and there are far to many ‘saved’ people in this world that are hypocrites. The bible is the only book you need to look at. I won’t defend the rest…I don’t trust them either. As for the Word of God…there are millions of differing opinions, but if you would look to the people who are known as experts on such a text, you’ll see that there are far more reasons to trust it than not to…and that the so called contradictions, are mainly misunderstandings that have been addressed. AIG has a lot of good material on this. The first chapter in the Anwers book, which can be read online at http://www.answersingenesis.org/cec/online_resources.asp deals with God, the bible, and believing. As for hypocrites…there are plenty of those. But why use them as an excuse for not believing? How many people do you know who are really looking into the facts about evolution? The truth is, most people don’t know more than they hear by ear. Doesn’t it make sense that people would want to be associated with God…and that most would also not know that much about him. There are few who do their research and act accordingly. I hope you’ll be wise enough to look into the God thing. You won’t be disappointed.

    Why does it seem God did a poor job making the world? Because sin is just that bad.

    Why would all the answers be in just one book? Because God wanted his message to be clear. And why didn’t he just tell everyone, so no one would miss out? He did. He wrote morality on the human heart, and he sent Christians out to ALL the nations, to make sure that everyone heard.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    My question to you would be what convinced you he does exist? Did you grow up in a household that believed, or did you think for yourself? You know, God gave us free will so that we could do what he wants or we go to hell. It’s like a world-wide gameshow, and we’re all contestants.

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    I fail to see how they are different subjects.  A rejection of one is a tacit rejection of the other. If you don’t believe that the bible is anything more than a history book stuffed with mythology, why would you accept its version of the origin of life?

    And as elkciN put it, it’s not for me to show or explain why god doesn’t exist.  It’s for you to show that it does.  Evidence (or the lack there of, more precisely) is on my side.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    And it’s not to say that I don’t question science, I have a few questions of my own. For instance, the Big Bang theory. Particles coliding in space to create everything, fine I’ll buy that. But where did the particles, or for that matter, the ‘space’ come from? Was there ever really a ‘beginning’ and will there ever be an ‘end’ to time? Maybe we’re just not ready to comprehend the true concepts of time and space. Maybe it’s all just a huge, endless loop. Hell if I know.

    I’m just not ready to accept the easiest answer. Especially one that smells like bull****. It’s all well and good to say that the Universe just popped out of a Unicorn’s ass one day, but I guess that’s not good enough for me.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    On a side note, I’ve decided that when I become rich an powerful, I will write my autobiography, and then kill everyone who doesn’t accept it as the one true religious text.

    Give it a couple milennia, and I’ll be God.

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    Frankly, a long time ago I decided it wasn’t my place to figure out why life exists, only to live it.

    I’ve always used this analogy (flawed though it may be) with my other deeply religious friends. If God was a painter, and he painted this beautiful world for you, with all these things to experience, would he want you to lock the painting away in a closet, calling him once a week thanking him for it, or would he want you to hang the painting on your living room wall and enjoy it everyday? Would the painter leave an instruction book telling you how the painting should be enjoyed? Would that, alone, detract from the enjoyment? Isn’t the real beauty of life that it’s different for everyone?

    I’ve stopped grasping for a meaning to life, and accepted that maybe the meaning of life is simply ‘to live’. Obviously, I’m just a simple minded fool, but it keeps me happy. If you waste your life trying to figure out ‘why’, you might just miss it.

    Sorry for all the posts, I can’t seem to shut up today.

  • psfowler

    Here is a list of Creation Scientists, since it was mentioned earlier that Creationists are just a bunch of fundamentalist bible-bashers (also from the AIG website)

    Are there scientists alive today who accept the biblical account of creation?

    Note: Individuals on this list must possess a doctorate in a science-related field. If you would like to be included on this list, please see our inclusion procedure.

    * Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist

    * Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics

    * Dr. James Allan, Geneticist

    * Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist

    * Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist

    * Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist

    * Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist

    * Dr. Don Batten, Plant physiologist, tropical fruit expert

    * Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics

    * Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist

    * Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology

    * Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology

    * Dr. Raymond G. Bohlin, Biologist

    * Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology

    * Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry

    * Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer

    * Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics

    * Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiologist (read his testimony)

    * Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics

    * Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics

    * Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering

    * Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering

    * Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist (interview)

    * Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education

    * Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering

    * Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist

    * Dr. Bob Compton, DVM

    * Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist

    * Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist

    * Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics

    * Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering

    * Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist

    * Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging

    * Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist

    * Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany

    * Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics

    * Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry

    * Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education

    * Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience

    * Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div

    * Dr. David Down, Field Archaeologist

    * Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist

    * Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research

    * Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research

    * Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist

    * Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist

    * Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics

    * Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy

    * Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology

    * Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry

    * Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology

    * Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science

    * Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research

    * Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist

    * Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist

    * Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist

    * Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon

    * Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry

    * Dr. Dianne Grocott, Psychiatrist

    * Dr. Stephen Grocott, Industrial Chemist

    * Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist

    * Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher

    * Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics

    * Dr. John Hartnett, Physicist and Cosmologist

    * Dr. Mark Harwood, Satellite Communications

    * Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist

    * Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist

    * Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer

    * Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy

    * Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist

    * Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy

    * Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service

    * Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist

    * Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science

    * Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry

    * Dr. George F. Howe, Botany

    * Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist

    * Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist

    * Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology

    * Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy

    * George T. Javor, Biochemistry

    * Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Creationist Molecular Biologist

    * Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology

    * Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon

    * Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist

    * Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology

    * Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics

    * Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist

    * Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology

    * Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry

    * Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry

    * Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry

    * Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science

    * Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry

    * Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering

    * Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science

    * Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering

    * Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist

    * Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology

    * Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology

    * Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry

    * Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics

    * Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology

    * Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist

    * Prof. Lane P. Lester, Biologist, Genetics

    * Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist

    * Dr. Alan Love, Chemist

    * Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:

    * Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist

    * Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher

    * Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist

    * Dr. John McEwan, Chemist

    * Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics

    * Dr. David Menton, Anatomist

    * Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist

    * Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist

    * Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist

    * Colin W. Mitchell, Geography

    * Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator

    * Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist

    * Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist

    * Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist

    * Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist

    * Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist

    * Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering

    * Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering

    * Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher

    * Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher

    * Prof. John Oller, Linguistics

    * Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology

    * Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner

    * Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist

    * Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)

    * Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon

    * Prof. Richard Porter

    * Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics

    * Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist

    * Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.

    * Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics

    * Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology

    * Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist

    * Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology

    * Dr. Jonathan D. Sarfati, Physical chemist / spectroscopist

    * Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:

    * Dr. Ian Scott, Educator

    * Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist

    * Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry

    * Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science

    * Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics

    * Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geologist/karstologist

    * Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer

    * Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist

    * Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist

    * Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist

    * Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science

    * Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology

    * Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education

    * Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer

    * Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry

    * Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics

    * Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering

    * Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics

    * Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics

    * Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry

    * Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:

    * Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science

    * Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist

    * Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist

    * Dr. Tas Walker, Mechanical Engineer and Geologist

    * Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer

    * Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist

    * Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)

    * Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics

    * Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist

    * Dr. Carl Wieland, Medical doctor

    * Dr. Lara Wieland, Medical doctor

    * Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist

    * Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist

    * Dr. Bryant Wood, Creationist Archaeologist

    * Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics

    * Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering

    * Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics

    * Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology

    * Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist

    * Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography

    * Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

  • http://www.dadsbigplan.com .alphamonkey.

    I’m not certain what posting a list like this is supposed to accomplish.  After all, there are numerous well respected and qualified economists who believe in unfettered free market capitalism, and that’s as crazy batshit an idea as any.

  • psfowler

    You asked me for peer-reviewed articles, etc. and since you won’t take the AIG information, though it is often peer reviewed and pulled from hundreds of peer-reviewed resources, I gave you a list of names to look for in researching any of the creationist arguements…

  • http://www.myspace.com/dragonlews elkciN

    I have a doctorate, and I’m not on any list. I guess growing up in a faith-based househould probably helps. There’s a lot of people with doctorates in the world, chief.

    You ever wonder why so many people proscribe to a religion (specifically catholicism, christianity)? I’ve always figured it was because back in the day, they killed people that didn’t think like they did. That tends to push the population in your favor.

    In fact, that’s my campaign slogan for 2008. Vote (for me) or Die.

Previous post:

Next post: