Anyone here ever found a specific paper or site that counters the paper "Evidence for a Young Earth" by D. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D.? It seems to be the popluar paper a local religious person uses to debunk not only evolution, but also the idea that the Earth is much older then a few thousand years.

My favorite research on this topic is www.talkorigins.org . Enjoy!

By the way, send this guy a tape of the episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" from two weeks ago, it was on this topic. Well, he probably already has it... Heck, he was probably in it.

send this guy a tape of the episode of Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" from two weeks ago, it was on this topic.

I'm tempted to extract this off my PVR, I still have it saved. Though he believes "Intellegant Design" is the theory of aliens creating us, and not "the science of creationism"

What's the difference? You're just substituting aliens for God. Otherwise it's all the same, other than some general handwaving that science is still accurate.

Though he believes "Intellegant Design" is the theory of aliens creating us, and not "the science of creationism"

Yeah, I love the comment P&T made about that, specifically, near the end of the episode. That was really funny.

And by the way, the talkorigins archive has some very specific point-by-point stuff in there, it doesn't have to be specifically "versus-the-creationists" stuff, it refutes the young-earth arguments or any other similar arguments in detail that's equally applicable to "versus-the-aliens" people.

Though he believes "Intellegant Design" is the theory of aliens creating us, and not "the science of creationism"

FWIW, when you say "science of creationism", ID doesn't necessarily mean "creationism of the bible", though biblical creationists are usually the ones who champion the idea. Theistic Evolution would fall under Intelligent Design, though this is a notion most evangelicals reject for theological reasons. I'd also like to point out that Christianity is not united on the young earth vs. old earth issue, though some make it appear that way.

What's the difference? You're just substituting aliens for God.

I believe that the difference is that Aliens would still exist in our creation, and therefore need a creator. God, since He exists outside of our creation, doesn't require a creator. (This is how a Theist would answer the "Uncaused Cause" question, anyway).

As for the "handwaving that science is still accurate", my understanding is that in it's pure form, ID doesn't say much about science at all. It merely asserts that based on the evidence of what we observe in science, the evidence demonstrates that it must have been created by an outside intelligence. ID also makes no claims as the the purpose or method in which our creation came about, only that it was caused by an external force.

Of course, this is actually saying very little, but it is the foundation upon which many arguments are made concerning God and creation. Still, the only question being addressed by ID is whether the universe around us points to a creator or a random occurance.

ID doesn't necessarily mean "creationism of the bible", though biblical creationists are usually the ones who champion the idea.

Yeah, this is something that the P&T show tried to drive home pretty strongly: That even though the term "intelligent design" doesn't necessarily mean "Christian", it always seems to be the fundamentalist Christians using it to shoehorn their ideas into public schools.

I'll agree that the article that started this thread was about non-Christian-based ID (Tom said it was Aliens this time?).

I'd also like to point out that Christianity is not united on the young earth vs. old earth issue, though some make it appear that way.

Good point, and very true.

Apart from an above-average vocabulary (for the web) the page linked reads like a child's argument. It does prove that stone-age man still lives today. They're his customer-base.

Bruno

Someone please explain how the woodpecker evolved so many specific traits all at once. The two most glaring being that the tongue wraps completely behind its head, and that the beak is fused to the skull. Both of which are useless without the other. Evolutionary theory dictates that there are small genetic mutations that produce higher survival rates in altered organisms. How can the toug growing backwards into your skull be any advantage? Unless of course it split, wrapped all the way around the skull, rejoined, and elongated in one mutation. Extremely unlikely. Or rather absurdly unlikely.

Want to hear something funny? My mom works for National Geographic and is usually the one who edits/researches all their dinosaur stories. She has a paleontologist friend who has several students (who are planning on making a career out of it) who refuse to believe in evolution. I always wonder how they look at the evidence and convince themselves it isn't true. I think I'd go insane

ps-check out the latest dino story about dinosaur behavior. It's really good, and has some great pictures, and my mom edited it. One of my favorite parts was where a scientist discovered that dinos like the brontosaurus did not walk around with its neck and head extended upright like in Jurassic Park or like giraffes, because in order to do so their heart would have to be way too big in order to pump the blood to their heads. interesting.

The thing that gets most paleontologist's panties in a wad is when you mention that they have never found any form of itermediate fossil. There have been many T-Rex skeletons found, for example, but no skeletons that are "almost" T-Rex. Evolution claims that there are many many steps taken to arrive at a new species. Giving that logic, there should be many times more "step" species than there are "final" species. Whay can't they find just one. In my opinion, the harder they try, the dumber they look.

I always wonder how they look at the evidence and convince themselves it isn't true. I think I'd go insane

Easy. The scientific process used in dating and in the theory of evolution is laughable at best. If the same principals that are used in carbon dating or other techniques used to prove evolution were used in the field of medicine, we'd be lucky if we survived taking asprin. Evolution was a desperate attemp to remove God from the picture, and it worked. So now that we're not under the restrains of religion, why do we still hold on to a theory that requires THE SAME AMOUNT of faith that creationism does? I for one don't like the two choices that I've been given. And until one comes along that is actually a fact, and not a theory, I'll just have to say 'I don't know'

Well, I'd say if the theory has removed God from the picture for you, then that's a personal choice. I for one don't think you have to deny evolution if you believe in God or a God. I just think that, like in many cases, strict interpretation is an incredibly stupid thing. But that's a personal case.

For one thing, there has always been a huge debate on the "are birds related to dinosaurs" issue. Well, they supposedly have found loads of evidence to prove it, and there's that new dino that was found with feathers on its arms and legs that allowed it to drift. No, I don't suppose they've found your "almost T-rex", but for me, I believe evolution more than creationism.

By the way, if anyone happens to, for some reason, have all the "Bullshit" episodes on tape or whatever, I would gladly pay good hard cash for a tape of them. I knew I'd wish I had Showtime when I saw the previews for the show. I saw the episode on healing methods (magnets, slugs , etc), and laughed my ass off. Please let me know if I can get a tape from you, or perhaps a digital version of it

Well, I'd say if the theory has removed God from the picture for you, then that's a personal choice.

I meant that people were looking for something, ANYTHING, that they could believe in that wasn't God, or creationism. They needed a theory that didn't have God involved. No God, no more having to live under the rule of religion.

And if you are a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, meaning everything in there is fact. Thus, you couldn't be a Christian and believe that God used evolution.

On the other hand, there is way too much design involved in our own planet to say that it all just somehow 'came together' I know that they said it took billions of years, but that's just an easy way of making it so there's no way to possibly test your theories. It's like if I said 'Sure, I can fly, I just need a million years to get myself prepared to do it.'

I still don't understand why we're forced to choose. I mean, I wish they didn't teach either one in school. How about we worry about teaching the English language or basic math.

Edit: I also think it's wrong that it is being taught in schools as fact, when it's not. I've had many people tell me that they learned that evolution was a proven fact.

I had a choice between Showtime and HBO and I picked HBO because of "The Sopranos" and "Real Time with Bill Maher." Is there anything else on Showtime worth watching besides the Penn and Teller show?

How about we worry about teaching the English language or basic math

That I will agree on. I saw a poll recently where 11% of Americans couldn't point out America on a globe. Regardless of who the poll was offered to, that is unacceptable.

By the way, I am still undecided as to my religion. I have been loosely raised as a Methodist in a very liberal church and environment. However, I never once, since I first took a couple Sunday school classes, ever believed in creationism. Even as a little kid, I wanted to know where the 3rd generation of people came from. The teacher wouldn't tell me, so I was forever a skeptic. My main problem has always been with taking the bible as literal fact.

My favorite story relating to this is from a biology teacher I once had. He had a devout Christian come up to him after his class on evolution, complaining about his beliefs in it. Instead of going off on all the scientific reasons for his belief, he posed a challenge for her own beliefs. First, he asked if she know how long a cubit was. She didn't know. He explained a cubit was about the length of a forearm. Then he pointed out that the ark, as described in the bible, is about 40 cubits long.

His point was this: if there were the exact same number of species on the earth then as there are today, as dictated by the absence of evolution, it is physically impossible to fit that many animals on the ship. You couldn't even fit all the beetles in the world on it.

Whatever you get out of this argument, my point is that the girl left the discussion at least thinking about it. I think that a major problem of today is that so many people have opinions and beliefs that are based on nothing but what they have been told to believe. Too many people don't really sit down and think about what they believe.

Sorry, I think I'm rambling. I'm a bit stressed this week

How can the toug growing backwards into your skull be any advantage?

Evolution does not require that something be an advantage, only that it not be a disadvantage.

I honestly don't know much about woodpeckers, but for a similar argument, take a look at creationism vs. evolution with respect to the bombardier beetle. I imagine that many similar arguments apply here.

Sometimes I find Chris Isaak to be a funny, pretty cool guy, but I don't think I'd watch his show. Looking at the rest of the Showtime lineup, there doesn't seem to be much there. I don't watch Sopranos, but I would love to watch Real Time and Six Feet Under. I saw an episode of Real Time while I was home, and would regularly watch it if I could.

Showtime lineup:
Queer As Folk
Soul Food
Odyssey 5
Jeremiah
Street Time
The Chris Isaak Show
Penn&Teller: Bullshit!
Family Business

HBO lineup:
The Sopranos
Six Feet Under
The Wire
Sex and the City
Real Time with Bill Maher
Da Ali G Show
Oz
Curb Your Enthusiasm
Def Poetry
Project Greenlight
Band of Brothers
Arli$$
The Mind of the Married Man

Scratch Odyssey 5 off that list, Showtime canned it in favor of having Jeremiah as the only "sci-fi" show on Friday, even though O5 was the second highest rated show on the lineup.

Jeremiah is actually rather good, and shows many of J. Michael Straczynski qualities from Babylon 5. The entire first season was good, and showed lots of interleaved plot lines. It ended with about as much surpise that the last parts of B5 Season 1 did.

'll agree that the article that started this thread was about non-Christian-based ID

I should have clairified that. His preception of the exact term ID to him refers to the alien belief. He personally has a heavy Christian lean, but does not overly consider himself "religious".

Ah, well, it doesn't sound like something I'd be very interested in. It doesn't matter, really. I don't plan on getting either channel. I just wish I could mix 'n match my TV shows. I'd have one station that would show Real Time, Bullshit!, possibly Six Feet Under, and the rest of the time would play the best shows of TechTV.

Darn basic cable...

Easy. The scientific process used in dating and in the theory of evolution is laughable at best

Wrong actually. While older dating methods did have some flaws, and opened the door to "scientific non-proof" for all the creationism people, this newer one dosen't have such flaws. Isochron Dating is the proper term, and when someone from the Institue for Creation Research used it, they found some interesting results. They seem to think the Grand Canyon age issue debunks Isochron Dating, but they don't give any reason for this beyond the fact that the new data even puzzled scientists. My only idea is that since most of them believe the Earth is only thousands of years old, the 1.07 billion figure dosen't sit well with them.

I will admit even scientists have had a hard time with the Grand Canyon, but the dating method its self seems reliable

I hadn't heard the Grand Canyon thing. What's the deal with that? If you've got a good link I'd love to see it.

In reply to:

---

And if you are a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God

---

I'm not sure I agree with that. [disclaimer - I am not religious, although I have vague Gaiaist/Buddhist leanings] I think you can be a Christian, and believe in the Christian God, Jesus etc but can be sceptical of the writings in the bible as they were just written by people. I mean, there are a reasonable number of what appear to be complete contradictions in there, and a whole number of things a 'good' God surely never said to anyone. Of course that does assume the Christian God is a good one...

And if you are a Christian, you believe that the Bible is the inspired word of God, meaning everything in there is fact. Thus, you couldn't be a Christian and believe that God used evolution.

Well, *some* or even *many* Christians might believe that everything in the Bible is fact, but I can point out at least *one* counter-example of a Christian that *doesn't* think everything in the Bible is fact, let alone necessarily "inspired". Why?

a) Jesus taught in parables, right? I.e. stories. The stories weren't about fact, but were used as illustrative purposes to get a point across. If Jesus can do it, then why can't the people that wrote the Bible, inspired or not? Presumably Genesis was written for a bunch of people that did not have our scientific education, right? No matter how inspired a writer might be, do you think many people would really, honestly, truly understand if he went off about the big bang and primordial soup and micro-organisms and carbon based life-forms and DNA and evolution, supposing that that's what really happened? No. What would people of that era understand? "God spat on the earth, and out of the dust and mud, created man in his image." Now, is the inspiration of God found in the literal meaning of the text, or is the inspiration of God found in the ability of the writer to get the point across to his audience of the time?

b) The Bible has been translated from language to language to language. There are concepts in some languages that are un-translatable into other languages. For example, the Chinese word xia has no direct translation in English -- a loose translation is chivalrous hero, but that does not embody all the concepts of what xia really is (take that, Mom -- watching Kung Fu movies *did* teach me something!) Similarly, the Inuit have something like 40 different words for snow. We have... uh... about 4. I think it necessarily inevitable that something has been lost in the translation. Multiply that by the number of generations of translation before you get to English version, and you end up with something in which it would be impossible to have the identical meaning and context as the original. Heck, biblical scholars can't even come to an agreement over the original untranslated versions!

c) The content of the Bible has been under the control of people who's aims have been less Godly than Worldly. Texts have been included or not included based on political motivations. Popes and Kings have a vested interest in having the Bible say particular things.

d) The begats. I have no doubt of their truth, but really, just how inspired does one have to be to put down an historical lineage of a people. There are lots of folks into that sort of thing today, but does anyone call them "inspired by God"? I hardly think so. In my opinion, since there is one section of the Bible that could have been written without any need for divine inspiration, then there could well be others.

Science and Christianity (and religion in general) are not mutually incompatible. Religion does a great job providing one with some moral standard or code for living life, but it does a pretty bad job at explaining how things work. Science is the opposite -- it's great at explaining why or how things work, but you'll never get a decent answer from it about anything in the metaphysical realm.

FWIW, I was raised Christian, but part of my church's tenet is that any religion can only be interpreted through an individual's personal experiences, and is thus very much a subjective experience. Ergo, I was taught Faith, but not blind acceptance. To me, being told that the Bible contains only Absolute Truth hearkens back to the age when the Bible was only written in Latin in order that the Popes and priests could dictate what the unwashed illiterate masses would know about the Bible -- i.e. *their* version. After all, the instruction is "seek and ye shall find." How exactly is one seeking if one never questions?

Uhh.... am I ranting? I'll stop, now.

Cheers,

Even as a little kid, I wanted to know where the 3rd generation of people came from.

Unless Jesus isn't unique in being born of a virgin mother, the only answer I can figure is incest -- not exactly something you want to go trotting out in the middle of Sunday School, now, is it?

I think you can be a Christian, and believe in the Christian God, Jesus etc but can be sceptical of the writings in the bible as they were just written by people.

Heaven knows about the United States, but in the UK I think that's the majority form of Christianity: most Christians I know don't believe in creationism, or (another fundamentalist touchstone) Satan as an actual being (as opposed to a symbol of the evil in every human).

Peter

Edit: if the word "evil" in itself seems a bit superstitious and metaphysical, all I mean by it is "anti-social tendencies"; that is, tendencies which if expressed would be detrimental to society.