Updated 04:40 pm.EST, Sat November 21, 2009

Education|Mon, Dec. 10 2007 08:37 AM EST

Evolution, Intelligent Design Debate Hits Florida Schools

By Lawrence Jones|Christian Post Reporter

Florida’s proposed new standards requiring the teaching of evolution in science classes have many parents and educators demanding that other alternate concepts and theories, such as intelligent design, be taught alongside.

While students in Florida public schools for years have been learning many of the concepts that make up the theory of evolution – such as mutation and natural selection – the state Board of Education will decide in February whether to mandate a more explicit and in-depth teaching of evolution.

Advocates of the new science standards, which were proposed in October, say that the teaching of evolution and other topics required by the guidelines would improve Florida's poor performance in science.

In 2005, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, an education think tank, gave Florida an F grade during a review of science education programs nationwide. The present standards were criticized for covering too many topics for students to fully understand them, education officials say, according to The Associated Press.

At least one board member strongly supports the new standards.

But opinions on the controversial issue are varied.

Opponents of the new guidelines are calling on the state Board to provide for education on other theories on the origins of life – particularly, intelligent design.

"To show it from just one perspective and say this is more important or more accurate than the rest, I'm not so sure I'm in favor of that," state representative Will Weatherford told the St. Petersburg Times.

State board member Donna Callaway said she would vote against the standards, according to an editorial published by Florida Baptist Witness.

She agreed that evolution should be taught in some degree but wanted other theories explored as well, she said in the editorial.

"I firmly believe that a child can deal with the proof of science along with a personal belief in God as the Creator of the universe at the same time. The classroom should allow him, openly, that opportunity," said Callaway, a retired Tallahassee middle school principal with a Southern Baptist background.

The proposed revisions in Florida are part of a national debate on how evolution should be taught in public schools and whether to teach other theories. A recent Harris poll found that less than half of Americans (42 percent) said they believe in Darwin’s theory of evolution.

Critics of intelligent design contend that the teaching is motivated by religious beliefs and represents an attempt to introduce Creationism into the classrooms.

Proponents of intelligent design, however, say that scientific evidence shows that the origins of life came from an "intelligent cause." According to the Discovery Institute, a think tank on intelligent design, the teaching does not oppose the evolutionary theory – if “evolution” is defined by "change over time," or “that living things are related by common ancestry.” But proponents say they reject claims made by neo-Darwinian evolution.

Parents and educators in Florida have expressed support for teaching intelligent design by contacting the state Board of Education at public hearings and in letters, phone calls, e-mails, and comments on the Department of Education website.

Education activist Kim Kendall agrees with teaching evolution but wants teachers to offer evidence that also contradicts the Darwinian theory.

"They're being very dogmatic," Kendall said, as reported by AP. "They do need to continue to teach evolution, but they need to allow the teachers to teach both the faults and the supports of evolution."

"Students should learn why some scientists give scientific critiques of standard models of neo-Darwinian evolution," framer Fred Cutting, an aerospace engineer from Clearwater, wrote in a letter to both committees.

Two committees of scientists, educators and other citizens that wrote and framed the new standards are expected to consider the public comments before bringing the final draft to the board.

The comment period on the website ends Dec. 14 and two more public hearings are scheduled for Jan. 3 in Jacksonville and Jan. 8 in Fort Lauderdale.

Sort by: Newest | Oldest | Agree | Disagree
All comments on this page are subject to our Terms of Use and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Christian Post or its staff.
1 | 2
  • Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:35 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    WHY IS IT, WHEN A SUBJECT THAT IS RELIGHIOUS COMES UP IN THE PUBLIC,S ATTENTION.
    IT IS BAZZAR!
    LIKE:
    PEOPLE PRAYING TO A HIGHWAY
    PEOPLE PROTESTING A FUNARL
    PEOPLE SAYING SCIENCETIST ARE SATINIST
    PEOPLE TRYING TO COVENCE AMERICAN'S, THAT THEY ARE BETER OF ELECTING A PRIEST
    I, FOR ONE AM NOT BUYING (CLEAR EYE'S) EVER. IT MIGHT BE THE RESON, BEN STIEN NOW SEE'S THE WORLD LIKE HE DOE'S. USE CAUTION!
    THE MIND IS A TERRORIST THING TO WAIST!
    ALL RELIGION,S SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN SERIOUS ,EXCEPT FOR THE DANGER'S
    LIKE FREEDOM OF SPEECH! THAT'S A HATE CRIME? IM ONLY ACTING LIKE THE BIBLE SAY'S
    ATTACK!

  • Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:10 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 2

    NO FREEDOM OF SPEACH HERE
    LET'S JUST LET THEM HAVE THIER WAY WITH YOUR KIDS AND TEACH THERE MORALS
    A delicate woman doing evil to her children and eating them
    Deut. 28:56-57
    A fair woman without discretion resembling a jewel of gold in a swine's snout
    Proverbs 11:22
    A human body wallowing in blood on the highway
    II Sam. 20:12
    Abandoning orphans
    Psalms 109:7-20
    An angel killing 185,000 warriors in one night
    II Kings 19:35
    Angels consorting with women of earth
    Gen. 6:4
    Asking your neighbors to help you stone a stubborn son to death
    STAY TUNED KID'S WE'LL WORK ON THE (B'S) AFTER WE EAT GOD'S BODY FOR LUNCH!
    MY SON GO'S TO A CHRISTIAN SCHOOL AND THE WORD GOD! IS INBETWEEN EVERY WORD,
    EVERY CLASS, EVERY DAY, NO MATTER THE SUBJECT? CHRISTIAN'S MAKE CHRISTIAN'S LOOK BAD.
    POLICE YOURSELF!

  • Sun Feb 24, 2008 4:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    I NEED HELP CULT LEADER
    I CANT GET A JOB
    I LOST MY HOUSE
    MY CAR BROOK DOWN
    I GOT STAINS ON MY SOLE
    WHAT IS A INFIDEL TO DO?

  • Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:48 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Chris333,
    I know that NONE of those claims are valid, but the ignorant repeat them ad nausea and are trying to teach this junk to our children.

    "It's just a theory"
    Most people do not understand the difference between a scientific theory, and the colloquial use of the word theory. Do you? Evolutionary theory is supported by volumes of facts, and is no less valid than atomic theory, the germ theory of disease, or the theory of limits. Evolutionary theory has further proven itself in practice with applications in epidemiology, pest control, pharmacology to name a few. Why don’t you instead focus your crusade against electron theory which explains why you have power to make your computer work? After all, it’s just a theory.

    "There is no fossil evidence"
    I disagree with you. Many ID proponents claim that there is no fossil evidence (incorrectly). Those that say that the fossil record goes directly against evolution are wrong too. The observation that fossils of new species are fully formed is not evidence against evolution. This idea is based on the spurious assumption that organisms evolve evenly and slowly, that it involves most or all of the ancestral population, and that transformation occurs over most or all of the ancestral species' geographic range. Studies have shown (repeatedly) that new species arise mostly from the splitting of a small part of the original species into a new geographical area, which clearly explains the above assumptions. A change in environment is the greatest catalyst.

    "Scientists disagree"
    Not an argument – I agree. Almost every scientist disagrees with ID, save Behe and Dempski. However if you want to find consistent information and agreement about evolution, you don’t have to look any further than the worlds finest institutions, such as Harvard, Princeton, the National Academy of Science, or NASA. It’s baffling that some would rather get their information from quacks at the Discovery Institute.

    "The Universe is 6000 years old"
    Some ID proponents assert this. Do you? My point is that this is willful ignorance in the highest degree.

    "I didn't come from no monkey, I came from Jesus"
    Again, extremely stupid. First of all, nobody teaches that we evolved from monkeys. Rather, that we share a common ancestor with the great apes. So, you find it more tenable that you came from a man that lived 2000 years ago rather than natural processes? I bet if we polled a few 3 year olds, they might disagree.

  • Sat Jan 05, 2008 8:38 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 2

    jkrup, first you better get a basic understanding of the arguments against naturalistic evolution your list will not do.


    "It's just a theory"
    Yes it is just a theory, that is not evidence against it anyways. If you would have said, "All the evidennce for evolution can fit inside a tiny box" Quoting an atheistic pro-evolution scientist, then I would have been touched and also wanting to hear your response.

    "There is no fossil evidence"
    Wrong again, ID proponents do not say there is no fossil evidence, they say that the fossil record goes directly against evolution, that rather it looks like the various life forms were fully formed etc etc.

    "Scientists disagree"
    Not an argument, many scientists disagree, even within ID. Nobody uses that as a reason to reject evolution. However if they disagree on major points then we have reason to be suspect.

    "The Universe is 6000 years old"
    Not all ID proponents assert this, what is your point?

    "I didn't come from no monkey, I came from Jesus"
    ID proponents do not asset this, but it sounds more tennable than saying that a jaw bone proves we came from monkeys.

    Anyway, you said these things like they meant something, perhaps they mean that you do not understand the debate and are obviously just biased towards your own opinion, but not much else. Before you go off trying to defend science you better think about how to debate and what you are debating.

  • Sat Jan 05, 2008 7:30 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Here we go again...Another forum for America's dumbest to come and debate evolution. So let's hear those ignorant claims like:

    It's just a theory
    There is no fossil evidence
    Scientists disagree
    The Universe is 6000 years old
    I didn't come from no monkey, I came from Jesus

    Unfortunatly science needs defending. So let's hear your moronic claims so I can continue to explain basic science to deaf ears.

  • Thu Dec 27, 2007 11:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus,

    Check out William Lane Craig vs Bart Ehrman debate on the Historicity of the Resurrection. The point is, there is a strong historical precedent for believing in the Resurrection, it is not subjective or at all comparable to the Dali Lama.

    Token,

    The idea that Christ was made up or forged is shear intellectual suicide. If you deny the existence of Jesus as a real person, you may as well deny the existence of all other people of antiquity. If the Gospel accounts of Jesus did not have miracles then historians would say that Jesus Christ definitely existed and that the Gospel accounts are amazingly accurate.

  • Fri Dec 21, 2007 4:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Schumacr -

    1. There are many arguments regarding the probability of life being created. Some current arguments suggest that it's almost one-hundred percent likely in a universe. Others point out that the unlikeliness is irrelevant given that we're here; perhaps the universe has been pulsing forever and by chance in this one the constants are just so. The point is that we really don't sufficiently understand the situation to use it as a judgement.

    2. I would never attempt to use my building turning to cheese as a way to convince someone else. Do you believe in reincarnation on earth of enlightened lamas? There are many accounts in contemporary Buddhism, after all. Me, I don't believe that something unreasonable happened just because someone said it did, including the resurrection of christ or some enlightened lama or any other such claim. You asked what would convince me, not what would be transferrable to others. Anyone else would be perfectly justified in calling me loony. In fact I would be the first to question my own sanity.

  • Wed Dec 19, 2007 5:57 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP:

    Yes, Wikipedia is nice, but if you choose to actually read the scholars who know their stuff then you’ll find there are 2 accounts from Josephus – one that contains the disputed information and one that does not and simply references Christ as a historical person.

    I also notice you say I reference wrong ‘people’ and then just go after the disputed Josephus paragraph. What – couldn’t find anything to your liking on Pliny or Tacitus so you just ignore them? I like that you check up on things, but you need to not put on blinders and go all the way with the information excavation or at least simply admit you have to suspend judgment on your original statement at this time.

    Not so easy to disprove the NT or the historical evidence is it? The reason is, you can’t – it’s there, or as one of my favorite theologians has said, “The contrary of a truth can never be demonstrated” (Aquinas).

  • Tue Dec 18, 2007 6:21 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Hi, schmuacr you said:
    Oh my, you didn’t just claim all that did you? No offense, but you really haven’t looked into this at all... Working backwards, Tacitus – a Roman historian – referenced Jesus when he wrote in 100 AD: “Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor…” Pliny the younger, from Asia Minor, wrote in his works during the same time period: , “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed…” And Josephus, a Jewish historian and no friend of Christianity, has a somewhat lengthy portrayal of Christ in his “Antiquities of the Jews” work. There is more, but I think the above nails the coffin shut on your claim of no extra-biblical writings of Christ.

    Given your sources id say that you chose to take credit in the wrong people. To my current knowledge of the situation ^^ most scholars admit that Christians made forgery's of Jesus's existence such as Josephus and such. I suggest you look further into the credibility of those sources... and I know wikipedia isnt a very scholarly source but we can learn a lot from them at times ^^
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

  • Tue Dec 18, 2007 12:54 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    I understand your points and questions, which are good. Let me see if I can work through them. I hear your comments on Ross, but he’s not alone in his thoughts of course. Even Hawking (no friend of the God concept) admitted the universe’s knobs seems to be “very carefully chosen.”

    I also understand your comments on probability, but all this time we’ve discussed what is reasonable to believe and easier to accept. Is it really easier to believe all those mechanisms came together by chance than admit that some intelligence preselected them to allow life to occur?

    As to your questions that occur from me positing God – I hear you loud and clear. There certainly are questions to be answered and I can bounce through them if you’d like (from the Christian perspective). The starting point, though, is to first conclude that there is an intelligence out there that is responsible for what we know. Once you understand/accept that, then you begin work on the “what is ‘it’ like" set of issues.

    You must like cheese; I’m a chocolate guy myself. How about his miracle – Christ rising from the dead? Now before you poo-poo me, think about this: let’s say He really did turn your building into mozzarella. You’d be convinced you said. So you’d probably tell people, probably even write about what happened and do all you could to compile evidence to prove it to people. 100 years from now, do you think people would doubt what happened to you?

    Well, welcome to the NT account of the resurrection. The disciples ran from Christ when the Romans murdered Him, but three days later they came out of hiding and went to their death for one reason – they said they’d seen Him alive. People will die for the truth or what they believe to be the truth, but no one dies for what they know to be false. The evidence for the resurrection is some of the most solid stuff from history; ditto on what happened to the disciples. Heck, even Anthony Flew admitted that Christ came back from the dead, although he said it had to be a natural cause.

    God doesn’t use miracles flippantly like some people say; throughout all of history there were only 3 periods where they occurred and each time for the same reason – to validate His message to His people. Why not look at the book “Who Moved the Stone?” from Frank Morison? He originally set out to write a book disproving the resurrection and then became a believer through his investigation. It’s loaded with the type of logic and reasonable arguments you like.

    Thanks!

  • Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:27 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Schumacr -

    1. It should be noted that Hugh Ross is hardly the sole purveyer of the anthropic principle and is hardly an impartial scientist. The AP has many interpretations, his is but one fringe understanding.

    As an aside, as a mathematician I can assure you that "the exact same thing as zero chance" is a figure of speech. The chances of my rolling a six on a die 65 times in a row is 1/X where X is about 10^50. You and I can both agree, however, that it is far from impossible though certainly improbable.

    2. The problems with your "one big miracle" argument are manifold including:

    (a) It's a whopper which leaves many unspoken questions. Where is god? Is he subject to time? How did he perform actions with no time dimension? Where did he get the stuff to make the universe? Questions like these can roll off the tongue forever and most of them are fluffed over with the "unknowable-ness" of god. This is weak at best.

    (b) It's arbitrary. I could very well postulate the existence of a machine which churns out universes. Provided you ask no questions about the machine (don't, it's unknowable) then this is perfectly satisfactory.

    3. To answer your question about what it would take for me to believe in your god or someone else's, one example (off the top of my head) would be if he turned the building I live in to cheese. While he may be above such tomfoolery he'd certainly have to pull something equivalently unambiguously miraculous.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    TokenSP -
    I disagree with your scientific analogies as they don’t address my main argument, which is there are differences between intelligent and natural causes. Would your naturalist scientist stare up at Mt. Rushmore and begin to analyze how the elements created it?

    << The gospels are not firsthand accounts… authors of the gospels are unknown… none of these men were around when Jesus was alive… we dont find is historical documents as in documents outside religious texts that say Jesus existed>>

    Oh my, you didn’t just claim all that did you? No offense, but you really haven’t looked into this at all... Working backwards, Tacitus – a Roman historian – referenced Jesus when he wrote in 100 AD: “Christus, from whom they got their name, had been executed by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate when Tiberius was emperor…” Pliny the younger, from Asia Minor, wrote in his works during the same time period: , “They were in the habit of meeting on a certain fixed day before it was light, when they sang an anthem to Christ as God, and bound themselves by a solemn oath not to commit any wicked deed…” And Josephus, a Jewish historian and no friend of Christianity, has a somewhat lengthy portrayal of Christ in his “Antiquities of the Jews” work. There is more, but I think the above nails the coffin shut on your claim of no extra-biblical writings of Christ.

    As to your other claims of the NT authors not being around during the life of Christ, first century commentaries of the NT exist so that means the NT had to be written earlier. In fact, the entire NT can be reconstructed from the quotes of the early church fathers alone, except for a few lines in 3 John. But beyond that, even skeptics of the NT admit that there is not one NT book that goes past 90AD, with the synoptics being penned much earlier (as were Paul's epistles). All were written during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses and anyone who doubts their authorship or says otherwise has to look past an avalanche of scholarly research. The NT blossomed into over 5,000 ancient manuscripts; more than any other work from the ancient world with archeology never once refuting a person or place mentioned. If you’re going to toss out the NT, then toss our every other history book you’ve got on the ancient world.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus -

    Thanks for the clarifications - I appreciate it. My reference to great men/women who believe in God was only to refute the faulty-analogy fallacy of comparing God to the tooth fairy; the last time I looked there weren't men and women who have devoted their lives to the tooth fairy; that was my point.

    You raise an interesting reference with Ockham's razor. I have always felt that belief in God benefited from the razor as opposed to naturalism/atheism, with the reason being this: I only need one big miracle to explain the world whereas the atheist needs a billion little miracles to make sense of things. The anthropic principle alone (according to Hugh Ross) says that the odds of all anthropic constants (122 at last count) to be in place for any planet in the universe by luck alone is one chance in ten with 138 zeros after it. This number becomes even more incredible to me when you realize there are only 10 70 atoms in the entire universe and that mathematicians point out that anything which exceeds 10 50 power is the exact same thing as zero chance.

    I wasn't trying to stack the deck in my favor with the "what would it take" question; I genuinely would like to know. I will answer your question though: since I am a Christian, the only thing that needs to happen is for someone to truly produce the body of Christ. Do that one thing and Christianity is undone. Paul said that if Christ has not been raised our faith is worthless. So there you go. And the world will have to do better than James Cameron and Simcha Jacobovici 's lame attempt... :-)

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Chris333 - The Big Bang Theory (BBT) is the dominant theory about what appears to be going on, structurally, currently, with the universe. It does not address why it is going on or what happened in the first instant of the universe. Or rather, it attempts to address the latter but can't quite reach all the way back.

    The theories I mention which try to address things further are just conjectures. Basically what you do is sit down, look at the topological structure of the universe and conjecture what sort of larger structure this could be a part of. Some comments are in order:

    (a) All of these theories are just conjectures.
    (b) Almost all have so little data as make sure you refer to (a).
    (c) I don't specifically believe in any of them but some seem more reasonable than others.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:15 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Schumacr -

    1. Respectfully I believe you misunderstand me somewhat. I can accept the mathematical models of the universe because they fit the data. None of them adequately explain what happened in the first instant of the universe or why there is anything at all. It certainly bothers me to not have that information but I'll keep looking at the data; I feel no need to conjecture supernatural gods to fill in the gaps. The point here is that I'm not making factual statements other than to say "X is a possibility and so is Y, but X is more reasonable than Y." As I see it, the mathematical conjectures are more reasonable than the theological ones because the the latter come with so much philosophical baggage and create so many more unanswered questions that Occam's razor goes blunt in an instant.

    2. The fact that great scientists may believe in a god is no more evidence of one than if the craziest guy in the asylum does. Those great scientists may be making the same error. In truth the gods that many great scientists believe in sits very far in the background compared to the ones that the general public does.

    3. There is certainly a difference between a human being and an inanimate object, just not the difference you desire. We can differentiate designed versus natural but only in certain realms, as is evidenced by things like DNA for which there is ample evidence that it has evolved, even if it looks designed, and language for the same reason, not to mention things like snowflakes and the Fibonacci sequence.

    4. I avoided your "what would it take to believe" question because it was loaded in your favor. You give me one choice rather than many. What would it take me to believe in the Norse Gods? The Roman Gods? The Christian God? The Jainist idea of a soul in every living being? I have no idea, truly. How much evidence would I have to present you with in order for you to give up your beliefs?

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 2:00 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Well Im going to have to ask you to specify with specifics and not generality where God is necessary. Whats more, I have to offer this analogy of what it seems to me you are doing. A scientist may find a discovery and say "Wow that is remarkable" where we diverge is that a Christian scientist may say "Wow that is remarkable, it must be the work of God" where as a scientist who is truly a scientist would say "Wow that is remarkable, I wonder how that came to be." and does further research. It seems to me that we are coming to a conclusion in the study at which point the Christian is content in leaving it to God, whereas the other scientist whether he be atheist or even Christian, believes that theres more to it than simply putting it off on God. Things dont simply pan out the way you suggest. Same thing goes with Darwins theory, there is no reason that we have to even MAKE a conclusion thus far, on whether or not macroevolution is false or true. Certainly the possibility of ID could be speculated but that is a stretch. The stretch comes in that while every time we find a fossil it only adds to the abundance of evidence that supports evolution, the opposite can be said for ID. The more fossils we find the fewer and fewer places there are for an Intelligent Designer to make a creature.

    Well you can claim what you may about God, but it doesnt make him anymore real. It certainly makes the subject a lot less debatable to claim 'I dont know' but it doesnt make God any more real to claim such a thing. Whats more the Christian God was created to be very tangible and human like, it would seem to me that something as human and normal like as God would have to obey the rules of existence. Anyways it makes him a lot less significant to us...

    The gospels are not firsthand accounts, in fact the authors of the gospels are unknown, as in the writers were anonymous. To go further into this, none of these men were around when Jesus was alive, they tell stories of people who witnessed Jesus do these things. What we dont find is historical documents as in documents outside religious texts that say Jesus existed. If you deny this, then tell me one ancient document that tells of Jesus's existence that is not religious in intent or nature.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 8:50 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Torus – I don’t doubt Yockey isn’t admitting affection for intelligent design; he’s like F. Crick who discovered DNA, said it’s got the marks of intelligence, but then denies God and says we got it from extra-terrestrial life (which takes a lot of faith plus only puts off the argument).

    Regarding the universe, as I understand it, Einstein’s theory plus evidence from Hubble says our universe (space-time-matter) can be contracted back into a single starting point. Why is an impersonal eternality as plain as the nose on your face, but a personal eternality so preposterous? Is it because an impersonal eternality makes no demands upon you? In answer to your question (which I’ve stated previously), an impersonal eternality can’t produce an effect greater than itself – no unity/diversity and no personality is possible anymore than a block of wood can discharge beings with minds. And yet, in God, you have both as He’s a personal Being who possesses diversity in unity. Your position requires every bit if not more faith to hold, and while discussions of math models and such are nice, they are still an appeal-to-the-future fallacy at this point.

    Comparing God to unicorns or the sandman is a faulty-analogy fallacy; great scientists, theologians, etc., up through history until now believe it’s very reasonable to believe in God and are convinced the evidence – both scientific and philosophical – points straight to Him. If it’s fairy tales you want, how about telling kids one day that a frog turning into a prince is a fairy tale and then telling them when they get into high school it’s a fact?

    Further, just think about some of the things you’ve asked me to believe: there is no real difference in a human being vs. an inanimate object; we really can’t recognize things that are designed vs. things that naturally occur, and that the universe doesn’t have to come from something. No offense intended at all, but if I called 1,000 people random from the phone book or took those beliefs down to any school in town, what do you think folks would say?

    I was hoping to get a true answer as to what you require to consider God; perhaps I did – nothing. What does that say? I have thought about what would cause me to turn from my Christian faith, which means I consider falsifiability as part of the equation. If you don’t, then that says your presuppositions are clouding the reason you say you have.

    Thanks again.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:40 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey Torus,

    Sorry to breakin here. I just wanted to comment on your 3rd and 4th points and ask some questions. I'm not an expert on this stuff (but I don't think any of us are here) but the last time I checked the Big Bang was the dominant theory explaining the begining of the universe. That being said where did these "models" proposing "nothing before the universe" come from? Some scientist would have had to go back in time beyond the Big Bang in order to really know. Also,assuming that the universe just existed forever creates many more questions than answers. The simple question of why the universe exists, if the Big Bang is true then why does it exist and how do you reconcilliate the Big Bang with the eternity of the universe? The things you mentioned take a great deal of faith to believe in. I'm not sure I am willing to make that break with logic yet.

    Oh yeah and regarding point 4: I believe you wanted to say "what would make you believe there iis "not" an invisible unicorn in your room" if you were trying to attack intelligent design, that seems to be the trend in those kinds of remarks.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:15 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Hey TokenSP,

    Regarding your comment that religion adds an unnecessary variable: we are not debating relgion or personal persuasions (whether Christian, atheist, or other) we are debating whether or not an intelligent designer is necessary. That being said I think there are many reasons why we should think that an intelligent designer is necessary, it seems entirely incredulous to say that matter just randomly broke from the basic rule of the universe that things become simpler and not more complex, and then that the matter just so happened to randomly become more and more complex through random mutations until we have today's life (no matter how much time you add). Not to mention the fact that the fossil record doesn't support evolution (macroevolution that is) either. Rather than seeing a gradually increasing number of species, we see huge jumps and a sudden explosion of animals, and then over time there are becoming less and less species as they are becoming extinct. Darwin noticed this and he expected that as archaelogical advances were made the gaps would be filled, they haven't. Nonetheless this doesn't prove that God exists, but it certainly doesn't support macroevolution or make it appear that an intelligent designer is unnecessary.

    Regarding your second post about a concious god not being able to exist apart from time and space: How can we possibly know that to be true? Just because human beings are bound to the aspects of time and space doesn't mean that God has to be. It is extremely dangerous to take a specific and make it into a general, for instance if the only color of car I see is blue then I should not assume that all cars must be blue, or since time is a constant on earth then I assume that time must always be a constant (which it is not). If God created the universe and all that is in it then by definition He would have to be separate and transcendent from the universe and its laws, so probably the law of thermodynamics does not have to apply to God.

    Lastly regarding your final comment about firsthand accounts of Jesus: Why are the gospels of Mathew, Mark and John considered firsthand, as well as many of the epistles that describe in part Jesus' life and testify to Him? Historically speaking, they are extremely accurate and corroborated. Check out Josh McDowell's "Evidence that Demands a Verdict" on the validity of the gospels being reliable accounts of Jesus. The only basis by which "historians" say that these accounts do not qualify is because they contain "miracles" if it weren't for that they would be considered grade A historical documents.

  • Mon Dec 17, 2007 3:55 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Schumacr -

    1. The non-design argument does not require the a priori stance that god does not exist. In fact any number of gods could exist while simultaneously they could not be necessary for the process as I see science uncovering it. That's the whole point, the a priori beliefs are essentially zero in number other than to say "Let reason divulge what reason divulges."

    2. I'm not sure which article of Yockey's you're referring to but I checked his web page and all I can see is him railing AGAINST intelligent design and him trying to make a point that the origin of life is unsolvable in an information-theoretic sense. I agree with his points about intelligent design but I'm not so sure about his information-theory. What I have found is references to the fact that he's not a creationist himself, he's just quoted a lot by that bunch.

    3. (1) Yes, something exists. (2) Why do you think the universe has to come from something? The universe is not something which exists WITHIN time, it's something which has time as a property of it. Models suggest there was no "before". So the question is really a non-starter. If you're not okay with that (it bothers me too) then the trouble with postulating gods to fill the gap is that postulating a supernatural being is less logical than postulating a larger mathematical structure in which the universe is a part and which has existed forever, in some sense. Why is this second suggestion not your preferable one?

    4. What would convince you that there is an undetectable unicorn in the room with you?

  • Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Oh I've got a question, are there any documents of the existence of Jesus? Have they found manuscripts or first account witnesses who have seen Jesus? I've heard both arguements, Christians who say scholars say Jesus exist, but at the same time ive heard people say that there are no documents of Jesus's existence.

  • Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:46 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    One last thing, if we believe God exists and is concious, then we have to assume that he is subject to the laws of time and space, as in he must exist within time and space. If that is so then we have to assume that as long as God has existed there has been a 'space' from which he has had to existed in. If that is true, wouldnt it be imperative that the universe existed eternally as well so that God could exist in a space and time? If God transcends time and space then he obviously is not concious, because concious is a process, a sequence, one cannot think without time. And if he transcends space, then where in Gods name (no pun intended) would God reside? Would he reside in a space seperate from ours? Even if that were true, wouldnt that space need to be eternal with God? This would be supported by the first law of thermodynamics, and if we accept that as a truth, where does God come in? Well if we accept that and say that God is the first creator, wouldnt that mean that God is not working by the rules of logic? If we conclude this, cant we say that God can do wats logically impossible? Creating a square circle and what not. Anyways, just food for thought ^^.

  • Sun Dec 16, 2007 11:37 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    The whole point here schumacr is that religion adds a whole new variable that is quite unnecessary. Its as if we are conducting a study on why people are more sleep deprived in this day and age than before, and in our conclusion we say that people are working longer hours and stress more over money, and then add to the end that due to the increase in population, the sand man is unable to make the trips to every home as quickly as he once did. I know, that is rude to compare God to the sandman but I am not trying to be rude, it is just an analogy. The study conducted observed many different variables too be sure, all of which were most likely tangible, as in they were real. When it comes down to making a conclusion, sometimes we do have to make some speculation on the implications, but it is by no means necessary to fabricate something that isnt there. Christians of course find their evidence for God from the Bible, but in the world of science, there is no time for things we cannot observe in the natural world. To add supernatural aspects to science undermines the whole purpose of it, which is to take facts or truths to arrange them in order to understand general laws. DNA is very complex, that is a fact, but the simple fact of the matter is that it can be explained, right down to its building blocks. We can even speculate using science how this may occur naturally, and we've come very close after finding the self-replicating RNA.

  • Sun Dec 16, 2007 12:08 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Torus –

    I do understand your argument against recognizing design; it was what J. S. Mill used against William Paley’s design argument. While I understand that in theory, I have to scratch my head over it in the practical world. How many people do you think have stood looking at Mt. Rushmore and said, “Coulda been time plus the elements…”? And why does the non-design argument get the nod when it goes past everything we know unless another a priori stance is held – that God doesn’t exist? I think we can recognize and understand design vs. natural effects, but we have to shove presuppositions aside so our view isn’t clouded.

    Why do you feel Yockey’s (from Berkeley) article isn’t scholarly? All I’m saying is we have no evidence from history of language ever arising apart from intellect (which you do admit) and if DNA matches the attributes of a language, then it’s reasonable to conclude that some intellect is behind it.

    As to your last point, if you start off with “I don’t know” then work from there, I think it’s far more reasonable to walk down the path of (1) understanding that something exists, (2) that non-being can’t produce something, (3) therefore a necessary and eternal being exists. And if all the evidence we have points away from an impersonal eternal universe, then you’re left with a personal Beginner.

    Not baiting you at all here – I would genuinely like to know: what would be convincing to you? Just hypothetically speaking? And I’m happy to answer the question in reverse for you if you’d like.

    Thanks again.

  • Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Schumacr -

    1. The problem is as far as the universe is concerned, we have no reason to think that we can recognize intelligent vs. natural. All the things you present as analogy are loaded in your favor because they're all things we know a priori are created by intelligent creatures. Furthermore, as I've pointed out, complicated things arise from simple rules. Our ignorance of these rules is no reason to make the mad leap to super-intelligent all-powerful beings, something which creates far more questions than it answers.

    2. You have mentioned DNA before but you have yet to cite a reputable peer-reviewed journal which backs up your claim of "equivalent to a language". Furthermore, languages are a bad analogy because they themselves were not invented, they evolved over the millennia. Sure, they evolved in parallel with intelligence but they are not a consequence of it and in fact it has been argued that intelligence itself evolved partly as a result of language. Suffice to say that the claim that an intelligence designed language is false. Similarly DNA evolved (did you check those scientific results I suggested?) and in fact is a core part of the proof of evolution.

    3. It is unnecessary to have faith to conclude that an intelligent source is not required for the universe. You merely have to clear your mind and say to yourself "I don't know, now what does reason suggest that is logical and reliable?" The rest is easy. Try it, you'll find it refreshing.

    Yours, sincerely.

  • Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:11 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Torus – I agree with your points on the need for study, although I would say there are certain things, as one author puts it, that intuitively “we can’t not know” especially in the areas of morality. But your point is good and is taken.

    On complicated vs. simple, I would respectfully submit that there is still good reason to recognize intelligent vs. natural causes even in ‘simple’ situations. For examples, an arrowhead found in a stream vs. simple natural stone formations, or the message spelled out on a scrabble board “I like having our dialogs on this subject” vs. random combinations of letters caused by dumping the contents of the box out. Heck, even in the movie “Contact” (which came via a novel from Carl Sagan), they admit intelligence when they discover a message of prime numbers coming from space. Perhaps it isn’t so much complexity as it is information and the passage of it?

    The concept of information fits well with DNA also. Even Dawkins admits that the DNA message found in a one cell amoeba is equivalent to 1,000 volumes of encyclopedic information; and it is information, not random ATCG formations. And as I’ve mentioned before, DNA is mathematically equivalent to a language and no language has ever risen without intelligence. BTW, I think you had asked me for the source of this before and I finally found it: “It is important to understand that we are not reasoning by analogy. The sequence hypothesis applies directly to the protein and the genetic text as well as to written language and therefore the treatment is mathematically identical.” - (Herbert P. Yockey, “Self Organization, Origin-of-life Scenarios and Information Theory,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Volume 91, 1981, 16.)

    I guess the bottom line for me is I don’t have enough faith to conclude that all this has happened without an intelligent source behind it. Even using your own words, you describe “machine-like” processes: machines imply design and a designer and just as we build machines to do things, the molecular machines that run life exhibit the same type of design.

    Finally, I do know and like Copernicus; he was a believer in God as one of his quotes spells out: “So vast, without question, is the divine handiwork of the Almighty Creator.”

    Again, good talking with you.

  • Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:34 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Schumacr - I think a primary problem is that you consider things very complicated. A priori we cannot make such assumptions for two reasons. One, it's hard to define "complicated" and two, we simply don't know. It's especially dangerous to do so, rationally speaking, if you're going to use that as a foundation for further deduction (essence, god, etc.)

    From the start we know nothing and so we deduce only from study. We don't know if people are simple objects (and should admit as such) until study is done. Study seems to find that we're detailed but dictated by simple chemical reactions. DNA has evolved (details of this still coming, I'm assuming you saw the article last week about recent evolution? Also check out the presence of retroviral fragments in DNA) and is very machine-like in the way it directs the construction of a human, even if we don't understand all the details. Whether we like this outcome is not relevant, it is what is found.

    To cite another example, it used to be thought that the movements of planets was complicated. If you recall, when it was assumed (here lies the fatal error) that the Earth was the center of the universe, all sorts of complicated theories followed regarding planets and moons lying on fixed spheres about the Earth. We had a bad assumption and a presumed complexity which was then gutted when science (by the names of Nicolaus Copernicus and later Johannes Kepler) came along and showed that things moved according to simple rules after all.

  • Sat Dec 15, 2007 7:25 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Torus –

    I have to smile at your assertion of me using a circular argument (I’m not) as you assume no God, say man is no more than matter, which feeds back into your argument of there being no God. If you don’t see and recognize real differences between human beings and the keyboard you’re typing on (which is what I’ve been trying to get across all this time), then there’s not much more I can say to you.

    The universe may not be a novel, but it shows marks of intelligence everywhere, which was my point. You also fictitiously stick Behe out on an island like he’s the only scientist who believes in God, which is a mammoth untruth. History and present day is littered with believers who are scientists as Alister McGrath’s recent books shows. Science, when truly followed and not blinded by philosophical presuppositions, supports God and doesn’t deny him.

    Not sure what you mean about having my cake and eating it too. I haven’t dismissed science, but only tried to demonstrate the differences between operational and forensic science, plus give the reasons for using a legal-based approach to analyzing the Bible. But by contrast, what I have seen instead are atheists who somehow think science has buried God and use deflection or reductionist techniques (such as those used on my points of argumentation) to ignore things they don’t like. My favorite quote in this area is from Francis Crick: “Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved.” If that’s not a statement on the presuppositions of naturalism, I don’t know what is.

    In any event, for a guy who was accidentally composed by an impersonal, purposeless, and meaningless universe, you sure seem to write with personality, purpose, and meaning… :-)

  • Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:26 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    tSchumacr -

    1. Your evaluation of man is circular. If you assume he's created by god then it follows that he's more than just raw matter, but accepting that he's more than raw matter feeds back into your essence argument which seems to be part of your justification for god.

    2. My point about intelligent design is that the analogy (in this case the War and Peace - universe one) is flawed. The universe is not a novel and I think you'd be hard-pressed at the end of the day to back that analogy up with data. Michael Behe has tried; his first book was quickly gutted by science and his second one is in the process of. Fact is, all that structure which appears intelligently created seems in truth to be the result of a simple process. Data suggests this strongly.

    3. The real issue her (regarding methodology in theology) is that you want your cake and to eat it to. You want to invoke science and argument when you feel it supports your choice of god and religion but you want to dismiss it when it undercuts the basis for any religion. You can't have it both ways. If you're going to accept rational argument (and science, and all the bountiful products it's given us) then you've simply got to admit that it quickly washes away all the pseudo-arguments for this-or-that religion.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:01 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    Torus – thanks for your response. I understand your point on my carpenter analogy, but I would respectfully submit that you’ve got a ‘nothing buttery’ fallacy going (man is nothing but [fill in the blank] – a reductive fallacy). Perhaps this is where you and I are missing each other; I think man, being created by God, is more than just a bunch of raw matter whereas you do not. I do believe there is more to us than a car engine or other non-personal matter. As an aside, I’m surprised to see you call DNA ‘simple’.

    I agree with your observation on forensic science; this was one of the points I was trying to raise. Is it more rational to believe intelligence was behind a novel or to postulate an explosion in a printing shop brought about War and Peace? Looking at the Grand Canyon and Mt. Rushmore exhibit two different kinds of causes and I believe it’s much more rational to embrace an intelligent architect behind DNA and all that we know rather than time + chance + accidental motion + matter.

    Your question on where do you turn once you admit the supernatural is an excellent one. Why not just create and worship a Green Cheese Goddess or whatever else someone wants to conjure up? This is where a systematic method comes into theology just as it does science (remember theology used to be called the queen of the sciences?). Just as you need to follow methodologies in science to reach valid conclusions, you have to do the same thing in theology to eliminate falsehoods and find the truth. Is it easy? No, but you can get to the truth. Can you make mistakes and end up with what you describe? Yep, for certain. But giving 50 good math students a semi-tough calculus problem will also result in quite a few getting the answer wrong, however it doesn’t mean a true and correct answer doesn’t exist. And will you have some things you can’t explain in full? Sure, but there are lots of things scientists can’t explain but they don’t throw out their inductive methods and give up – they keep exploring and learning. So does the Christian.

    Anyway, you seem like a smart person and someone who’s genuinely given things a good amount of thought; I appreciate your viewpoint and the dialog.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Really, when are these ID people going to get the message? In one state after another they try this same material, and it always gets shot down. Repeat after me: Creationists Always Lose In Court. That's because their BS can be found to be unsound with only a minimum of scrutiny.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:28 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Every scientific theory, including Darwinian evolution, has had to fight its way up through the peer-review process and win a consensus in the scientific community BEFORE it has been accepted into textbook and classroom. What these creationist proponents are doing is trying to get the government to cheat for them, to insert their material into classrooms before the scientific community agrees with them. That's a violation of the whole scientific process and it's not fair. The rules are the same for everyone, and if they can't play by them, they should go home.

    If creationists ever manage to win a consensus in the scientific community, then their BS can be taught in schools. But doing so now would be to cheat our children out of the education they deserve.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:23 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    To suggest that schools should teach something that the scientific community overwhelmingly and repeatedly rejects is madness. Every single natural history museum, every single peer-reviewed biology journal and every single university biology department throughout the entire world accepts evolutionary science and rejects creationism. To tell students that these two "perspectives" are equal would be to lie to them.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:29 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    torus:

    I have a suggestion for you. When you think your post is going to be 3000 characters or more, such as my highjacking the site, and posting my endless "mumbo jumbo" as you called it, I think you should copy and paste your whole post onto a microsoft word format blank sheet, and then post it in segments with the word "continued" at the top of the post. I hope I've helped you with your dilema.

    And may you too become a believing scientist, or atheist or whatever you call yourself. I can only hope that you repent of your unbelief, adn that you come to a Saving knowledge of Jesus Christ as your personal LORD and SAVIOR. Have a great day.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:22 pm Agree: 3   Disagree: 1

    ifeelfine wrote:

    "So you think that I have to believe in a young earth to be a Christian? That's what it seems like you are saying. If I don't, I'm a "carnal Christian," is that about right?"

    No, ifeefine, this is not the main and only reason. Make sure when you quote me again, you refer to both issues I addressed. The primary one as to why I believe you're a carnal Christian is because of other posts where you side with post modern/liberal/secular progressives in stating your stance on homosexuality and the BIble. You have clearly said you don't feel that homosexuality is a sin, and that a Christian who professes to be homosexual can be a true Christian. This is contrary to what the Bible teaches. In addition, I commented on the young earth/old earth issue when I hear you now talking about how we have all this substantive evindence for an earth that is millions upon millions of years old, i can only conclude that you are in the business of re-interpreting the Bible, and re-inventing your own world view contrary to the Bible. That's all.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:16 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

    torus wrote:

    "jc4me - Thanks for hijacking the comments with your rambling quoted pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo."


    You're very welcome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 12:05 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    Schumacr - I'll respond in brief, since I just wrote a nice post and the site killed it for being over 3,000 characters.

    One, your definition of "essence" is grounded in ignorance about how things are built and how they function. You argue that a carpenter has more "essence" than a carpenter but you don't seem bothered by the fact that a carpenter is constructed from raw matter (food, air, water) and simple rules (DNA) in a pretty machine-like way.

    Two, a forensic scientist would not say "I can't prove where these fingerprints came from beyond a doubt so god put them there" either. He'd look for the best rational (key word) answer which fits the data available with minimal fallout. Postulating a god causes all sorts of problems as far as rational explanations of the universe go.

    Three, scientists ignore the supernatural because once you dismiss the demand for reason, logic, rigor, etc., you might as well believe any old thing. Why one god? Why not two? Why not super-intelligent invisible aliens?

    jc4me - Thanks for hijacking the comments with your rambling quoted pseudoscientific mumbo-jumbo.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 9:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

    Greetings ifeelfine72, I have read where you said Jesus was "liberal and progressive". Do you also think He is very God, creator of the universe (John 1:3), the great I AM (John 8:58, etc.), and the judge at the great white throne judgement (Revelation 20:11-15). As judge, the liberal and progressive Jesus, will cast those who have rejected Him, who were never regenerated and born-again, into the lake of fire for eternity.

    As far as this thread, I'm not sure, but I lean in the direction of C. I. Scofield and J. Vernon McGee, neither of whom believed in a young earth.

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 6:07 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    Job 12:8 "Speak to the earth, and it will teach thee."

  • Fri Dec 14, 2007 5:42 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

    jc4me - The Institute of Creation Research? That's where you get your information from? Give me a break - talk about an agenda.

    So you think that I have to believe in a young earth to be a Christian? That's what it seems like you are saying. If I don't, I'm a "carnal Christian," is that about right?

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 9:42 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

    To Shumacr:
    For now I will drop the Singlestring theory, debate I admit defeat on the basis of ignorance. I've tried to decipher it for myself, and I cant make the connection as of yet, but atheists that I speak with assertain that it proves an enternal universe so I will have to pick their brains about it.

    As to Anthony Flew, if I ever began to believe in a God, it would be for the same reasons that he did. What I say about his conclusions is that he made a leap of faith, he contended that science was unable to prove something, and refused to look further into it. I disagree with his assertations.

    The statistics. Youre right you can find statistics for anything, and I wont play a battle of whos stats are better? because I dont have the stamina to look them up at the moment o_o, but I state now that I believe the stats i stated are more logically reasonable, as in there is more reasoning behind it than stats saying there are more christian scientists than atheist scientists.

    There doesnt need to be a 'why' for personal beings in this universe is what i meant. There is a cause and science explains the cause to the best of its ability, etc etc, but what im saying is there doesnt need to be a why. There doesnt need to be a ' we were put on this earth to go through a test to see whether or not we would get into heaven' rather we are just here because the universe manifested itself in such a way that we came into existence.

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:
    25. Gentry, R. V., G. L. Glish, and E. H. McBay, Differential helium retention in zircons: implications for nuclear waste containment, Geophysical Research Letters 9(10):1129-1130 (October 1982).
    26. Humphreys, D. R, et al., Helium diffusion age of 6,000 years supports accelerated nuclear decay, Creation Research Society Quarterly 41(1):1-16 (June 2004). See archived article on following page of the CRS website: http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm.
    27. Baumgardner, J. R., et al., Measurable 14C in fossilized organic materials: confirming the young earth creation-flood model, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 127-142. Archived at http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf. See poster presented to American Geophysical Union, Dec. 2003, AGUC-14_Poster_Baumgardner.pdf.
    28. McDougall, I., F. H. Brown, and J. G. Fleagle, Stratigraphic placement and age of modern humans from Kibish, Ethiopia, Nature 433(7027):733-736 (17 February 2005).
    29. Deevey, E. S., The human population, Scientific American 203:194-204 (September 1960).
    30. Marshack, A., Exploring the mind of Ice Age man, National Geographic 147:64-89 (January 1975).
    31. Dritt, J. O., Man's earliest beginnings: discrepancies in evolutionary timetables, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 73-78, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
    Additional Resources for items 9-11.
    • DeYoung, D., Thousands ... Not Billions, Master Books (2005) Green Forest, AR.
    • Vardiman, L, Snelling, A. A., and Chaffin E. F., editors, Radioisotopes and the Age of the Earth, Vol. II, Institute for Creation Research and Creation Research Society (2005) El Cajon, CA and Chino Valley, AZ. (Technical).
    *Dr. Humphreys is an Associate Professor of Physics at ICR.

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:
    13. Humphreys, D. R., Reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the Genesis flood, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 113-126, out of print but contact http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm for help in locating copies.
    14. Coe, R. S., M. Prévot, and P. Camps, New evidence for extraordinarily rapid change of the geomagnetic field during a reversal, Nature 374:687-92 (20 April 1995).
    15. Humphreys, D. R., Physical mechanism for reversals of the earth's magnetic field during the flood, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 129-142, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
    16. Austin, S. A. and J. D. Morris, Tight folds and clastic dikes as evidence for rapid deposition and deformation of two very thick stratigraphic sequences, Proceedings of the First International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1986), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 3-15, out of print, contact http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm for help in locating copies.
    17. Gibbons A., Calibrating the mitochondrial clock, Science 279:28-29 (2 Jan-uary 1998).
    18. Cherfas, J., Ancient DNA: still busy after death, Science 253:1354-1356 (20 September 1991). Cano, R. J., H. N. Poinar, N. J. Pieniazek, A. Acra, and G. O. Poinar, Jr. Amplification and sequencing of DNA from a 120-135-million-year-old weevil, Nature 363:536-8 (10 June 1993). Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Pääbo, Neandertal DNA sequences and the origin of modern humans, Cell 90:19-30 (Jul 11, 1997). Lindahl, T, Unlocking nature's ancient secrets, Nature 413:358-359 (27 September 2001).
    19. Vreeland, R. H.,W. D. Rosenzweig, and D. W. Powers, Isolation of a 250 million-year-old halotolerant bacterium from a primary salt crystal, Nature 407:897-900 (19 October 2000).
    20. Schweitzer, M., J. L. Wittmeyer, J. R. Horner, and J. K. Toporski, Soft-Tissue vessels and cellular preservation in Tyrannosaurus rex, Science 207:1952-1955 (25 March 2005).
    21. Gentry, R. V., Radioactive halos, Annual Review of Nuclear Science 23:347-362 (1973).
    22. Gentry, R. V. , W. H. Christie, D. H. Smith, J. F. Emery, S. A. Reynolds, R. Walker, S. S. Christy, and P. A. Gentry, Radiohalos in coalified wood: new evidence relating to time of uranium introduction and coalification, Science 194:315-318 (15 October 1976).
    23. Gentry, R. V., Radiohalos in a radiochronological and cosmological perspective, Science 184:62-66 (5 April 1974).
    24. Snelling, A. A. and M. H. Armitage, Radiohalos—a tale of three granitic plutons, Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (2003), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 243-267, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm. Also archived on the ICR website at ICCRADIOHALOS-AASandMA.pdf.

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:35 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:

    References
    1. Scheffler, H. and Elsasser, H., Physics of the Galaxy and Interstellar Matter, Springer-Verlag (1987) Berlin, pp. 352-353, 401-413.
    2. D. Zaritsky, H-W. Rix, and M. Rieke, Inner spiral structure of the galaxy M51, Nature 364:313-315 (July 22, 1993).
    3. Davies, K., Distribution of supernova remnants in the galaxy, Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1994), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 175-184, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
    4. Steidl, P. F., Planets, comets, and asteroids, Design and Origins in Astronomy, pp. 73-106, G. Mulfinger, ed., Creation Research Society Books (1983), order from http://www.creationresearch.org/.
    5. Whipple, F. L., Background of modern comet theory, Nature 263:15-19 (2 September 1976). Levison, H. F. et al. See also: The mass disruption of Oort Cloud comets, Science 296:2212-2215 (21 June 2002).
    6. Milliman, John D. and James P. M. Syvitski, Geomorphic/tectonic control of sediment discharge to the ocean: the importance of small mountainous rivers, The Journal of Geology, vol. 100, pp. 525-544 (1992).
    7. Hay, W. W., et al., Mass/age distribution and composition of sediments on the ocean floor and the global rate of sediment subduction, Journal of Geophysical Research, 93(B12):14,933-14,940 (10 December 1988).
    8. Meybeck, M., Concentrations des eaux fluviales en elements majeurs et apports en solution aux oceans, Revue de Géologie Dynamique et de Géographie Physique 21(3):215 (1979).
    9. Sayles, F. L. and P. C. Mangelsdorf, Cation-exchange characteristics of Amazon River suspended sediment and its reaction with seawater, Geochimica et Cosmochimica Acta 43:767-779 (1979).
    10. Austin, S. A. and D. R. Humphreys, The sea's missing salt: a dilemma for evolutionists, Proceedings of the Second International Conference on Creationism, vol. II, Creation Science Fellowship (1991), Pittsburgh, PA, pp. 17-33, order from http://www.icc03.org/proceedings.htm.
    11. Nevins, S., [Austin, S. A.], Evolution: the oceans say no!, Impact No. 8 (Nov. 1973) Institute for Creation Research.
    12. Humphreys, D. R., The earth's magnetic field is still losing energy, Creation Research Society Quarterly, 39(1):3-13, June 2002. http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/39/39_1/GeoMag.htm.

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:

    12. Not enough Stone Age skeletons.
    Evolutionary anthropologists now say that Homo sapiens existed for at least 185,000 years before agriculture began,28 during which time the world population of humans was roughly constant, between one and ten million. All that time they were burying their dead, often with artifacts. By that scenario, they would have buried at least eight billion bodies.29 If the evolutionary time scale is correct, buried bones should be able to last for much longer than 200,000 years, so many of the supposed eight billion stone age skeletons should still be around (and certainly the buried artifacts). Yet only a few thousand have been found. This implies that the Stone Age was much shorter than evolutionists think, perhaps only a few hundred years in many areas.
    13. Agriculture is too recent.
    The usual evolutionary picture has men existing as hunters and gatherers for 185,000 years during the Stone Age before discovering agriculture less than 10,000 years ago.29 Yet the archaeological evidence shows that Stone Age men were as intelligent as we are. It is very improbable that none of the eight billion people mentioned in item 12 should discover that plants grow from seeds. It is more likely that men were without agriculture for a very short time after the Flood, if at all.31


    14. History is too short.
    According to evolutionists, Stone Age Homo sapiens existed for 190,000 years before beginning to make written records about 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Prehistoric man built megalithic monuments, made beautiful cave paintings, and kept records of lunar phases.30 Why would he wait two thousand centuries before using the same skills to record history? The Biblical time scale is much more likely.31

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:33 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:

    9. Fossil radioactivity shortens geologic "ages" to a few years.


    Radio Halo, Photo: Courtesy of Mark Armitage
    Radiohalos are rings of color formed around microscopic bits of radioactive minerals in rock crystals. They are fossil evidence of radioactive decay.21 "Squashed" Polonium-210 radiohalos indicate that Jurassic, Triassic, and Eocene formations in the Colorado plateau were deposited within months of one another, not hundreds of millions of years apart as required by the conventional time scale.22 "Orphan" Polonium-218 radiohalos, having no evidence of their mother elements, imply accelerated nuclear decay and very rapid formation of associated minerals.23,24
    10. Too much helium in minerals.
    Uranium and thorium generate helium atoms as they decay to lead. A study published in the Journal of Geophysical Research showed that such helium produced in zircon crystals in deep, hot Precambrian granitic rock has not had time to escape.25 Though the rocks contain 1.5 billion years worth of nuclear decay products, newly-measured rates of helium loss from zircon show that the helium has been leaking for only 6,000 (± 2000) years.26 This is not only evidence for the youth of the earth, but also for episodes of greatly accelerated decay rates of long half-life nuclei within thousands of years ago, compressing radioisotope timescales enormously.
    11. Too much carbon 14 in deep geologic strata.
    With their short 5,700-year half-life, no carbon 14 atoms should exist in any carbon older than 250,000 years. Yet it has proven impossible to find any natural source of carbon below Pleistocene (Ice Age) strata that does not contain significant amounts of carbon 14, even though such strata are supposed to be millions or billions of years old. Conventional carbon 14 laboratories have been aware of this anomaly since the early 1980s, have striven to eliminate it, and are unable to account for it. Lately the world's best such laboratory which has learned during two decades of low-C14 measurements how not to contaminate specimens externally, under contract to creationists, confirmed such observations for coal samples and even for a dozen diamonds, which cannot be contaminated in situ with recent carbon.27 These constitute very strong evidence that the earth is only thousands, not billions, of years old.

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:32 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:
    6. The earth's magnetic field is decaying too fast.


    Electrical resistance in the earth's core wears down the electrical current which produces the earth's magnetic field. That causes the field to lose energy rapidly.
    The total energy stored in the earth's magnetic field ("dipole" and "non-dipole") is decreasing with a half-life of 1,465 (± 165) years.12 Evolutionary theories explaining this rapid decrease, as well as how the earth could have maintained its magnetic field for billions of years are very complex and inadequate. A much better creationist theory exists. It is straightforward, based on sound physics, and explains many features of the field: its creation, rapid reversals during the Genesis flood, surface intensity decreases and increases until the time of Christ, and a steady decay since then.13 This theory matches paleomagnetic, historic, and present data, most startlingly with evidence for rapid changes.14 The main result is that the field's total energy (not surface intensity) has always decayed at least as fast as now. At that rate the field could not be more than 20,000 years old.15
    7. Many strata are too tightly bent.
    In many mountainous areas, strata thousands of feet thick are bent and folded into hairpin shapes. The conventional geologic time scale says these formations were deeply buried and solidified for hundreds of millions of years before they were bent. Yet the folding occurred without cracking, with radii so small that the entire formation had to be still wet and unsolidified when the bending occurred. This implies that the folding occurred less than thousands of years after deposition.16
    8. Biological material decays too fast.
    Natural radioactivity, mutations, and decay degrade DNA and other biological material rapidly. Measurements of the mutation rate of mitochondrial DNA recently forced researchers to revise the age of "mitochondrial Eve" from a theorized 200,000 years down to possibly as low as 6,000 years.17 DNA experts insist that DNA cannot exist in natural environments longer than 10,000 years, yet intact strands of DNA appear to have been recovered from fossils allegedly much older: Neandertal bones, insects in amber, and even from dinosaur fossils.18 Bacteria allegedly 250 million years old apparently have been revived with no DNA damage.19 Soft tissue and blood cells from a dinosaur have astonished experts.20

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:

    4. Not enough mud on the sea floor.


    Rivers and dust storms dump mud into the sea much faster than plate tectonic sub-duction can remove it.
    Each year, water and winds erode about 20 billion tons of dirt and rock from the continents and deposit it in the ocean.6 This material accumulates as loose sediment on the hard basaltic (lava-formed) rock of the ocean floor. The average depth of all the sediment in the whole ocean is less than 400 meters.7 The main way known to remove the sediment from the ocean floor is by plate tectonic subduction. That is, sea floor slides slowly (a few cm/year) beneath the continents, taking some sediment with it. According to secular scientific literature, that process presently removes only 1 billion tons per year.7 As far as anyone knows, the other 19 billion tons per year simply accumulate. At that rate, erosion would deposit the present mass of sediment in less than 12 million years. Yet according to evolutionary theory, erosion and plate subduction have been going on as long as the oceans have existed, an alleged three billion years. If that were so, the rates above imply that the oceans would be massively choked with sediment dozens of kilometers deep. An alternative (creationist) explanation is that erosion from the waters of the Genesis flood running off the continents deposited the present amount of sediment within a short time about 5,000 years ago.
    5. Not enough sodium in the sea.
    Every year, rivers8 and other sources9 dump over 450 million tons of sodium into the ocean. Only 27% of this sodium manages to get back out of the sea each year.9,10 As far as anyone knows, the remainder simply accumulates in the ocean. If the sea had no sodium to start with, it would have accumulated its present amount in less than 42 million years at today's input and output rates.10 This is much less than the evolutionary age of the ocean, three billion years. The usual reply to this discrepancy is that past sodium inputs must have been less and outputs greater. However, calculations that are as generous as possible to evolutionary scenarios still give a maximum age of only 62 million years.10 Calculations11 for many other seawater elements give much younger ages for the ocean

  • Thu Dec 13, 2007 8:31 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

    Continued:

    2. Too few supernova remnants.


    Crab Nebula
    Photo: Courtesy of NASA
    According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only about 200 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.3
    3. Comets disintegrate too quickly.
    According to evolutionary theory, comets are supposed to be the same age as the solar system, about five billion years. Yet each time a comet orbits close to the sun, it loses so much of its material that it could not survive much longer than about 100,000 years. Many comets have typical ages of less than 10,000 years.4 Evolutionists explain this discrepancy by assuming that (a) comets come from an unobserved spherical "Oort cloud" well beyond the orbit of Pluto, (b) improbable gravitational interactions with infrequently passing stars often knock comets into the solar system, and (c) other improbable interactions with planets slow down the incoming comets often enough to account for the hundreds of comets observed.5 So far, none of these assumptions has been substantiated either by observations or realistic calculations. Lately, there has been much talk of the "Kuiper Belt," a disc of supposed comet sources lying in the plane of the solar system just outside the orbit of Pluto. Some asteroid-sized bodies of ice exist in that location, but they do not solve the evolutionists' problem, since according to evolutionary theory, the Kuiper Belt would quickly become exhausted if there were no Oort cloud to supply it.

Please help us to monitor our message boards by flagging comments that are unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, vulgar, obscene, libelous, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.
Contact Us if you have any questions, comments, or concerns.
Comment on this story
ID Password

Don't have a Christian Post ID? Signing up is easy. Click Here

  • icon1
  • icon2
  • icon3
  • icon4
  • icon5
The Christian Post reserves the right to terminate the account of any User who violates our Terms of Use.
Also on CP
Advertisement
Advertisement
CP Shopping
  • Jewelry
  • Health
  • Gifts
  • DVD
  • Coins

Bracelets | Chains | Crosses | Earrings | Gemstone |

Featured contents & Giveaways
Joolwe :
Cross-pendant necklace
Zondervan

Struggling to succeed in the Nashville music scene, talented singer/songwriter Parker James finds the competition fierce even deadly. A young woman's murder, industry corruption, a

Featured Advertiser Links