Search results

Please answer the questions below. For each answer, please indicate the objective evidence and reasoning that supports your answer. 1. How old is the Earth? 2. Where did all the species we observe today come from?

Take a look at the following picture: Is this an example of: 1) Complex structures created by intelligent aliens visiting from other parts of the galaxy. 2) Complex structures created by God. 3) Complex structures created by man. 4) Complex structures created over time by the...

Let's give evolution a break for this thread and try something completely different. Anyone out there think the Apollo moon landings were a hoax? If so, why?

I found this feedback dialogue on talk.origins most interesting. It addresses particularly well the charge by creationists that macroevolution is somehow unscientific because it cannot be observed directly. Feedback question: The talk.origins response: (The full web page is available...

The following paper suggests that maybe membership in the "All Scientists are Stupid Liars" club might be due to a rather common phenomenon. http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html (Of course my ability to assess the psychology of these people is probably much less than I think it...

Start with this document: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ How, in the face of evidence like that above, can anyone honestly claim that the theory of evolution is not extremely well supported by the evidence?

Simple question: If the work done by the creationist organization Answers in Genesis is so clearly superior to mainstream science, why doesn't AiG have discussion forums for people, lay and professional alike, to discuss their work? Wouldn't that be a great way to articulate the superior...

Yet another example of how scientists test the theory of evolution. This particular method of testing may some day lead to human health benefits as well. The Boston Globe

Several creationists here (you know who you are) have railed against scientists for their naturalistic bias. This stems of course from the scientific committment to methodological naturalism -- the focus on empirical data and natural causes as explanations for the observed behavior of the world...

Proof that you don't need to be a creationist to be a Christian (at least in Canada): http://www.canada.com/edmonton/edmontonjournal/story.asp?id={5A3A861C-8478-4D9A-BB31-09C0B2C09883}

Interesting essary from the Affiliation of Christian Geologists: (emphasis mine) Gee, who could he possibly be referring to? Full text at: http://www.wheaton.edu/ACG/essays/wiens1.html

On another thread, Sinai posted the following: I am curious. What is a "mainstream creationist"? What do they believe and why? What do "mainstream creationists" think of Young Earth Creationist organizations such as ICR or AiG?

Time again for the creationists here (particularly the YE- variety) to put their money where their mouth is. I'd like to see the creationists provide evidence that: a) Invalidates radiometric dating or b) Supports a much younger age of the Earth than the 4.5 billion years currently...

Hey, if Gunny can do it, so can I, right? http://gondwanaresearch.com/radiomet.htm

Npetreley has asserted again that people who live long enough will grow a third set of teeth. If Mr. Petreley wishes for us to believe that this is anything other than a fairy tale, we ask for him to produce one dental x-ray showing the development of said teeth in an elderly individual. Such...

I made a post in the "germ theory" thread that was slightly OT, but I think rather persuasive in favor of evolution. I'll re-post it here for discussion. Viruses provide an interesting source for more evidence in favor of evolution. In certain cases, viruses can insert their own genetic...

Ah, the infamous "challenge". As you will recall, Mr. Petreley issued a challenge awhile back asking for transitional fossils from "the other 99.875%" of the fossil record. Several candidates were submitted, including forams (plankton) and snails, but none was quite dramatic enough for Mr...

The following review IMO sums up extremely well the major reasons that intelligent design theory has failed to find any support in the scientific community http://bostonreview.mit.edu/BR27.3/orr.html

Nick has claimed repeatedly that the vertebrate fossil record comprises only 0.1% of the fossil record, meaning that the remaining 99.9% of the fossil record is for non-vertebrates. I'm just wondering, Nick, where did you get that number?  Thin air?

Nick offered the following Bible quote: So here the Bible is clearly telling us that God's nature has been made "intelligible and clearly discernible" in nature. In other words, what we can observe and experience in nature is evidence of the true nature of God. If nature appears to be...