Evolution

[AirPo]

The fossils exist, but we CANNOT prove that they had babies, we more certainly don't know it had successful babies, and we most certainly don't know it's babies were any different than the parents.

Good thing we don't HAVE to prove they had babies

Natural selection does result in reproductive success, but cannot make a worm into a human, no matter how long you give it.

But it can make a worm into something that is very similar to a worm, and then can make the something that is very similar to a worm into something that is very similar to something that is very similar to a worm, etc., etc., etc.
If you give THAT process long enough, you can come up with a human.

 

[Loukuss]

Looks like eternalflame needs some help here.

Atheists, evolutionists and others, let us do some reasoning here...

There are two camps or two belief systems apparent in this world (there are more, but these are the most highly held). One is evolution and the other creation. One believes that life spontaneously arose from nothing, and the other holds that we are purposely created individuals made by an Intelligent Creator.
One belief is supported by science and the other is not.
First, I'd like to introduce the First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, for evolution to say that we came from nothing is absurd and wrong. To further state that our universe came from nothing is as well absurd and wrong. Why? Science proves otherwise.
The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing and that things are becoming more and more disorganized. Evolution states that everything is building up and becoming more organized. Here we have two fundamental laws that govern our universe directly contradicting evolution's premise. And these are only two! There are more things i could point to in science that refute evolution. There are many things in science i could point to and show prove creation. But as evolutionists, you disregard all that. There is a lot of literature out there in this world that shows evolution as the faulty theory it is. There is a lot more literature out there than what you read in your highschool science textbooks and what you hear on tv, and I highly suggest that you look into it. There's a book you should read, and others should as well, called "The Intellectuals Speak out about God". There's a nice quote I want to share with you:

"Unitl quite recently it was thought by many people that the leading scientists universally support atheism, that science is the rational alternative to theism. However, it is now clear that science not only does not support atheism, but that it now lends rational support for theism. There is now strong scientific evidence for the exitence of God. Scientists, without presupposing God or creation, without trying to prove them, have come up with findings that strongly supprt the existence of God, His creation of the Universe and man, and supports a supernatual purpose for the world we live in."

Now, are these men of science the wrongs ones? Do you know much more than these?
To believe in evolution is to be guilty of ignorance. If you search out and learn what science really says, than you are doing yourself a better service than sitting on a flawed theory with weak arguments.

I have a whole library of knowledge sititing beside me, so I encourage anyone with any questions to engage me in debate and we'll have a wonderful discussion.

God bless,
Lucas

 

[notto]

First, I'd like to introduce the First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, for evolution to say that we came from nothing is absurd and wrong. To further state that our universe came from nothing is as well absurd and wrong. Why? Science proves otherwise.

Good thing evolution doesn't say we came from nothing. You don't seem to know what evolution is.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing and that things are becoming more and more disorganized. Evolution states that everything is building up and becoming more organized. Here we have two fundamental laws that govern our universe directly contradicting evolution's premise. And these are only two!

Name one physical process used to explain evolution that violates either of the laws of Thermodynamics. The laws are not a philosophy, they are related to physical mechanisms. If none of the mechanisms of evolution violate the laws, evolution does not violate the laws. We have observed the mechanisms used to explain evolution, therefore, they can't be violating any laws - they happen. Evolution also says nothing about being 'disorganized' or 'more organized'.

How does a chicken emerging from an egg not violate these laws as you have stated here?

Can you show us where evolution states "that everything is building up and becoming more organized"?

You've got some good strawmen there. Would you like to actually discuss what real physics and evolution say or just keep building up your silly strawmen?

Where did you get this nonesense?

 

[:æ:]

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing and that things are becoming more and more disorganized. Evolution states that everything is building up and becoming more organized.

Perhaps you should scour that "library of knowledge" you claim to have for some information about Prigogine's Nobel Prize-winning work showing dissipative structures that allow local decreases of entropy while perserving overall increases of entropy in the system. This precisely refutes your poorly-informed claims.

:æ:

 

[Battie]

First, I'd like to introduce the First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, for evolution to say that we came from nothing is absurd and wrong. To further state that our universe came from nothing is as well absurd and wrong. Why? Science proves otherwise.

Does it? As far as I can tell the First Law has nothing to do with the conservation of matter.

Note that the equation e=mc^2 allows for mass to be changed into energy and back. But, as others have said, at this point we're dealing with things like the Big Bang and not with evolution.

 

[Dennis Moore]

Looks like eternalflame needs some help here.

hello, Lucas, and welcome to the boards. You look to be new here, so let me start by providing you with a popular acronym: the PRATT, or Point Refuted a Thousand Times. From the looks of this post, you'll probably be seeing ti a lot, so I tohought it would be helpful to get it out there first thing.

Atheists, evolutionists and others, let us do some reasoning here...

Okay, first PRATT. Now, the accurate truth: EVOLUTION DOES NOT EQUAL ATHEISM. Now that we have that sorted out ...

There are two camps or two belief systems apparent in this world (there are more, but these are the most highly held). One is evolution and the other creation.

PRATT. Evolution is not a "belief system"; it is a scientific theory and field of study.

One believes that life spontaneously arose from nothing,

PRATT. This is inaccurate. Evolution theory does NOT hold that we came from "nothing."

One belief is supported by science and the other is not.

In this at least you're right ... if you meant that evolution is supported by science, and Creation not.

First, I'd like to introduce the First Law of Thermodynamics. This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, for evolution to say that we came from nothing is absurd and wrong. To further state that our universe came from nothing is as well absurd and wrong. Why? Science proves otherwise.

PRATT. From TalkOrigins CF101:

Formation of the universe from nothing need not violate conservation of energy. The gravitational potential energy of a gravitational field is a negative energy. When all the gravitational potential energy is added to all the other energy in the universe, it might sum to zero (Guth 1997, 9-12,271-276; Tryon 1973).

Also, universe formation has NOTHING TO DO WITH evolution theory.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that the total amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing and that things are becoming more and more disorganized. Evolution states that everything is building up and becoming more organized.

PRATT. From TalkOrigins CF001:

The second law of thermodynamics says no such thing. It says that heat will not spontaneously flow from a colder body to a warmer one or, equivalently, that total entropy (a measure of useful energy) in a closed system will not decrease. This does not prevent increasing order because

• the earth is not a closed system; sunlight (with low entropy) shines on it and heat (with higher entropy) radiates off. This flow of energy, and the change in entropy that accompanies it, can and will power local decreases in entropy on earth.
• entropy is not the same as disorder. Sometimes the two correspond, but sometimes order increases as entropy increases. (Aranda-Espinoza et al. 1999; Kestenbaum 1998) Entropy can even be used to produce order, such as in the sorting of molecules by size (Han and Craighead 2000).
• even in a closed system, pockets of lower entropy can form if they are offset by increased entropy elsewhere in the system.

In short, order from disorder happens on earth all the time.

Here we have two fundamental laws that govern our universe directly contradicting evolution's premise.

Here we have a Creationist who doesn't truly understand the laws he is trying to apply.

There is a lot of literature out there in this world that shows evolution as the faulty theory it is.

None of it scientific.

There is a lot more literature out there than what you read in your highschool science textbooks and what you hear on tv, and I highly suggest that you look into it.

The same could be said of you and your position.

However, it is now clear that science not only does not support atheism, but that it now lends rational support for theism. There is now strong scientific evidence for the exitence of God. Scientists, without presupposing God or creation, without trying to prove them, have come up with findings that strongly supprt the existence of God, His creation of the Universe and man, and supports a supernatual purpose for the world we live in."

PRATT. Unless you have the numbers and scientific journals to back up your statements, that's nothing but rhetoric. OTOH, mainstream science overwhelmingly supports evolution theory, standard cosmology, modern Big Bang hypotheses, etc.

Now, are these men of science the wrongs ones? Do you know much more than these?

PRATT. Plus, over 500 Steves can't be wrong, can they?

I have a whole library of knowledge sititing beside me,

Are any of them actually written by scientists? Dawkins? Gould?

 

[h2whoa]

Looks like eternalflame needs some help here.

let us do some reasoning here...

Yes, let's.

There are two camps or two belief systems apparent in this world (there are more, but these are the most highly held). One is evolution and the other creation.

Like to stop you there. You seem to pushing the majority of worldwide Christians into a "neither" group. You see, we believe that God created and that evolution was a tool of creation. Just in exactly the same way that gravity is a tool of creation.

One believes that life spontaneously arose from nothing,

Need to stop you again I'm afraid. Firstly what you are talking about here is in fact abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution is the process by which diversification of life on Earth has occurred. Abiogenesis is what deals with how life first occurred.

and the other holds that we are purposely created individuals made by an Intelligent Creator.

Although of course, the majority of Christians that do believe in Evolution also believe that we were purposefully created. Hmmm. Interesting.

One belief is supported by science and the other is not.

Agreed.

First, I'd like to introduce the First Law of Thermodynamics.

Thermodynamics? Please, tell me more.

This Law states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. So, for evolution to say that we came from nothing is absurd and wrong.

How odd. I thought evolution dealt with the diversification of life. I also thought that abiogenesis is the scientific field that deals with the steps from chemical non-life to self replicating chemicals, to chemical life. And I thought that it was physics that dealt with things like where the matter came from that life originally arose from.

Ya know, physics? With it's whole Big Bang and stuff. But of course that's not covered by the Theory of Evolution, so I'll assume you made a mistake in stating that evolution says we come from nothing.

To further state that our universe came from nothing is as well absurd and wrong. Why? Science proves otherwise.

Indeed. Science in fact postulates that the Universe originated from a singularity where space time and all the laws of physics break down into something way beyond the scope of evolution. Therefore I can only assume that you've accidentally brought the Origins of The Universe up again. Silly!

The Second Law of Thermodynamics

D'oh! I hoped for one blissful second that I might not see the mangled car wreck that is Creationist Use of 2LoT.

states that the total amount of usable energy in the universe is constantly decreasing

Really? You see here I was under the impression that the level of energy in the Universe actually stays constant. It is neither created nor destroyed. Still, that's just a small thing. It probably won't affect the rest of your argument. Let's see shall we?

and that things are becoming more and more disorganized.

Woop woop. Alarms are ringing!

Evolution states that everything is building up and becoming more organized.

Oh dear.

Here we have two fundamental laws that govern our universe directly contradicting evolution's premise.

It appears that our friend Lucas forgot something about the 2LoT and planet Earth. What's that? I hear you cry. Well, you see, the Earth is not a closed system. You see, the Sun (that big ball of fire in the sky) keeps supplying us with energy. Luck old us, eh? Thus we are an open system. And energy flow in such a way is perfectly permissible in 2LoT. In fact, if it weren't it would be impossible for a sperm and an egg to fuse and form a wee little baby!

Oh well.

There are more things i could point to in science that refute evolution.

Wow! Please do! You see as an active scientist myself I think we need more lay people with no knowledge at all pointing out the mistakes that any halfwit shoud see...

There are many things in science i could point to and show prove creation.

Ooh, I can't wait.

But as evolutionists, you disregard all that.

Oh what a let down, lucas. You mean we disregard as scientific, that which is scientifically impossible and soundly refuted? Hey, if you look hard enough I'm sure you'll see the turtle that carries us on its back.

There is a lot of literature out there in this world that shows evolution as the faulty theory it is.

Can't wait to read it because all I've seen so far is crackpot crocks of effuluent that purposefully misprepresent and lie. Which as a Christian, I find objectionable. But hey.

To believe in evolution is to be guilty of ignorance.

Irony? Not a fan?

If you search out and learn what science really says

You mean by actually being a scientist and reading all the latest literature?

HEY GUYS? WHY DID NO ONE THINK OF THIS BEFORE???

engage me in debate and we'll have a wonderful discussion.

This, I doubt.

h2

 

[Loukuss]

Notto,



Evolution DOES state that everything came from nothing. Evolution states that from some early organism, everything was created. Well, I implore you to answer where did that organism came from? Nothing? It just made itself? Please do not try and tell me I do not know evolution. I've read more on the evolutionary theory than most libraries can carry on the subject. what is your education on the subject, Notto? Do tell.

You go further on to say that evolution does not say that its is becoming more organized. ARE YOU FOR REAL? This was what Darwin stated in "The Origin of the Speicies". Have you read it? I have. I know what he is saying. Do not change the evolutionary theory to something its not just so you can defend it.

"Can you show us where evolution states "that everything is building up and becoming more organized"?"
Is this a real question? You need me to point out where it says this? If this is an honest question, then you REALLY need to go read up on this topic before you debate. I can't debate with you if you don't know the premise of evolution.
The premise of evolution is that it is continually progressing, becoming more organized and building up. Have you never heard of the "survival of the fittest"?

 

[Ron21647]

<snip>

"Unitl quite recently it was thought by many people that the leading scientists universally support atheism, that science is the rational alternative to theism. However, it is now clear that science not only does not support atheism, but that it now lends rational support for theism. There is now strong scientific evidence for the exitence of God. Scientists, without presupposing God or creation, without trying to prove them, have come up with findings that strongly supprt the existence of God, His creation of the Universe and man, and supports a supernatual purpose for the world we live in."

<snip>
God bless,
Lucas

The only case I know of in which it is said that science supports the existence of God, is 50 years ago when Fred Hoyle stated that the big bang was wrong because it implied the existence of God to start it all.

And you might want to read the links on thermodynamics in my signature.

Ron

 

[notto]

Notto,

How can you tell me I dont know what I'm talking about? Your excuses are laughable. But for the sake of the argument, I will continue.

Evolution DOES state that everything came from nothing. Evolution states that from some early organism, everything was created. Well, I implore you to answer where did that organism came from? Nothing? It just made itself?

Why don't you tell us where Darwin said the early organism came from? (I've read Darwin as well).

You go further on to say that evolution does not say that its is becoming more organized. ARE YOU FOR REAL? This was what Darwin stated in "The Origin of the Speicies". Have you read it? I have. I know what he is saying. Do not change the evolutionary theory to something its not just so you can defend it. It makes you look ridiculous.

perhaps you could provide the darwin quote that talked about being more 'organized'. In addtion, could you define what you consider more organized? Is a bacteria more or less organized than a human? Please explain your answer.

"Can you show us where evolution states "that everything is building up and becoming more organized"?"
Is this a real question? You need me to point out where it says this? If this is an honest question, then you REALLY need to go read up on this topic before you debate. I can't debate with you if you don't know the premise of evolution.

Can you name a mechanism of evolution that violates the laws of thermodynamics? You didn't really address that part of my post. This should be an easy one if evolution does indeed violate those laws.

The premise of evolution is that it is continually progressing, becoming more organized and building up. Have you never heard of the "survival of the fittest"?

No, the premise of evolution is that the diversity of life on this planet is due to natural selection acting on populations of individuals with variation within the population. Not sure how 'survival of the fittest' relates to building up and organization. Bacteria seem fit and they are surviving. Are they more organized or built up than man? They seem to be surviving just fine. I guess they are the fittest, right?

 

[Jimmy The Hand]

It didn't take long to go from trying to defend a position to just attacking the other person, did it?

 

[Dennis Moore]

Evolution DOES state that everything came from nothing.

No, it doesn't. And as long as you keep repeating that, people will assume you don't know what you're talking about.

Evolution states that from some early organism, everything was created.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "some early organism" something, not nothing? Yes, yes, I believe it is something, yes ...

You've refuted yourself in two senteces.

Well, I implore you to answer where did that organism came from? Nothing? It just made itself? Please do not try and tell me I do not know evolution.

You don't, or you'd know that what you're talking about is abiogenesis, not evolution. The two theories are separate. As I like to put it: evolution works of Yahweh created life, if aliens seeded life, or if life sprang from the thigh of Zeus. So, again, you do not know what you're talking about.

I've read more on the evolutionary theory than most libraries can carry on the subject.

I would love to see your bibliography then. Somehow, I suspect it abounds in names like Wells, Hamm, and Hovind.

Do not change the evolutionary theory to something its not just so you can defend it. It makes you look ridiculous.

And now you owe me a new irony meter. That wasn't a cheap one, either; the cheap ones never last around here.

Is this a real question? You need me to point out where it says this?

Please. it would be refreshing for a Creationist to actually back up their assertions for once.

The premise of evolution is that it is continually progressing, becoming more organized and building up.

No, it isn't. The premise of evolutionary theory is that genetic changes in populations (which is an observed fact, the fact of evolution) can sufficiently explain the diversity of life on Earth.

Why wallow in ignorance when you can fill your brain with knowledge? I know it seems rather simple, but reading really helps. I encourage you to try it some time.

Ah, there's my spare irony meter. Just let me turn it on ... drat! You've broken it already! And I hadn't even had a chance to break it in ...

 

[Arikay]

Visiting the OP for a second,
We seem to be getting quite a few people here that stop in, say "Evolution is wrong/stupid/a lie and then just vanish again.

 

[Loukuss]

Wow!


Lots of responses! This looks fun!

there's a lot to respond to so I'll just jump in and go.

The open systems argument does not help evolution. Raw energy cannot generate the specified complex information in living things. The heat of the sun only speeds the disorganiztion process.
In any ordered system, open or closed, there exists a tendency for that system to decay to a state of disorder, which tendency can only be suspended or reversed by an external source of ordering energy directed by an informational program and transformed through an ingestion-storage-converter mechanism into the specific work required to build up the complex structure of that system.
If either the information program or the converter mechanism is not available to that 'open' system, it will not increase in order, no matter how much external energy surrounds it. The system will decay in accordance with the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

I suggest that thermodynamic arguments are excellent when done properly, and the ‘open systems’ canard is anticipated. Otherwise, I suggest concentrating on information content. The information in even the simplest organism would take about a thousand pages to write out. Human beings have 500 times as much information as this. It is a flight of fantasy to think that undirected processes could generate this huge amount of information, just as it would be to think that my cat walking on my keyboard could write a book.
So, putting that to bed, the 2nd Law of thermodynamics holds true. You can try and distort it as much as you would like and say that it does not work for an open system, but it does. Saying a cat is actually a fish does not make it so. Learn the facts then argue them.
Dennis Moore, Evolution IS a belief system. You can't prove its true, therefore your faith enables you to hold on to it.
And the literature I have I will type them out soon enough. Maybe you'll read some of them.

h2whoa, if your believe in God and evolution, that's an interesting religion you live. However, what type of evolution are you talking about? There is macro and micro evolution. Macro is Darwin's idea that God isn't the answer to creation. Micro evolution is the smaller type that we do see here on earth and it is fact. Darwin showed that when he researched finches and how some of their beaks grew larger to accommodate for their conditions. However, they still remained finches.
Further, the universe isn't constant. but then I guess you know better than any scientist right? agreed, matter cannot be created or destroyed - as the law states. being destroyed and decay are two different things. our sun isnt being destroyed, but its running out of usable energy. dont believe me? why do stars burn out?

Evolution is a theory created by a man approx. 150 years ago that many have taken as a fact. You would rather believe this man than believe in the bible that has been around far longer and promises far more. Darwin promises you what exactly? Truth? The only thing it promises you is division between God and you.

The wrath of God is indeed being revealed from heaven against every impiety and wickedness of those who suppress the truth by their wickedness. For what can be known about God is evident to them, because God made it evident to them. Ever since the creation of the world, his invisible attributes of eternal power and divinity have been able to be understood and perceived in what he has made. As a result, they have no excuse; for although they knew God they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks. Instead, they became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless minds were darkened. While claiming to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for the likeness of an image of mortal man or of birds or of four-legged animals or of snakes. Romans 1:18-23

While claiming to be wise, they became fools...
Evolutionists think themselves so wise and knowledgable, taking everything away from God. I pray you turn from your hopeless ways and put hope where it truely belongs: with Jesus Christ. Because, only He can promise you life after this one...

God bless,
Lucas

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I've read more on the evolutionary theory than most libraries can carry on the subject. what is your education on the subject,

good, then put your reading list online so we can interact with it and write reviews of the books you've read so we can see what you got out of them. otherwise this is nothing more than empty words without substance. for i too have a vast library, most of which i will never read, unfortunately, for i will not live that long, but unless i actually read and understand those books, they are useless.

essentially, i am calling your bluff on what you have read, put up or shut up. i'm tired of these remarks that the YECists have read so much and yet their postings evidence nothing of the sort, but a failure to even grasp the essential high school level concepts of the field.

..
my reading list:
http://www.dakotacom.net/~rmwillia/booklist.html
my reviews:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/cdp/member-reviews/A1XZJ32DJS8YV2/ref=ref=cm_aya_bb_rev/102-7154910-1108153

talk is cheap, the effort to study and learn and then to write is tough.

...

 

[DJ_Ghost]

How can you tell me I dont know what I'm talking about?

By reading your post and noticing you got the laws of thermodynamics wrong, you confused evolution, big bang and abiogenesis. Not to mention that you gave credence to...

"Unitl quite recently it was thought by many people that the leading scientists universally support atheism, that science is the rational alternative to theism. However, it is now clear that science not only does not support atheism, but that it now lends rational support for theism

Now as anyone who knows anything about science would know science is agnostic. It can not, by its very nature, either support atheism OR theism. See my sig line.

Your excuses are laughable.

Please do us all the courtesy of reading the forum rules here and abiding by them.

Evolution DOES state that everything came from nothing.

Evolution states nothing of the kind. Evolution talks about the biodiversity of life on earth and proposes this comes about as the result of the change of allele frequency over generations which eventually accumulate to the point of speciation.

Evolution states that from some early organism, everything was created.

Make your mind up, does evolution state that everything came from nothing or does it state that everything came form an early organism.

Well, I implore you to answer where did that organism came from? Nothing? It just made itself?

Evolution does not deal with this question, it is a theory about diversity not about source of life. However, abiogenesis, which you seem unable to separate from evolution, does show us how life could come about from none life. As a Christian I believe God was the source of life. However, evolution does not care what the source was, only how life diversified once it got here.

Please do not try and tell me I do not know evolution. I've read more on the evolutionary theory than most libraries can carry on the subject.

This is hubris, if your boast was true then you would not have made such simple errors in describing the ToE.

You go further on to say that evolution does not say that its is becoming more organized. ARE YOU FOR REAL?

Yes he is for real, evolutionary theory talks about the change of allele frequency over generations, this does not necessarily mean “more complex”, as some one who has read up on the subject extensively should know.

This was what Darwin stated in "The Origin of the Speicies". Have you read it? I have. I know what he is saying. Do not change the evolutionary theory to something its not just so you can defend it.

Again, since you are so widely read on the subject of evolution you will know how the theory has developed since Darwins day, which means you should know full well that Notto spoke the truth.

The premise of evolution is that it is continually progressing, becoming more organized and building up.

No the premise of evolution is that the change of allele frequency over generations accumulates to the point of speciation occurring. Survival of the fittest talks about species becoming more successful in their environment, not about them becoming more complex. However this is a moot point since evolution no more violates the laws of thermodynamics than does the human reproductive system.

Why wallow in ignorance when you can fill your brain with knowledge?

Why indeed.

I know it seems rather simple, but reading really helps.

Critical reading really helps certainly. However, reading only that which is produced by those who share your priori assumptions and failing to read their work with a suitably critical mind does not. One may as well not read at all as read uncritically.


I encourage you to try that some time.

Ghost

 

[notto]

Still no listing of a physical mechanism that violates the laws of thermodynamics (which are physical laws that apply to physical things). Sorry, until you do this, your just putting forth more philosophy. The laws of thermodynamics say nothing about information. Can you define information in this context? How do we measure it? What are the units?

Why doesn't a chicken coming from an egg violate the laws as you lay out. Does a chick have more or less specified complex information than an egg. Why or why not?

By the way, as has been mentioned, evolution does not equal atheism. Be careful with your accusations - you are close to violating the rules of the board.

 

[Arikay]

I have a new law, the law of bible verses. It states,
Whenever someone quotes a bible verse at someone else, especially when it is ment as an insult, it will most likely apply to the person doing the quoting.

 

[DJ_Ghost]

By the way, as has been mentioned, evolution does not equal atheism. Be careful with your accusations - you are close to violating the rules of the board.

Not close to, has done.

Ghost

 

[notto]

Unsourced copy and paste alert.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative_13may2002.asp