That’s insulting to adolescents ,they are capable of much higher levels of reasoning than creationists

May pesto be upon you
Praise the FSM
r’Amen

I honestly couldn’t read it all because the formatting was so bad, but if anyone here is “frothing at the mouth” it is you, my creationist friend.

Of course every word of what I did get through was utter nonsense, fallacy, and straw man (e.g. evolution does not describe the origin of life, as you seem to demand it does).

Anyways, I have no more time to waste on such piffle anymore.

Best of luck to you as well.

and how it is possible in the scant four billions of years that life has existed
Scant? Scant!?!? Scant?!?!? You truly have no fundamental grasp of how enormously long 4 billion years is do you? The average human life span today is ~80 years. That means 50,000,000 (that’s 50 MILLION) lifetimes ago is when life began. And that is if we assume all lifetimes were as incredibly long lived as today’s. For most of human history it was half or less than half of that. That’s 100,000,000 lifetimes. Put another way, lets hypothesize a single pair of Adam and Eve, who produced only exactly 1 boy and 1 girl, and each of their decendents produced exactly 1 boy and 1 girl for 100,000,000 generations (lets ignore population genetics for a moment and assume

this is feasible for the hypothetical here). That number is so large as to be incalculable. I try and punch it into Google’s scientific calculator and it just rounds to infinity. Think about that and tell me it is “scant.” It is a mind bogglingly huge amount of time. Seesh!

*I’m glad I got your knickers in a twist. I do have a grasp of large numbers. For instance light *travels one million miles in just over 5 seconds, takes about 90 minutes to travel one billion *miles, takes about 62 days to travel one trillion miles and about17 years to travel one hundred *trillion miles. This is how I get my sense of proportion regarding large numbers. So the difference *between a billion and one hundred trillion is mind boggling huge..Scant is still appropriate.
*The Cretaceous extinction happened only 65 million years ago, and it is believed that the nearest *creatures to us in configuration, who survived that event were amphibians .All land creatures *didn’t make it. So Ev. Biologists should surely be able to map in great detail the ascent of the *human species from any amphibian species that they select, and as it is over a relatively short *period of time such a map, ordered at the cell/body- system level of units should be able to prove *that evolution is possible. Or not. Why don’t you do that?
* Thirty years ago, or so, Stephen Jay Gould (my favorite evolutionist) and just before he died *came to the knowledge that there was just not enough time for evolution to work out and *discussed the possibility of spontaneous evolution as being necessary to make the General *Theory work. His work on the Burgess Shale eventually led him to that particular discussion. He *was that rarity, an honest, cultivated and pleasant evolutionist, whose books were a pleasure *to read, even if later I became critical of some of his conclusions. What a contrast to the *evolutionist boors of this world such as yourself and Dawkins.
*It is time for evolutionists to put up, or shut up. Your present day science is primitive.You rely on *a noble profession, paleontology, to get you the fossil record, but you insist that the fossils *found be sorted into a preconceived framework. Paleontology needs to be divorced from *evolutionary interference and be what it is, a discovery of life as it existed all those thousands *and millions of years ago.
*You also clutter up DNA research, you have glommed onto that science so that similar DNA *sequences in other species are proof of descent. Not so to me, just proof of common features, *like eyes, teeth, heart, etc.
that there has been sufficient time to select – reject- organize- write-amend all of the thousands of trillions of coding inherent in the successful formation of the human species
So yeah, there is ample time for that process to occur. Read about Dawkins’ weasel program to see why it is not only ample time
* I read the Blind Watchmaker many years ago when I was an evolutionist, I was revolted by his *nastiness as a human being, and un-persuaded by his simplistic logic. He was responsible for my *closer scrutiny of evolution theory.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking all changes needed to happen at once or none at all. It’s about incremental change.
*Precisely, if changes occur, they must happen incrementally and slowly as each change has to be *worked out over many generations. Early work on mutated fruit fly reproduction led to the *discovery that breeding over a few generations tended to restore the fruit fly descendants to *their original state.This means that evolutionary change in any species is extremely difficult and *very slow for incremental change. Given the trillions of cells that have to be grouped into *meaningful improvements, created, selected, adapted, accepted -rejected by the general specie *population, and incorporated into the genome, there is just not enough time to get from the *Cretaceous Extinction to here.

Evolutionists are just as ignorant as the creationists and ID ers as to the true origins of life.
Once again, evolution does not even attempt to explain the origin of life, merely the origin of the diversity of life.
*The usual evolutionist cop- out, you do not explain, because you cannot. This is precisely the *point on which you battle the Creationists. You insist that the schools teach\, that there is no *God as life began through evolution. Yet you tell me that evolutionary theory takes a pass on the **start of life and now limits its starting point to one that they think is more defensible.
*When I design a house, there is always a first line and without it I cannot proceed. The first line *is the most necessary line in the entire drawing. That is why to make your theory complete you *must draw the first line.
*So get real, create life from non-life in the laboratory, explain how life can be constructed from *the raw elements. Then go on to explain the individual life force of each human, as distinct from *the properties of life in general . After all the collective power of the minds, heart, soul and will of *humanity is the most powerful force on the planet. We humans deserve a better explanation *from science than we are merely the end result of “beneficial mutations adapted through natural *selection”
But even then, scientists relevant to the field of abiogenesis are certainly not as ignorant to the origins of life as theists.
The only possible answers to the big questions are, ” We do not know”
Which is not only not true, but also very funny because it is precisely theists and their religions that claim they do know! How incredibly arrogant!
*I do not think I am arrogant, I left the church at eleven years of age, repelled by its deceptions. I *was taught Darwnist Evolution at school and believed it until I read Dawkins. I do not know *anything about God, I know now that evolution could not have happened. Where does that *leave me? Just the hope that after death, the grand secrets will be revealed. But if not, and if it *is only oblivion at death then I will be truly pissed. (that’s a joke.)
*But that is a better than believing in the darkness of evolution. Evolutionists are really telling our *school kids that there is no after life and that oblivion awaits them.Of course evolutionist never *say that explicitly, but that is the real message given whenever they attack the religious beliefs *of ordinary people.
admit the limits of their knowledge and are forthright in explaining their theories.
Oh we do. You are the one trying to take evolution beyond its limits in a misguided attempt to try and disprove it (that’s called a strawman). Evolutionary theory is also the most well supported theory in all of the sciences. We know orders of magntitude more about evolution than we do about gravity, and have mountains more evidence to support it too. Yet nobody gets all uppity about the theory of gravity do they?
*You do not know by orders of magnitude. Thousands of questions could be posed about *evolution and your reply would be, if you were honest, “I do not know” But most likely you will *bluff and bluster. I will try one question on you. As I watch my 3 year granddaughter grow, I ask *myself, where is the program, that regulates the growth of her bones, that regulates the *placement of new bone molecules, that shifts the bone platelets so as to permit coordinated *growth in each and every bone, that shapes the bones in unison, that in the sockets of ball *joints- growth in the ball must be accompanied by parallel retreat in the socket. That in a human *lifetime it will change out all of our bones several times. We know that the program that *regulates that was created soon after conception, and programmed into every cell. It must be *akin to a computer program. That program in and of itself is an incredible engineering *achievement. How did evolution do this? Hundreds of millions of points of coordinated action, *how could your crude program of beneficial mutations bring about such an incredible feat of *engineering?

So how about some intellectual honesty from all of you evolutionists, admit what you do not know, and throw out the Theory of Evolution and work at finding a better theory.
Care to posit a better theory? You clearly don’t even have the faintest of what evolutionary theory even is, let alone how to posit something better. If there was something better though, we’d be all over it.
*Thank you, I will start reading about evolution again when and if any real progress is made in *evolutionary science, and which is free from anti creationist cant and drivel.
*I do have a theory on life that is as simple and obvious as the pimple on the end of your nose, it *follows below and I hope Occams Razor has never been so sharp::
*If there is a God, he is not in touch with humanity and he wants it that way. Therefore there is *no point in doing or saying anything about God.
*If evolution is true, then there is no after life, and one may as well take and grab everything he *can as there are few consequences.
*But evolution is not true and God is not around. But it is self evident that all of nature and all of *human nature cannot be here by accident or chance. These are my three key truths..
*There is only one of two possibilities after death. There is a God who may decide the *consequence of my life.
*Or
*There is oblivion.
*I believe the weight of probability lies in life after death. Therefore I choose a moral life, with free *will beholden to none, all in true harmony with my conscience, instincts and personal happiness.
*I prefer my philosophy to that of evolutionary nihilism.
It is quite laughable how you demand from us intellectual honesty yet exhibit absolutely none yourself. Learn about evolutionary theory before you try to claim we need a different theory. I actually hold a degree in it – do you? Seriously – make a genuine effort to learn what it actually is all about. Then come up with a better theory. And then I will be the first to shake your hand and congratulate you on your shiny Nobel prize.
*I have read sufficient to understand that evolution is a flawed theory. You are still at the *primitive end of data necessary to prove evolution is true. When you can map the typical human *body,when you can assign cells to the hundreds of systems that make up the human body, when *you can map the 80 billion brain neurons with their chemical and electrical connections, when you *finally understand the complexity of it all, then evolution will be seen for what it is, a primitive *theory and a total impossibility.
*My degree is in Engineering. An honest and useful field backed up by discoverable truth.
*But you are aggressive and abrasive in defense of your chosen field. Sounds like you are a *teacher, I doubt if you are a good one, you use sneers and arrogance and play the usual *evolutionist game taught to you by Hawkins. Which is to lambast creationists and tell them to *read and study so as to be as smart as you claim to be, all as you congratulate your selves in *your sagacity, wisdom, wit and general superiority over all. Just the usual evolutionist guff.
* You are not someone whose hand I would wish to shake.
*They don’t give out Nobels for the application of common sense.
For there are answers, and I am sure the Truth of Life when found, will be incredibly grander than evolution or creationism or intelligent design.
Like I said, learn about evolution. You will see just how incredibly grand, elegant, and amazing the theory is.
*Beauty is in eye of beholder, to me evolution smells of dankness, decay and death.
*Thanks for the opportunity to indulge in a satisfactory rant.
*All the best.
Bilimori

Dr. Novella your world view holds two un-provable positions.

1. Uniformitarianism (the way everything functions today is how it has always since the beginning of time).
2. Naturalism (everything in the universe can be explained by natural processes (the supernatural is excluded).

I do not deny that you have reasons for believing these to be true, but notice I use the word “believing”, because it is just that – a belief. You cannot prove these to be true or false based off the scientific method. This leads me to my next concern.

In every single instance they hold true. Every bit of data demonstrates they hold true. You are correct that science is always tentative in its assertions and that evidence to the contrary would overturn a supposed scientific truth. The problem is that there is no such evidence to overturn the fact that the earth is billions of years old or that evolution is true. And there are literally mountains of evidence to support this.

The basic fundamental principles that allow you to access the internet and read the tortured logic of AIG would not work if the universe was young.

And not only do we have good reason to believe in “uniformitarianism” we have actually tested it, in every conceivable way, and continue to do so. We have not just taken at face value that radioactive decay is constant – we have tested it innumerable times under innumerable conditions, from the mundane to the most extreme. At a certain point it would become perserve to try and posit that it may not have been uniform at some point. There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim and no reason for it to be true except to try and hold the erroneous belief that the earth is young.

The same goes with evolution. As has been stated, modern molecular genetics could have absolutely overturned the theory of evolution in a heartbeat. Not only did it not, it further supported it, to the point where now the theory can stand quite nicely with only genetic and molecular evidence. But we don’t just have that, we have myriad other lines of evidence converging on the same answer.

The same with naturalism. There is no evidence that supernaturalism exists and nothing useful has actually been derived from supernaturalism. And time after time after time naturalism has been shown to be a better descriptor of reality than anything else. As such, until such a time as naturalism fails it would be perverse to think otherwise. The only evidence for supernaturalism comes from your holy text and the (empirically demonstrated) highly unreliable first hand accounts of supernatural events. And all of those events that are investigated are found to have a natural explanation (vis: the bleeding statue of Mary in India).

Also bear in mind that we are not just talking about looking back and explaining post hoc what our evidence shows us. That would indeed be a weak stance as you are absolutely correct that evidence can be interpreted in many ways. The true power of science which absolutely verifies the validity of the methodological underpinnings is the predictive power of our theories. We look at a bunch of evidence and then predict what would happen if the theory tying the evidence together were true. Then we test that theory. In every case we find it holds true – the predictions of radiodating, evolution, particle physics, materials engineering, and so on all hold up. If they didn’t, we couldn’t possibly build the computer you are using or the airplane that flew the parts to the assembly plant. We couldn’t harness quantum states to transmit entangled information and we couldn’t even be certain that our smoke detectors would work.

The implications of supernaturalism would mean that we could never be confident in our answers or rely on our products. Things would fail randomly, with no explanation. Airplanes would crash and we couldn’t possibly find out why – or prevent it from happening. Yet none of this is true.

So you are correct that the philosophical underpinnings of scientific inquiry rest on these principles and that in the absence of anything else you would have a valid position. But the fact is that the compendium of evidence is so vastly in support of uniformitarianism and methodological naturalism it would be perverse to eschew them in favor of supernaturalism. What AIG does very well is take a conclusion – YEC – and then pick and choose evidence in isolation to support the claim, twist evidence to fit the claim, and completely ignore the evidence that they simply cannot make fit.

Bazinga!

Yet nobody gets all uppity about the theory of gravity do they?

I think we should get “uppity” about anti-gravity

Dr. Novella, this will be a systematic response to your post in the order of how it was written.

To start, the ad hominems (though mostly subtle) do little to encourage conversation. The Richard Dawkins types with pretentious attitudes in the agnostic/atheist camp are unhelpful to the conversation. Good, and brilliant men, differ on these issues – though obviously one side is wrong, respectful conversation should be the standard. You obviously strongly believe that the Christian theory of divine origins is wrong and have little respect for anyone holding to a YEC world view. I will attempt to help you to at least seek to understand the YEC view for what it truly is – not simply setting up a boy’s view of creationism and then knocking down before the excited mob of readers who don’t know any better. You are clearly and educated man and I respect that, but with that education comes responsibility – responsibility to not misrepresent what other believe in order to look intellectually superior. Now I don’t know for sure if that is your motive, so I will attempt to provide you with a clearer explanation of YEC views just in case you are truly unaware of it’s position and claims.

Dr. Novella your world view holds two un-provable positions.

1. Uniformitarianism (the way everything functions today is how it has always since the beginning of time).
2. Naturalism (everything in the universe can be explained by natural processes (the supernatural is excluded).

I do not deny that you have reasons for believing these to be true, but notice I use the word “believing”, because it is just that – a belief. You cannot prove these to be true or false based off the scientific method. This leads me to my next concern.

Western culture has largely come to equate the term “science” with things that are absolutely not “science”. For example, all of history is not “science”. One cannot prove via science that George Washington was the president of the United States. However, that does not mean one should reject the claim that he was. They accept it based off of another form of knowing truth – historical evidence – not science. Now don’t get me wrong, science is excellent, but it is not capable of ascertaining all truth. The vast majority of what a human being accepts as true is not gained via the category of science. Science, strictly speaking, refers to the scientific method. It is Observable, Reproducible (Repeatable), and Falsifiable (Testable). One might call something else a “science”, but it that does not make it so. It doesn’t make it bad or untrustworthy, it’s just not “science”. Most of what human knowledge is made up is gained more by a court room type process – the does various evidences lead to the conclusion.

The point is, the first two assertions you hold are not “science”. That doesn’t make them wrong, but you can’t expect someone to accept these assumptions at face value – creationist do not. I am convinced it is from these two assertions that the chips then fall where they do. Evidence does not interpret itself and one’s presuppositions generally drive how one interprets the evidence. So appealing to only naturalistic claims doesn’t help your argument in terms of scientific claims. Saying a claim is not within the realm of science is true, but that sword cuts both ways. Your naturalism is not science, it is a belief you hold. You call foul when the creationist appeals to the non-scientific, yet your world view is no different in that respect. The bottom line is all truth claims are difficult to determine, but we have no other choice, and appealing to strong naturalism or the scientific method as the only source of truth (in which you don’t even actually stick by) is as C. S. Lewis stated, like the drunk refusing to look anywhere for his keys but under the street lights, because it’s dark elsewhere.

Another problem is your misrepresentation of the light travel problem. You state that the speed of light travels at the same speed and always has (probably true, but not proven by science), yet you simply ignore the fact that this issue is not only a creationist problem.
In reference to the big bang the similar problem is referred to as “horizon”. I am sure you are aware of this problem, and I wonder why you skip over it while calling foul at the creationists for having the same problem you do. Now this doesn’t prove your view wrong, but it surely doesn’t prove creationism wrong either. Both views may be wrong, but neither one stands on higher ground in reference to this issue alone.

The remainder of your article largely deals with a straw man argument. The creationist (the ones I know) do not pretend that God created supernova’s (history) that did not exist. While we do suggest that creation was created in maturity, the light travel time problem is generally not attributed to this.

Finally, there are numerous examples of things that are better explained by a young universe than an old, and pontificating that the universe looks entirely in every detail as if it were 13.75 billion years old is ignorant of the data and creationist claims.
You seem to put all your eggs in the basket that all creationists claim that the light travel time issue is explained by fake history – yet creationists don’t believe that.

For an explanation of the basic ideas some creationists hold, see the following link. It also addresses some of your fallacies you used in making your argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-starlight-prove

Respectfully,
Zach

But they still aren’t coming through my RSS reader no matter how many times I refresh. I can only read them when I actually load the page itself. That may just be a limitation of my reader I suppose, and I may be the only one actually having this problem.

I just thought I would mention it in case there was something more to it that can be fixed. I know a number of people use RSS readers and often as I respond to comments I would have changed my comments (or commented more) had I noted those comments to exist. At a minimum it certainly changes the flow of the conversation (obviously).

If I am in isolation with this issue so be it. Just figured I would raise it in case others experienced something similar and you felt it worthwhile to address in some way.