...Continued

No, God had endowed them with the ability to evolve quickly.

It appears that God isn't very smart though. I mean, why would he create more work for both himself and Noah with the whole flood, when he could simply snap his fingers and start over?

It is the many little illogical points like this that demonstrate that the Bible and Creationism are utter rubbish.

<<...countries with strong biblical traditions have also historically been those with strong scientific legacies. How peculiar!>>

Not peculiar at all. To try and link the two so strongly is precarious at best.

The parts of the world that chose to take on Christianity were already well positioned to develop into the scientifically strong nations.

Considering how many other factors are involved, we can't know that the same nations wouldn't have been as scientifically strong had Constantine, adopted the Qur'an.

Either way, considering that Creationism has been conclusively debunked in it's entirety, your point is meaningless.

<<I expect there will be some fanfare and a few firecrackers. But after that, Darwin will begin to sink the way of other thinkers of his contemporary, such as Marx and Freud.>>

Why would there be any sort of fanfare?

The study of evolution isn't a religion or a following. It's merely a field of scientific study.

<<The evidence is not stacking up.>>

Like Bennie asked, how is it not stacking up?

The evidence for evolution is irrefutable - there is absolutely nothing that contradicts it. It all fits together perfectly.

<<It’s taking the simple minded Christian, with the childlike clarity of vision, to point out that the Emperor is not wearing any clothes.>>

Errr... no. The “simple-minded Christians” are doing nothing more than making fools of themselves.

Again, Creationism has been completely and conclusively debunked. The fact that there is a minuscule fraction of Creationist scientists means nothing considering they are merely repeating misconceptions that have been dis-proven time-and-time again.

There is no serious debate out there. Just a few loopy fanatics trying to create a sense of confusion in order to justify their delusion.

AJ Philips (or perhaps rstuart),
You say our thoughts are not the brain’s random chemical impulses, without saying what they are. Do you have an opinion on what they are?

Bennie,
You ask if I’m an American? No. The closest I’ve been to America is England (going one way) or New Zealand (going the other).

You said about creationism:

“The church doesn't teach it”.
It does. It’s on page one of the manual. The Pope doesn’t go for it but many others in the Catholic Church do. Currently, the stronger, healthier sections of the church which are growing also do.

“Society doesn’t support it”
Well, the media certainly doesn’t support it. Despite the near blanket ban for the creationist point of view from much of the media, and evolution being nearly unchallengeable in education curricula, surprisingly, surveys indicate that much of the public remains unconvinced over evolution’s claims.

“Science has debunked it”
I didn’t hear when and where this happened. It would be news to the tens of thousands of practicing scientists around the world who view the creation model as the more useful for explaining origins.

What evolutionary evidence does not stack up?

So far on this thread, there’s been precious little evidence put forward to discuss. That’s understandable, as the original article was more discussing the moral and social implications. Yet the author, Ruse, (and many other posters) were allowed to make grand sweeping statements such as, “organisms evolved slowly through the process of natural selection,” without being challenged to substantiate them in any way. At least I offered something (on May 31) with regard to the evidence we should expect to see if there was a great flood, compared to what we do see.

Nevertheless, I’m glad you asked.

The intermediatory linking fossil evidence is still missing, despite daily fossil finds over many decades.

An explanation into the origin of a possible first living cell is a total conundrum, despite everything we know concerning chemistry saying that the elements will never arrange themselves in that manner. Pasteur’s law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life. Life forms are never seen to spring into existence. The food preservation (canning) industry depends on this well established, observable fact.

Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if the theory be true.

However, I doubt that this is really the forum to debate these things with the necessary detail required.

If you’re looking for these evidences and arguments in more detail, I would recommend this website www.creationontheweb.com

Please note, this site is an Australian based site; not from ‘loopy’ America. Most of the contributors are holders of PhDs in their disciplines. People may call them fundies and fringe dwellers, fanatics trying to support a fantasy, but they are really not that bad.

The main contributor is a former New Zealand chess champion. Now I know chess is thought to be a bid nerdy, but that doesn’t make him a fringe dweller.

Thankyou for the link Dan. I'm getting a better idea of where you're coming from.

"The key thing to realize is that the whole of science operates within a paradigm...essentially assumed to be true. Basically the paradigm is a concept, a big idea."

Nothing more to add, really.

Dan,

<<You say our thoughts are not the brain’s random chemical impulses, without saying what they are. Do you have an opinion on what they are?>>

Not entirely sure what you're asking here. Very little is know about the brain. And if we resort the the "God must've done it" argument, then we're no better than the primitive people who wrote the book of Genesis - and look how foolish they seem now.

I was more focusing on the word “random”, because it sounded like you were implying that our brain's chemical impulses were entirely random. And I know how much Creationists love the word “random” to mis-represent evolution.

<<Well, the media certainly doesn’t support it.>>

That's because there's no evidence for it. The “evidence” you provided is not evidence, they are misconceptions about evolution uncertainties about abiogenesis – not to mention the twisting of the meaning of Pasteur's law.

It is a fallacy to assume that there are only two possibilities, and that therefore, if there is something about evolution/abiogenesis that has not yet been fully explained, then it must prove Creationism.

<<It would be news to the tens of thousands of practicing scientists around the world who view the creation model as the more useful for explaining origins.>>

These scientists will openly admit that they disregard any data that contradicts their religious beliefs. Yet normal scientists don't need to disregard anything. Everything in existence supports evolution.

<<Yet the author, Ruse, (and many other posters) were allowed to make grand sweeping statements such as, “organisms evolved slowly through the process of natural selection,” without being challenged to substantiate them in any way.>>

Why would they need to repeat any of the evidence? You can check the it for yourself if you'd like... But that would be too confronting now, wouldn't it?

<<At least I offered something (on May 31) with regard to the evidence we should expect to see if there was a great flood, compared to what we do see.>>

Yes, and if you'd read the links I posted, you would see that you were actually wrong.

Continued...

...Continued

<<The intermediatory linking fossil evidence is still missing, despite daily fossil finds over many decades.>>

But hang on, you said earlier that fossilisation was rare. You can't have it both ways.

There are plenty of intermediatory linking fossils:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CC

If fossilisation was so prevalent though, then why don't we see fossils of the animals migrating from Noah's ark?

<<Pasteur’s law of biogenesis says that life only comes from life.>>

No .Pasture's law debunked the Spontaneous Generation's idea that mice and maggots can appear fully formed. There is no law of biogenesis that says that very primitive life cannot come from increasingly complex molecules.

<<Life forms are never seen to spring into existence. The food preservation (canning) industry depends on this well established, observable fact.>>

No. The food preservation industry relies on the fact that packaging doesn't contain the right conditions for life to start.

Not only are conditions completely different on Earth now, but any new life forms that would come into existence would soon be swallowed-up by more complex organisms.

Just because abiogenesis hasn't been seen, it doesn't make the argument against it “observable” - that would be a contradiction in itself.

<<Mutations are never seen to be adding information to the genome, such that that might bring about new and useful functioning systems, which should be a regular occurrence if the theory be true.>>

Again, debunked and entirely incorrect. Mutations have been seen to add information to the gnome plenty of times:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html#CB

Interesting that Creationists continue to state this without ever really defining “information”.

As for http://www.creationontheweb.com, well, you can debunk every point the "Refuting Evolution" section has to say with simple Google searches!

Give it a go... it's fun!