In a previous thread I wrote:

THE SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS IS WHAT SCIENTISTS WHO WANT TO KEEP THEIR JOBS AND RESEARCH GRANTS ARE PREPARED TO SAY IN PUBLIC.

Another poster replied:

"and of course.. origin of life by EVOLUTION is absolutely true, and all scientists who rely on funding and grants.. who espouse this scientific orthodoxy are doing so out of the purity of their objective hearts"

I stand by my original comment.

But in the case of evolution the situation is different. There is plenty of funding available for scientists who want to falsify evolution. The so-called "Institute of Creation Research (ICR)," for one, seems to have no lack of funds. See:

http://www.icr.org/

There is even a well-funded creation museum.

http://www.creationmuseum.org/

There are strong incentives for scientists to falsify evolution IF THEY CAN. Despite this none of the evolution antagonists have in living memory produced scientific evidence that's worth a damn.

Meanwhile the evidence for evolution continues to accumulate and the pace is accelerating. The past decade has seen a revolution in our understanding of evolution. We have even observed the process of speciation under way. (Among cichlids in Lake Victoria to give one example).

Are there still gaps in the theory?

Yes there are. The greatest conundrum is terrestrial biogenesis. Speculations abound but we really don't yet know just how life on Earth kicked off.

But once life got started, 3.5 billion years ago or more, it evolved. That's the way the evidence points.

If you guys really think there's a conspiracy to cover up evidence that would falsify evolution then you must believe institutions like the Creation Museum are part of it. Else surely by now that would have produced something.

So tell me, how does the great evolution cover-up conspiracy work?

Who is involved and what is their motive?

The Catholics at least have decided that they're not going to have another Galileo embarrassment.

http://www.catholic.com/thisrock/2004/0401bt.asp

Steve Steve :)

'evidence worth a damn'...? thats a rather speculative and subjective assessment.

You would have to look rather closely at a specific aspect of the debate, and follow the dialogue between the parties, looking at the claims.. counter claims.. and refutations.

Taking it wider than one bite at a time will just end up in information overload and confusion will certainly reign.

Here is but one example: (from the ICR website)

>>Field Research. Example: measurements of selected isotopic ratios for 67 elements in Grand Canyon basalts (see Isotope and Trace Element Analysis of Hypersthene-Normative Basalts From the Quaternary of Uinkaret Plateau, Western Grand Canyon, Arizona, by Steven A. Austin)<<

OR...

>>Analytical Research. Example: analytical review of helium concentrations in the atmosphere as an indicator of a young earth. (See The Age of the Earth's Atmosphere; a study of the Helium Flux through the Atmosphere, by Larry Vardiman.)<<

Now.. to make the discussion meaningful, one needs to follow through on what they are seeking to claim, and then look for refutations etc.

I've followed one through.. and it was a bit of a laugh, specially where the Creationists were misrepresented abysmally, by the Evolutionist.
Happy searching.

STEVE...here is one.

THE RELEVANCE OF Rb-Sr, Sm-Nd AND Pb-Pb ISOTOPE SYSTEMATICS TO ELUCIDATION OF THE GENESIS AND HISTORY OF RECENT ANDESITE FLOWS AT MT NGAURUHOE, NEW ZEALAND, AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR RADIOISOTOPIC DATING

http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/ICCMt_Ngauruhoe-AAS.pdf

Now..for your claims "no evidence worth a damn" to be true, you might like to explore the specific refutation to this paper ?

OR...

MEASURABLE 14C IN FOSSILIZED ORGANIC MATERIALS:
CONFIRMING THE YOUNG EARTH CREATION-FLOOD MODEL
http://www.icr.org/pdf/research/RATE_ICC_Baumgardner.pdf

But right now.. I am rapidly evolving into a rather lumpy and unsightly object.. due to massive mosquito attack.. (its stinking hot and all the windows are open) so..I'll devolve to the other room where I have more protection :)
cheers.

Steven get over it,the evidence of evolution is overwhelming.The evidence for God is underwhelming.We just have to grow up and face the reality that mummy and daddy cannot protect us from our own mortality.Enjoy the moment since our own vainety of yearning the eternal existence in bliss,can be our own worst enemy.

Once the memory is gone,nothing matters.God must be a real bastard to take recognition of ones spouse of 50yrs via alzhiemers disease.

BOAZ,

There was a time many decades ago when I thought it was worthwhile arguing with creationists. I took a lot of trouble to dissect their pseudo-science.

Slowly it dawned on me that no matter what evidence I presented I was not going to convince anyone. So I stopped bothering. Life is too short to waste it debunking every cranky theory.

However, just this once, I'm going to make an exception of sorts for you. Let's consider the Baumgardner et al paper on C14 dating first.

No, I'm NOT going to give you the answer.

I'm going to go ONE BETTER.

I am CHALLENGING you to find the answer for yourself.

I assure you an answer exists.

I was first confronted with this thesis about a year ago. Two possible explanations occurred to me. One turned out to be quite wrong. The other was mostly right though I'd missed a few details.

How did I discover the correct answer?

By phoning a few REAL scientists.

You may not know any real scientists. You could start by looking for one here:

http://www.findanexpert.unimelb.edu.au/

I suggest that you phone rather than email.

Good luck in your quest.

I'm sure you can do it.

Another thing BOAZ

AVOID THE FALSE DICHOTOMY.

It is NOT a case of:

--either I reject evolution

OR

--I cease being a Christian.

Many Christians have no difficulty with evolution. I could give you at least half a dozen ways of reconciling evolution with Christianity.

ARJAY,

I am, if not an actual atheist, a very sceptical agnostic. As my post made clear, I do not doubt that evolution is correct.

I therefore don't understand the point of your post.

Please explain

Steve you waste your time, all the followers of all the Gods will maintain their views.
That the God they follow is the only one, that he/she created the world.
That those who follow no God are to be converted and those who follow the wrong one? some times hated sometimes killed sometimes ignored.
And that man must remain prisoner to a fable we once needed but no longer do.

Arjay first.

Mate.. 2 points.
First.. I've lived through my adopted dad and alzheimers. Yes..its an ugly disease. I watched my mum slowly die as she was choked by a cancer around her neck....little by little.. again.. an ugly disease.
In neither case do I 'blame God'... one of my Vietnam vet peers once said "Don't talk to me about God....I've BEEN to Vietnam"... I didn't see the connection then, and I don't now.

Second... you are just echoing Pauls words

"Enjoy the moment since our own vainety of yearning the eternal existence in bliss,can be our own worst enemy."

Paul puts it like this:

1Cor 15:32
If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus for merely human reasons, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised, "Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die."

How true. If we are peddling a lie.. or a falsehood.. for what reason or benefit do we suffer for it? On the other hand.. if there is nothing to believe in except "The Moment" (raw, hard_nosed, pedal to the metal, foot to the floor, no holds barred existentialism) then.. we would be rather hypocritical to do other than "eat, drink and be merry".. feed out sensual pleasure zones day in and day out with no regard for anyone else.

STEVE.. I was not quoting those specific things as any kind of 'proof' so you don't need to worry about 'arguing with a creationist' in the way you mean.

Ultimately, it boils down to "my scholar can kick your scholars rear end" kind of thing, and then we just stare each other down and wander off :)

I BELIEVE in 'evolution' in so far as 'natual_selection' modifying species. 'Origin' of the species? I just can't see a slug becoming a horse.. get me? But a modified CICHLID.. sure..why not? So...where is the problem ?

You admit the BIGest problem is 'origins'.. aaah..*bingo* but its also a longgggg bow to draw to get 'once it started everything else followed' that my friend is 'faith' :)

Something strange is going on here. This is two posts in one day where I'm substantially agreeing with Steven. Yes, there does seem to be an awful lot of money being thrown lately at 'research' aimed at debunking evolution - with very little success, it seems.

However, while I agree with the futility of arguing with diehard creationists, I think in Boazy's case the answer may lie in a suggestion I made to him in another thread a few days back - and which he has unsurprisingly and studiously avoided.

It's clear that Boazy doesn't really understand science (or history, anthropology etc). I've suggested that Boazy consider getting himself a real education at a university, rather than relying on the bible, mass media and dubious websites for knowledge and analysis. When I taught at a university, over the years I had several students who were fundamentalist ex-missionaries with worldviews as narrow and distorted as Boazy's, but some of them were able to redeem themselves intellectually over the course of their degrees.

I think that bigotry such as Boazy constantly espouses is based fundamentally on ignorance and a deliberately blinkered view of the world. Education - of the sort that is still available at Australian universities despite 15 or so years of vandalism by bureaucrats - is the way to enlightenment in worldy matters like the evolution of species.

And as I said elsewhere - it's never too late to start :)

BOAZ,

I asserted that places like ICR had never produced research worth a damn. In response you posted a link to the Baumgardner et al paper among others.

I infer therefore that you believe the Baumgardner et al paper is a good counterexample to my assertion. That is, you believe Baumgardner is an example of solid research produced by an institute dedicated to, inter alia, debunking evolution.

It turns out that Baumgardner et al omitted certain relevant FACTS from their paper. Facts which, I discovered, are well known to experts in the field.

Get this BOAZ, we're not talking about a '"my scholar can kick your scholars rear end" kind of thing.' We're talking about relevant FACTS omitted from a so-called scientific paper.

I could tell you what those facts are but I'd rather you discovered them for yourself. I'm sure you're up to the task.

Prove that critics like CJ MORGAN, ARJAY and BELLY are wrong about you. Prove that you're capable of more than parroting the party line of whatever church or sect you belong to.

Don't post excuses for not doing what I suggested.

Just do it.

What's the harm?

The earth is four and a half BILLION years old.
Some of the bones we dig up so very much more than the 6.000 years we are told the world existed for.
Strange but fear is what drives some to believe in God, fear of death, life, the unknown.
Man is his own God ,sometimes his own Devil, in time he/she may let go the straw and be one people.

Sorry Steven,I read half of your post and assumed incorrectly.

My point is that you don't have to believe in god to feel spiritual of feel self worth.The concept of god is for children and at some stage,we all just have to grow up.

We are the masters of our own destinies and the wrong choices can mean oblivion.

Hi Steve again...

Well..I 'just did it' as far as my googling took me, but it seems that the shoe might be on the other foot about relevant facts.

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/negative6-26-2000.asp

This email from a critic of the 14c issue seems to suggest the deception if any was on the critics head rather than Dr Snelling.

Its interesting to note the adjectives used by the 'critic'.

As I've said. I've followed these types of discussions between claimant, critic and counter claimant.
The most common link usually is the attack on the CHARACTER of the Creationist.
Here is a classic example of Joyce Arthur attacking Duane Gish Phd.

She opens her article NOT with something about the issue itself.. wait for it...this:

>>"What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church...a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them." (Luther)<<

It seems CJ Morgan has sat at the feet of Joyce Arthur as a young Jedi .. because that is his approach also.

Steve.. you could look at the various verbal wars between say Gish and Arthur.. and others
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html This one seeks to humiliate Gish. I recognize though, that Gish might have gone just a tad off the beaten track on his "Chicken Lysozomes" and "Bullfrog" thing. But show me a scientist who has never made mistakes or accepted information from others?

For me, the debate is simple. "Did Christ rise from the dead" now.. you may well ask "What has THAT got to do with evolution?" well.. quite a bit, it confirms that God Created. As to the details, the method, the science...people can fight that out till the cows come home.. and won't convince the other side.

You yourself admitted that the biggest challenge is 'origins' and I agree. "Natural selection" is an observable fact.... but I'm yet to see a turkey become a pig. It does not explain origins, nor adequately the diversity of life.

Belly is right

The followers of God will continue to hold their view and those who claim evolution is based on science will continue to revise their views and textbooks. The faith of the evolutionist is amazing. To be found out wrong so many times but to hold to their dogmas takes amazing faith.

The flaw in this "debate" is the ridiculous assumption that by disproving one argument, you thereby prove your own.

In other words, if it's not black it must therefore be white.

Well maybe it's grey.

Maybe both arguments are false or at least one is partly correct.

However, anybody who claims to know not only how - but also why - the universe was created and cannot offer any proof, is not really qualified to put forward a logical scientific argument, especially when their definitive written reference states that the earth is flat and that stars are only small and very close.

Wobbles,

This thread is not about the origins of the universe.

It's about whether the Darwinian evolutionary framework is fundamentally correct. If certain key aspects of this framework, eg the age of the earth – could be falsified than the whole framework would have to be abandoned. So far I see no sign of that happening.

However I do agree with you in one respect. Were Darwinian evolution to be falsified it does not mean the genesis would be proved correct. For all I know the Hindu creation myths or the Muslim ones would turn out to be right.

Runner wrote:

"those who claim evolution is based on science will continue to revise their views and textbooks"

Well runner, when I'm confronted with data that contradicts my opinions I change my mind and revise any textbooks I may have written.

What do you do?

wobbles

I take a fairly simple approach. What I see written in Scripture is exactly what I see in regards to the earth. The continuing daily errors exposed in the evolution theory and the dishonesty associated with the frauds uncovered certainly does not draw me to this theory. A true scientist would not expect the public to be so gullible.

Runner thinks the Bible is THE holy book.

Muslims claim with equal fervour that the bible was corrupted and the koran is THE holy book – along with all the hadiths.

Jews claim the Bible is OK except for the new testament.

Catholics add a few books other Christians don't have.

The Hindus have their books.

And so it goes.

How's a poor atheist supposed to know which is the real holy book?

BTW runner you are aware than men CHOSE which books to include in the canon and which to exclude? In that sense at least the bible is as much a human construct as Shakespeare.

Or do you assert that the people who attended the COUNCIL OF NICAEA were also divinely inspired?

We in the REALITY BASED COMMUNITY do not pretend to have all the answers. We frequently have to revise our theories. New discoveries come out of left field all the time.

Actually the fact that we're always discovering something new is what makes science so exciting and wonderful. And FUN!.

See for example:

Surfer dude stuns physicists with theory of everything

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=A1YourView&xml=/earth/2007/11/14/scisurf114.xml

Has the Surfer Dude got it right?

I don't know but it'll be fascinating to see what happened. Roll on the LHC!

Steven_said:

>>If certain key aspects of this framework, eg the age of the earth – could be falsified than the whole framework would have to be abandoned<<

Steve...I don't see how a young earth would have any impact on the reality of natural selection? It would surely have impact on the idea of ALL species arising as a result of NS, from spontaneous emergence of life, but as Darwin himself admitted, there are some pretty big holes in that idea. These days, with more hindsight, a veritable truckload of fossils.. and lots of scientific name-calling.. we do indeed know a lot more.

The GREAT COVER UP is more seen when a scientist comes out with the slightest bit of sympathy for anything resembling ID or Creation Ex Nihilo... they are an immediate laughing stock, even BEFORE their arguments are peer reviewed.

You being Jewish,- I find myself shaking my head in wonderment, that you describe yourself as an atheist or agnostic.. when you should be aware of the biological connection of the Kohenim, Levi's etc..all the way back to Moses and Aaron.

When it comes to the descriptions of the major salvation events in the Torah, I'd be interested in what criteria you use to dismiss them.... do you look at the evidence...testimony of the text and the methods of passing down, copying.. the internal integrity and cohesian between many of the books...even though separated by centuries, and cultural consistencies, anthroplogical nuances, and for me.. having now lived in a tribal society for 8 yrs.. I can assure you, that the sentiments and behaviors noted in the Old Testament, are so true to life it isn't funny.

Most people get bored with the geneologies.. I GET FASCINATED by them. Becuase I can trace back through my wife to the Brunei Sultan, 8 generations ago, and hear stories about people hundreds of years back, and be made aware of the network of kinship.
It all just blows my mind.

So, I don't see a major conflict between Science and Creation (Genesis)... believing one does not mean rejecting the other in total.

Evolution is not a scientific theory.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/evolution/evolution-not-scientific-theory.html

Steve,

I doubt if creationists will come over to evolution. I assume that they have something to
gain by believing in this ... perhaps it makes them feel cozy and comfortable ... after all, the idea of the world being millions of years old is challenging to the intellect. Some don't like to be challenged this way. Our "G-d given" brains are designed for enquiry ... and continual enquiry ...

When I asked a fundamentalist Christian how she could justify creationism in the light of current scientific methods of dating, she responded that G-d placed these "things" (her words) on earth to test our faith. There is no response to that.

Ironically, the theory of evolution is much grander, elegant, and given to belief in a G-d, than that promoted by creationists who see humanity as merely puppets on a temporary stage. In fact, creationism is right up there with the flat-earth theorists - Perhaps these two theories will co-join at some stage ..

Get with the program! Evolution is in medieval nonsense is dealt with. Stop making excuses. All this conspiracy stuff that you mob trot out is just wasting our time.