Canadians divided over creation and evolution

[segnosaur]

Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility?

Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right?

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.. ....[/i]

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

"Don't take our word for it." Gee, at least thanks for the warning.

If talk.origins was just some web site put up by some anonymous individual, then yes, you'd have reasons to be skeptical. But, as someone else has pointed out, many of the people with articles (both on the site and in the newsgroup) actually do engage in original scienctific research, and the site does provide a multitude of references to peer-reviewed papers (even if the site isn't a peer reviewed site itself.) If you don't trust talk.origins, a more authoritative source is just a click away...

What do they mean by, "subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the archive?"

Cycles of what? Editing? Manipulating? Word Play?

How about removal of extraneous information? Correction of typos? Discussion of the merits of various content?

Remember, a lot of people on talk-origins are doing cutting edge research. In some cases, they may be working on hypothesis for which there is reason for scientific debate. (This doesn't mean that they dispute evolution, just that they are working out some of the fine details.)

[segnosaur]

I thought I said it all....

For those of you posting so many questions and/or dismissing the ID theory, it will serve you well to read the latest link that provides information about ID....so you can truly say that you are well-informed in this subject.

What makes you think we haven't been informed about ID and other beliefs?

You see, that type of attitude is common among belivers in creationism or ID... They love to point out little 'facts' that they learn, thinking that its the greatest discovery since sliced bread, even though in the vast majority of cases their 'discovery' has long been debunked. Yet given enough time, yet another creationist will re-discover the exact same 'fact', and the garbage gets recycled.

We've seen the arguments for ID/creationism and against evolution. They've pretty much all been debunked.

Though to the faithful disciples and followers of messiah Dawkins, Darwin's theory - Dawkin's own bible I guess - is being evangelised as the one and only rightful path that should be travelled in seeking the truth,....

clearly there are those who say.....baloney!

The difference is, those scientists who think that evolution is the correct theory for explaining life on earth are in the vast, vast majority of the scientific community. Those that are saying 'baloney' make up probably less than 1% of scientists, and many of those aren't even doing scientific research.

We are talking SCIENCE! Challenges should and must be welcomed.

Any challenges to evolution have already been made. Evolution won. The fact that a certain portion of the population who is ignorant of science thinks there is still a reason to 'debate' doesn't mean that evolution stands a chance at being declared 'wrong'; it just means that our education system must do a better job teaching critical thinking skills and science.

Oh, and I notice you ignored one of the questions I asked... Since you think that evolution should have to deal with all "challenges", do you think that the Raelian theory of human origin should be given equal weight with ID and evolution? After all, its considered a 'challenge'. Isn't it worth discussing?

Why should we all settle for just one theory that's riddled with holes?

Simple, because its the only 'theory' that actually comes close to describing the actual data, and those 'holes' are either A: cases of ignorant people not understanding science to begin with, or B: some refinement of the details of evolution by scientists which don't change the overall concept.

A theory that even its own creator came to question? Repeatedly refuted?

No, Darwin did not "refute" or "question" his theory. He died knowing that he had come up with the correct analysis.

Science shouldn't be hijacked and used to promote personal beliefs (religion or philosophical).

As I pointed out, not only do a majority of the scientific community accept evolution, but many religious organizations, including the catholic church (representing over 1/3 of the population of North America) and the Episcopalians (anglicans).

Excerpts from.....

EVOLUTION HALL OF SHAME

Well you've certainly put a lot of time and effort into cutting and pasting words from other people's web sites. But do you actually understand any of the science behind those articles? If not, why are you simply repeating other people's words? Why don't you try stating things your own way?

Edited April 30, 2009 by segnosaur

[benny]

Rev. Eleanor Barrington, minister of Trinity United Church in Ottawa, says pitting evolution and creation against each other serves only to “divide and judge.” He said that “good theology embraces whatever knowledge is out there. To Barrington’s view, God works through the natural world, including evolution.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html

[Oleg Bach]

Rev. Eleanor Barrington, minister of Trinity United Church in Ottawa, says pitting evolution and creation against each other serves only to “divide and judge.” He said that “good theology embraces whatever knowledge is out there. To Barrington’s view, God works through the natural world, including evolution.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/Life/Canadi...5662/story.html

You have a battle - the mortals against the immortals..those that have eternal life - and those that know they get on time around and are going to crash and burn and attempt to take us with them.

[betsy]

If talk.origins was just some web site put up by some anonymous individual, then yes, you'd have reasons to be skeptical. But, as someone else has pointed out, many of the people with articles (both on the site and in the newsgroup) actually do engage in original scienctific research, and the site does provide a multitude of references to peer-reviewed papers (even if the site isn't a peer reviewed site itself.) If you don't trust talk.origins, a more authoritative source is just a click away...

How about removal of extraneous information? Correction of typos? Discussion of the merits of various content?

Remember, a lot of people on talk-origins are doing cutting edge research. In some cases, they may be working on hypothesis for which there is reason for scientific debate. (This doesn't mean that they dispute evolution, just that they are working out some of the fine details.)

Once of the best scientific resources for understanding evolution (and debunking creationist nonsense) is the talk origins archive. (One of the nice things about that site is that they provide plenty of references.)

From Talk Origins:

Some types of organisms within a population leave more offspring than others. Over time, the frequency of the more prolific type will increase. The difference in reproductive capability is called natural selection.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html

Well, how about:

The theory of evolution does not say that all organisms must evolve. In an unchanging environment, natural selection would tend to keep things largely unchanged morphologically.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930_1.html (Its from an article about the coelacanths , but it can be applied to all organisms)

And how about:

Some so-called fossil species have evolved significantly. Cockroaches, for example, include over 4,000 species of various shapes and sizes. Species may also evolve in ways that are not obvious. For example, the immune system of horseshoe crabs today is probably quite different from that of horseshoe crabs of millions of years ago.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB930.html

You too?

Ha-ha-ha

Edited May 1, 2009 by betsy

[betsy]

What makes you think we haven't been informed about ID and other beliefs?

Because you're so full of "talkorigin!"

ha-ha-ha

Edited May 1, 2009 by betsy

[DogOnPorch]

Let's hope the Swine Flu doesn't evolve into a deadlier strain after a mutation.

[cybercoma]

Dawkins says that "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose."

This "appearance" is fundamental in the sense that there is no science without it; appearance is the product of consciousness.

God has only to say something to create it because appearance and consciousness are the product of symbol manipulations.

And that consciousness that perceives appearance is a reflection of human will and intention. We made God and we are God.

[benny]

We made God and we are God.

To understand how it is not exactly us who made/are God, one has to understand the link between sinthome and immortality:

(..)This is the loss of immortality which occurs at the moment of birth, when the infant-organism is initiated into the cycle of sexed reproduction; what is lost in this moment is “immortal life, or irrepressible life, life that has need of no organ, simplified, indestructible life” (Ibid 198). While numerous accounts in cultural studies interpret the ‘immortality’ of this life substance as an anthropomorphized persistence or supernatural vitality (the monster that refuses to die, for example), Lacan’s initial distinction is purely biological. Unlike single-celled organisms, clones, and cyborgs, which are capable of infinite asexual reduplication and, by extension, ‘eternal life’, the birth engendered by sexual reproduction is always-already constitutive of death. Here, my invocation of the term ‘engendered’ should be interpreted literally, since the organism’s primordial loss (of immortality) is concurrent with its acquisition of gender or an identity as a sexed individual. This confluence of fundamental loss and identificatory inscription heralds the infant-organism’s necessary initiation into the self-perpetuating cycle of individual death (real lack) and signification (symbolic lack).

Lacan’s myth of the lamella functions to explain this loss which occurs at birth. He illustrates the phenomenon using the following scenario: “Whenever the membranes of the egg in which the foetus emerges on its way to becoming a new-born are broken, imagine for a moment that something flies off, and that one can do it with an egg as easily as with a man…” (Ibid: 197). The ‘thing’ that flies off and is effectively lost to the subject is the lamella/pure life/immortality, and since it is indeed a ‘loss’ in its purest form, it is possible to discern why many contemporary theorists envision the lamella’s incessant anthropomorphized ‘return’ to the gendered subject as a traumatic and disorienting experience. This coincidence of asexual immortality and the physical death of a gendered subject is perhaps best exemplified by the stubborn biological-supernatural fixity of the alien life force which pursues Ripley across the Alien series.

http://zizekstudies.org/index.php/ijzs/article/view/145/229

[cybercoma]

Amazing. More Zizek Lacanian cut and paste drivel. Thanks. Now did you have anything relevant to post?

[betsy]

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

[benny]

Amazing. More Zizek Lacanian cut and paste drivel. Thanks. Now did you have anything relevant to post?

Lacan is relevant.

[GostHacked]

http://www.bible.ca/seek-about.htm

Our way of life

1. The Bible contains a complete blueprint or pattern for how we should live our lives.

2. Many think the Bible is an outdated book unable to provide answers for today’s modern world. Yet within the Bible there is a wealth of timeless information on every vital subject for personal happiness. The basic needs of men have not changed.

3. Learning from the example of the life of Jesus. Asking questions about the purpose of life and finding answers. Applying the Bible to our lives.

4. God’s word is Bible medicine for hurting homes in a wicked world.

Our doctrine:

1. We are trying to speak where the Bible speaks and to be silent where the Bible is silent, and to call Bible things by Bible names, and to do Bible things in Bible ways. Tit 2:1; 1 Corinthians 4:6; 2 John 9

2. In essentials, we maintain unity. In opinions, liberty. And in all things, love.

3. We are truly a non-denominational church that has no written standard of doctrinal authority other than the Bible.

I have a real problem with # 1 on the Doctrine .... the Bible is silent on evolution, so please I ask so politely to shut your mouth. I can discount the rest of the entire site of having any scientific value at all based on this doctrine for the site you are using as evidence Betsy. I guess this is about as close as a disclaimer as you can get.

However in 1972, evolutionary scientists Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge proposed another explanation for the numerous gaps in the fossil record.

Holy hell. I have learned so much about things since I was born in 1971. If you are quoting something that is almost 40 years old, you might want to find a more up to date statement from the same scientists to prove yourself betsy. Or find like minded scientists with modern evidence to back up the claim. Our overall understanding of how the universe works is ever expanding and growing. Therories come and go, and scientists do understand that theories could ultimately be proved wrong .... but here is the kicker... they are still LOOKING FOR IT. Most creationists beleive that they have the answer and there is no need to look at any science to back the claim up.

How far have we come in our understanding of things you continue to use quotes that are 30 to 40 years old?? That seems like the usual religious stagnation that facilitiates the closed mind set of the God theory.

Darwin knew his theory had some holes. He hoped to fill them. And it is about 150 years after he postulated all this. So since that time we have a better understaing through science, and hey, Darwin might still be proved wrong. But it wont be proved wrong by quoting anything from any religious text. Leave that to the real scientists.

INTELLIGENT DESIGN THEORY IN A NUTSHELL

The theory of intelligent design holds that certain features of the universe and living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, and are not the result of an undirected, chance-based process such as Darwinian evolution.

Intelligent design begins with observations about the types of information produced by intelligent agents. Even the atheist zoologist Richard Dawkins says that intuitively, "iology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Darwinists believe natural selection did the "designing" but intelligent design theorist Stephen C. Meyer notes, "in all cases where we know the causal origin of 'high information content,' experience has shown that intelligent design played a causal role."

Intelligent design implies that life is here as a result of the purposeful action of an intelligent designer, standing in contrast to Darwinian evolution, which postulates that life exists due to the chance, purposeless, blind forces of nature.

-----

I am a Creationist ...that is based in my faith in God.

But that is not the point in this discussion.

That is part of the problem. Since all of your beliefs are based on god, there is no room for evolution in your life. And that is part of the point whern discussing this. Because you cannot separate yourself from the belief of god, you cannot accept evolution as the most tested theory of how things came to be. Your faith tells you God did it,.. and that's just the way it is. Check your disclaimers before you check the disclaimers on the other sites that the evolutionists are putting forth.

We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive.. ....

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs-qa.html

Indeed, don't take their word for it. This means they feel so strongly about their position, they do not feel threatened to have their science tested. THAT is true science. So, find out for yourself, pick up a few books that are not 30+ years old.

[segnosaur]

What makes you think we haven't been informed about ID and other beliefs?

Because you're so full of "talkorigin!"

ha-ha-ha

I've also posted references to Origin of Species, university web sites, and peer reviewed articles.

You see, I have a grasp on the basics of science. Your average creationist, on the other hand, does not.

For I am well aware that scarcely a single point is discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be adduced, often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived.

A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts and arguments on both sides of each question.

- Charles Darwin, Origin of Species

Just out of curiosity, what exactly was your reason for posting this quote?

Are you by chance trying to argue that creationism or ID must be examined because darwin suggested "both sides" need to be examined?

In that case, what is your position on the Raelians? Should their theories of creation be "examined" as well? Do you think their particular "theories" should be given weight? Or is it just the beliefs that you have that you feel are credible alternatives.

I had asked that question before, but as expected, you ran away from it. Certainly not unexpected... after all, the creationist mindset is so full of irrationality, ignorance and faulty logic that, when presented with an actual dilemma they can't handle it.

[benny]

Given the results of the poll, there is room for Canadians to reasonably accommodate Betsy given her beliefs.

[betsy]

In that case, what is your position on the Raelians? Should their theories of creation be "examined" as well? Do you think their particular "theories" should be given weight? Or is it just the beliefs that you have that you feel are credible alternatives.

I had asked that question before, but as expected, you ran away from it. Certainly not unexpected... after all, the creationist mindset is so full of irrationality, ignorance and faulty logic that, when presented with an actual dilemma they can't handle it.

Heh! Stop nagging me about Raelians. I'm not into science fiction....that's more up your alley!

[benny]

Segnosaur is a creation.

[betsy]

Segnosaur is a creation.

Amen.

[betsy]

Gosthacked and Segnasaur,

Obviously you miss my point, so refer to my previous posts:

#186

#198

#209

#205 here's an excerpt of the Santorum Amendment

The Santorum Amendment (2001, 2002)

• On June 13, 2001, the United States Senate strongly supported an amendment which states,

"(1) good science education should prepare students to distinguish the data or testable theories of science from philosophical or religious claims that are made in the name of science;

(2) where biological evolution is taught, the curriculum should help students to understand why this subject generates so much continuing controversy, and should prepare the students to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

• Introduced by Senator Rick Santorum (R-Pennsylvania); supported by a vote of 91-8.

• Afterwards, 3 senators made noteworthy comments:

The report said:

The Conferees recognize that a quality science education should Prepare students to distinguish the data and testable theories of science from the religious or philosophical claims that are made in the name of science. Where topics are taught that may generate controversy (such as biological evolution), the curriculum should help students to understand the full range of scientific views that exist, why such topics may generate controversy, and how scientific discoveries can profoundly affect society.

• President Bush signed bill into law on January 8, 2002 as H.R. 1, the "No Child Left Behind Act,"

• The Santorum Amendment is now one of the primary arguments being used to allow for the inclusion of intelligent design into the curriculum in Ohio, and also to allow for criticisms of evolution to be taught.

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1119

Obviously there's a need for such amendment! Yes Ghosthack you have been around since 1971....but for the last 60 years or so, no one criticized the theory of evolution taught in school, criticisms were somehow muzzled!

Heck, that's no exaggeration when now in the present time, just take a look at this attitude:

I have a real problem with # 1 on the Doctrine .... the Bible is silent on evolution, so please I ask so politely to shut your mouth.

You've got a problem, alright. A real problem!

You don't like what you hear, then bury your head in the sand.

I don't know if you two even grasp the parallel I did of Dawkins and Christianity.

What I meant by "good" or "true" science.

Heck, Segnasaur even asked why I quoted Darwin! Imagine that!

FYI, that simple statement of Darwin says a lot. About him...science then and science now...and the pack of evolutionists led by Dawkins. Darwin was a true man of science.

One of the sources I gave for Evolution Hall Of Shame (?) did not just give reference to books or articles used. They even provided the page numbers of each quoted materials for convenience....so you don't have to go through the whole book searching for it! The source made it as easy as possible for anyone to take a look and VERIFY!

They didn't just simply say (like TalkOrigin), "Don't take our word for it, but use the primary literature and read it for yourself..." And then I scrolled down an article I was reading and found no references to anything at all! I could be reading fiction for all I know! Or part-fiction and truth. Or worse, an article by Segnasaur under a different pen-name!

That's one of the tricks of deception: they know most people do not have the time to read books to verify for accuracy or actual context.

But one thing sure, if such a simple point I'm making about my stance on this particular discussion, supported by articles (especially the Santorum Amendment) quite easily fly over your heads........I seriously doubt you'd recognize, let alone understand implications, scientific terms, etc., even if they hit you smack on your foreheads!

If you want to re-read my posts, fine. If not, fine too.

If you've read and still couldn't get it.....read them again. If after umpteenth readings and still

no-go....well....what can I say? <shrug>

I don't want to play merry-go-round with you, or anyone else. I don't have lots of time to waste.

Edited May 1, 2009 by betsy

[benny]

That's one of the tricks of deception: they know most people do not have the time to read books to verify for accuracy or actual context.

To me, lack of time is too easy an excuse.

[cybercoma]

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

Dear Dr. Laura:

Thank you for doing so much to educate people regarding God's Law. I have learned a great deal from your show, and try to share that knowledge with as many people as I can. When someone tries to defend the homosexual lifestyle, for example, I simply remind them that Leviticus 18:22 clearly states it to be an abomination. End of debate. I do need some advice from you, however, regarding some of the other specific laws and how to follow them:

When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odor for the Lord - Lev.1:9. The problem is my neighbors. They claim the odor is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness - Lev.15:19- 24. The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offense.

Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighboring nations. A friend of mine claims that this applies to Mexicans, but not Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

I have a neighbor who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination - Lev. 11:10, it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev. 19:27. How should they die?

I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? - Lev.24:10-16. Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)

I know you have studied these things extensively, so I am confident you can help. Thank you again for reminding us that God's word is eternal and unchanging.

Your devoted fan,

Jim

http://www.humanistsofutah.org/2002/WhyCan...dian_10-02.html

Edited May 2, 2009 by cybercoma

[benny]

Why Can't I Own a Canadian?

If you don't have your own original ideas to communicate, at least you can put parts of the text in bold characters.

[GostHacked]

Obviously there's a need for such amendment! Yes Ghosthack you have been around since 1971....but for the last 60 years or so, no one criticized the theory of evolution taught in school, criticisms were somehow muzzled!

Well, I think it was about time that the churches and religions have held their view and imposed on others for thousands of years. Back in some of those days, you could be burned at the stake for not beleiving in the creator. 60 Years of evolution proving itself more and more as time goes on (and we are going to still discover things) So it is a usless comparison to say that evolution needs to be criticized over the last 60 years. Evolutionists have been critiquing creationists for about 150 years now.

You've got a problem, alright. A real problem!

You don't like what you hear, then bury your head in the sand.

I took my head out of the sand when I was a young lad. I prayed to god, no one answered. At that time I knew I had to take control of my life and not leave it up to some mystical being in the sky.

FYI, that simple statement of Darwin says a lot. About him...science then and science now...and the pack of evolutionists led by Dawkins. Darwin was a true man of science.

Darwin was a true man of science.. that we can agree on. God was never a true man of science. God is not even a man. Men are falible. This god person seems to be perfect.

One of the sources I gave for Evolution Hall Of Shame (?) did not just give reference to books or articles used. They even provided the page numbers of each quoted materials for convenience....so you don't have to go through the whole book searching for it! The source made it as easy as possible for anyone to take a look and VERIFY!

They didn't just simply say (like TalkOrigin), "Don't take our word for it, but use the primary literature and read it for yourself..." And then I scrolled down an article I was reading and found no references to anything at all! I could be reading fiction for all I know! Or part-fiction and truth. Or worse, an article by Segnasaur under a different pen-name!

That's one of the tricks of deception: they know most people do not have the time to read books to verify for accuracy or actual context.

You used a site that says they get all their info from the bible. They live by the bible, and not science. The bible is not a science book, so this is why I am saying that creationists should keep quite when it comes to calling it a science and using it as scientific text. The bible is a religious text and a guide of how to live. It is a philisophical book. And philosophy is not science.Even science has evolved since we discovered the scientific method and it will continue to evolve as our understanding of it grows. If this ultimately leads to a god entity, then real science will prove it. If they do find tangible evidence that god exists, then I will change my tune.

But one thing sure, if such a simple point I'm making about my stance on this particular discussion, supported by articles (especially the Santorum Amendment) quite easily fly over your heads........I seriously doubt you'd recognize, let alone understand implications, scientific terms, etc., even if they hit you smack on your foreheads!

I had one preacher tell me I was healed and smacked me on the forehead. And you'd be surprised as to what I know and understand. I am at least open to other possibilites, and that includes the beleif in a god. I am agnostic, because I cannot know for certain if this god exists. And that is part of the whole basis for creationism. They call it science by terming it a creator instead of using God. That is what I call pulling a fast one on you. Smacks on the foreheads indeed.

I will only know for certain if god exists when I die. And when I find out, it is unfortunate that I will not be able to share my discovery with anyone still in the living world. I wonder if there is a money back guarantee that someone can put on creationism and god.

I don't want to play merry-go-round with you, or anyone else. I don't have lots of time to waste.

Nah you have plenty of time to waste. Disproving evolution is not proof that creationism is true. It only shows that evolution is false. You still need to prove that god.. err.. a creator... created everything.

Question ... and this is what I need to throw at creationists. Who created the creator?? And does that go on and on?? Creators creating creators?? Now your view of a creator should change as more evidence is gathered to support your claims. But I doubt any evolution of understanding will happen at all. Life is all about learning, and none of us have complete answers. I know I don't have the answers. But you seem to.

[benny]

Peter was much more than a scientist when he said to Jesus: "We have left everything to follow you" (Mt 19:27).

[WIP]

Nah you have plenty of time to waste. Disproving evolution is not proof that creationism is true. It only shows that evolution is false. You still need to prove that god.. err.. a creator... created everything.

And that's why debating a creationist is an exercise in futility. They are not interested in advancing alternative scientific theories, and they never will! You won't find any creationist site with an explanation for the geographic differentiation of plants and animals, phylogenetics, or why 99% of the animals that walked the earth are now extinct. There are no creationist or intelligent design explanations for these factors, and they won't bother dealing with them at all, and stick to attacking the only working theory that does explain these features of the natural world. They are only concerned with destroying presently accepted theories, not creating alternatives like they still claim to be trying to do.

Creationist books on biology, genetics, and the history of life on earth will remain short and simple because they don't have an alternative scientific theory to teach. But, it doesn't matter to them since they would just as soon demolish science in the same way that they are demolishing science education in many Christian and Muslim countries where creationism is being taught as an alternative to evolution. Problem is - how can you teach advanced biology courses today without teaching evolution? It can't be done, and fundamentalists don't care because they believe all the knowledge that is needed is found in their bibles, so any new learning raises suspicions since it might overturn tightly guarded religious dogmas......welcome back to the dark ages!