QuestionEvolution.com
Carol Lee Smith
About QuestionEvolution.com
This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
biblical creation, as there are many excellent books that do that. Rather
it was created to show that the theory that is presented as scientific
(evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by scientific fact and
discoveries as the average evolutionist believes. A careful and objective
study of the universe points one more in the direction of special creation
than natural evolution.
JWL
answered time and again on many good sites... how funny these creation types
just spitting out the same old crap and ignoring that people have answered
these issues. Unfortunately the average reader of this site is probably a
Christian who will never bother to look to anything but pro-Creation sources
for answers. They will just take it on faith that these are really problems
for evolution. That is sad...
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
JWL
kind as to send similar emails regarding other points?
I am just so flabergasted that this crap is still going around!!!!!!!
----------------------------
It takes only minutes to find good arguments against almost any of the
points on your site. Any research at all on these points would show you how
misleading it is to still use these as ammo against evolution. Spend a
little time with Google please.
For example, in 25 seconds I found this site regarding evolution of the eye:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
Also Richard Dawkins has an excellent exploration of this in "The Blind
Watchmaker". Please do yourself and all your audience members a favor and
read this book.
Venus rotating backwards took all of 10 seconds if that:
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999879
I'd be happy to go on when I have more time. But you could do this research
yourself, and should have before you posted your questions! Or maybe you
did, but think that since most of your readers will be Christians who will
not look to Science sources to answer these questions, that it doesn't
matter.
Of course for many of these questions are open still and have yet to be
answered by any kind of Science. Yet Creationism's answer "well God could
have done it however the heck he wanted" is very weak and not scientific in
any way. Basically, your overall argument seems to be, since there are open
questions in this field, it must be all wrong and therefore our idea is
right. There are open questions in all fields, but knowledge is growing all
the time.
----------------------------
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
AC
Before I waste my time, give me the three best arguments that this site
offers.
--
Aaron Clausen
Dale
news:vksb2ni...@corp.supernews.com...
> I sent this to the email address on the site. Would the rest of you be so
> kind as to send similar emails regarding other points?
>
> I am just so flabergasted that this crap is still going around!!!!!!!
> ----------------------------
> It takes only minutes to find good arguments against almost any of the
> points on your site. Any research at all on these points would show you
how
> misleading it is to still use these as ammo against evolution. Spend a
> little time with Google please.
>
> For example, in 25 seconds I found this site regarding evolution of the
eye:
>
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/01/1/l_011_01.html
>
> Also Richard Dawkins has an excellent exploration of this in "The Blind
> Watchmaker". Please do yourself and all your audience members a favor and
> read this book.
>
> Venus rotating backwards took all of 10 seconds if that:
>
> http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns9999879
I sent them the following about that. It's very long and technical, in stark
contrast to their little one line quips. If they publish it, I hope it will
impress upon at least a few of their readers an inkling of what real science
is about, and how much intellectual effort goes into it. I suspect that very
few creationists are ever exposed to science at this level.
-----
In your website, you ask why certain planets and moons exhibit high
obliquities. Below is an excerpt from a paper explaining this phenomenon.
Basically, the tilt of a planet is chaotic over periods on the order of 100
million years, because of interactions between the Sun and the unevenly
distributed mass of the planet, and the eccentricity of the planet's orbit.
So, for example, the obliquity of Venus is about 177 degrees because such
interactions.
The essential idea is this: "The Sun exerts a torque on the equatorial bulge
of a planet that makes the planet's spin axis precess like a top. (For the
Earth, the Moon also exerts a torque that is twice as large as the solar
torque.) The orbits of the planets also precess as a result of their mutual
gravitational interactions. Thus a planet's obliquity can change because of
changes in the orientation of either its spin axis or its orbit pole."
From a paper "Origin and Evolution of Terrestrial Planet Rotation", by Jack
J. Lissauer, NASA Ames Research Center, Luke Dones, Southwest Research
Institute, and Keiji Ohtsuki, Yamagata University and University of
Colorado.
http://www.boulder.swri.edu/~luke/Papers/lissauer-etal-rotation-review-2000.pdf
6. EVOLUTION OF PLANETARY SPINS
A number of physical processes can change the spins of planets after their
formation (Harris and Ward, 1982). Indeed, the spin states of all four of
the terrestrial planets have evolved substantially since their formation. We
list below the relevant processes, describe the evolution of the spin states
of the Earth-Moon system and Mars, and briefly comment upon the spins of
Mercury and Venus. The rotation of asteroids can be substantially modified
by impacts that occur at velocities far greater than the escape speeds of
the bodies (Davis et al., 1989; Love and Ahrens, 1997; Asphaug and Scheeres,
1999); as this process is not believed to be important for the major
terrestrial planets, we do not discuss it here.
6.1. Spin-Orbit Coupling
The Sun exerts a torque on the equatorial bulge of a planet that makes the
planet's spin axis precess like a top. (For the Earth, the Moon also exerts
a torque that is twice as large as the solar torque.) The orbits of the
planets also precess as a result of their mutual gravitational interactions.
Thus a planet's obliquity can change because of changes in the orientation
of either its spin axis or its orbit pole. If the spin axis precesses
rapidly compared with the orbital precession, the spin axis follows the
instantaneous orbit pole (i.e., vector normal to the orbit), and the
obliquity remains nearly constant. Mercury, Venus, and Earth currently are
in this regime, with Earth's obliquity remaining in the range of 22.0°~24.6°
over the last 18 m.y. (Laskar et al., 1993a). On the other hand, if the spin
axis precesses slowly, it follows the time-averaged orbit pole, and the
obliquity varies in proportion to the planet's inclination to the invariable
plane of the solar system. The giant planets exhibit this type of variation.
The model of spin/orbit coupling described above assumes that the planetary
orbits vary with time in a regular fashion. In the simplest "secular"
theory, which treats a system of N planets as coupled harmonic oscillators,
the orbital inclinations of the planets can be described as the sum of N-1
sinusoidal terms with periods ranging from roughly 50,000 yr to 2 m.y.
(Harris and Ward, 1982). If the precession period of a planet's spin axis is
close to one of these secular periods, a near-resonance results, and large
obliquity variations can occur. It has been known since the work of Ward
(1973) that a near-resonance causes Mars's obliquity to vary from 15° to 35°
over timescales of 1 m.y. The actual variations in Mars' obliquity are
likely to be even larger for two reasons, involving changes in either the
secular periods or the planetary spin precession period that may have
brought the two periods closer to resonance. First, we now believe that the
orbits of the planets are chaotic. That is, the orbits of the planets (and
consequently, their obliquities) cannot be predicted 100 m.y. into the past
or future, because gravitational interactions among the planets cause the
uncertainties in the orbits to grow exponentially with time. [Said chaos
probably does not result in drastic changes in the sizes and shapes of the
planetary orbits over the age of the solar system (Laskar, 1997), but this
result has not been rigorously shown.] Because of chaos, the planetary
orbits vary with a large number of frequencies; in fact, the planetary
orbits cannot be well-represented over long timescales as a sum of sine
waves. Thus there are many more opportunities for near-resonances than in
the simple secular theory; in general, obliquity variations are larger when
the full complexity of the planetary orbits is considered. Over long
timescales, only statistical statements can be made about the likely
variations of Mars's obliquity. Touma and Wisdom (1993) infer a range of
11°~49° during the last 80 m.y., and Laskar and Robutel (1993) argue that
obliquities can range from 0° to 60° further in the past.
Second, obliquity variations can be amplified by changes in the period of
precession of a planet's spin axis. This period is inversely proportional to
the planet's departure from a spherical shape (i.e., its oblateness). Prior
to the formation of the Tharsis Ridge of volcanos on Mars, Mars' spin
precession period would have been closer to resonance with one of the
secular periods (Ward et al., 1979; Bills, 1990; Ward, 1992). D. Williams et
al. (1998) propose a controversial theory that a feedback between the Earth'
s obliquity and its oblateness could have reduced the Earth's obliquity by
tens of degrees in less than 100 m.y. some 500 m.y. ago, if the continents
were situated so as to promote the formation of large polar ice sheets. D.
Williams and Pollard (2000) discuss this scenario in detail.
In contrast with Mars, the Earth at present experiences very small obliquity
variations because its spin axis has a precession period of 26,000 yr,
shorter than any of the secular periods. The Moon is largely responsible for
causing this rapid precession (Laskar et al., 1993b). Without the Moon, the
Earth's precession period would be ~81,000 yr, and its obliquity
oscillations would be like those of Mars (Ward, 1982, 1992). However, in the
long term, as the Moon continues to evolve outward from the Earth due to
tides, a resonance will occur, resulting in large obliquity variations
(Ward, 1982, 1992; Tomasella et al., 1996; Néron de Surgy and Laskar, 1997;
see below).
6.2. Tides
Whereas spin/orbit coupling changes obliquities without changing spin rates,
tidal friction changes both spin rates and obliquities. "Solid-body" tides
in the planets driven by the Sun (and the Moon, in the case of the Earth)
dissipate energy in the planets, and transfer angular momentum between
rotational and orbital motion (Goldreich, 1966). For a planet whose rotation
period is shorter than the orbital period of its "satellite" (the Sun or a
moon), and whose spin is prograde, tidal friction slows the planet's
rotation, and causes the satellite's orbit to spiral outward. Thus, in the
past, the Earth spun faster, and the Moon was closer to the Earth. These
changes have been measured from the Apollo lunar laser ranging experiment
(Dickey et al., 1994), astronomical records, and bands in fossils and
sedimentary layers (G. E. Williams, 1993; Sonett et al., 1996; Sonett and
Chan, 1998) for almost 1 G.y. into the past.
Tidal friction causes a planet's obliquity to evolve toward a specific
prograde value for any initial rotation rate; this value is close to zero
for a slow rotator and close to 90° for a fast rotator (Goldreich and Peale,
1970). Since the Earth rotates rapidly, its obliquity is increasing slowly
over geologic time, and may have been only 10° some 4 G.y. ago (Goldreich,
1966; Touma and Wisdom, 1994). [G. E. Williams (1993) discusses possible
evidence that the Earth's obliquity was higher until ~0.5 G.y. ago; D.
Williams et al. (1998; also D. Williams and Pollard, 2000) provide a
possible mechanism for a recent rapid decrease of Earth's obliquity.]
However, Earth's spin state at very early times is uncertain (Touma and
Wisdom, 1994, 1998): When the Moon was much closer to Earth, tidal
interactions were complex. Before the Earth acquired the Moon, it may have
undergone large, chaotic obliquity variations, as likely occurred for the
other terrestrial planets (Laskar and Robutel, 1993). The usual end result
of tidal evolution is synchronous rotation such as that of the Moon and the
Pluto/Charon system, in which the spin period equals the orbital period. In
the distant future, the Earth's rotation may reach the synchronous state,
but this state is unstable due to solar tides.
Néron de Surgy and Laskar (1997) simulated 500 possible scenarios for the
evolution of the Earth's spin for the next 5 G.y. The large number of
simulations is necessary because the spin evolves chaotically, and because
of uncertainties in the future value of the Earth's tidal coefficient and
the amount of core-mantle coupling within the Earth. In their standard model
(i.e., present-day tidal coefficient, no core-mantle coupling), the Earth's
spin state begins to undergo chaotic variations 1.5 G.y. in the future, and
in a typical case, the obliquity sometimes reaches values larger than 80°.
This evolution is qualitatively like that predicted by Ward (1982), but the
obliquity reaches even larger values than Ward predicted. Néron de Surgy and
Laskar also point out that the scenario by G. E. Williams (1993) for rapid
decrease of the Earth's obliquity after 630 Ma implies an implausibly large
despinning of the Earth.
Mercury and Venus have been despun by solar tides. Atmospheric tides have
also affected Venus's spin (Dobrovolskis, 1980). Possible rotation histories
of Mercury are discussed by Peale (1988), while Yoder (1997) and Néron de
Surgy and Laskar (1999) treat Venus. Precise measurements by spacecraft
might be able to constrain the primordial rotation states of both planets
(Peale, 1989).
7. CONCLUSIONS
Terrestrial planets accumulate rotational angular momentum from the relative
motions of colliding and accreting planetesimals. The angular momentum
provided by individual impacts can be in any direction. The net rotation of
a planet may be produced by a systematic directional bias in the
distribution of accreted spin angular momentum and/ or from the stochastic
effects of accretion of large impactors. The low obliquities of six of the
eight largest planets in the solar system suggest the possible importance of
an ordered component of spin angular momentum accumulated during the growth
of planetary bodies. However, planetary rotation can be altered subsequent
to accretion, so spins may have been more randomly oriented early in the
solar system's history. Moreover, calculations of terrestrial planet growth
from planetesimals yield planets whose rotational angular momenta are
dominated by one or a few large impacts, and are quasirandomly directed.
Thus, despite considerable advances over the past decade, our understanding
of the process of planetary growth is not yet sufficient to reach definitive
conclusions regarding the accumulation of planetary spin angular momentum.
We believe that when the obliquities of many extrasolar terrestrial planets
becomes known, a wide variety of values will be represented. However, we do
not wish to speculate what biases such a distribution might contain (apart
from a likely concentration of low obliquities among strongly tidally slowed
airless planets).
Rasputin
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
The site challenges evolutionists to explain the orbits of Uranus and Venus.
Apparently, the term "evolution" now encompasses the sciences of Biology,
Astronomy and Geology. That's a lot of science to discredit, especially with
the amount of content displayed on that site.
TomS
<bildo...@enews3.newsguy.com>, Rasputin stated..."
One of the symptoms of the Denial Of Evolution Syndrome is to
blame evolution for everything.
Dean Chesterman
It is really sad to see a site like this! It looks good and required
effort and computer skills. It is not just a cut and paste from some
other creationist's web site. And yet... a few minutes of research in
any library or on the internet, a questioning mind, and a little
thinking and you would have had answers to all of these "questions".
No coal being formed today? Wrong, Northern Alberta has peat bogs, some
hundreds of feet thick, the gradation from living plants to a crumbled
black coal on the bottom is clear to anyone who is willing to look.
All of the sediment accumulating on the oceans floor? Wrong, Basic
geology texts have a clear demonstration of the Wilson Cycle and the
evidence for the recycling of the sediment into the subduction zones
then out onto the surface through volcanos or mountain building. To be
eroded again into the oceans.
And neither of these questions have anything to do with the Theory of
Evolution, the unifying theory that ties all of biology and the history
of life on this planet into a sensible whole.
Try reading the talk origins archive, www.talkorigins.org, most of the
answers are already written for you. Try studying the archive as
carefully and as objectively as you have studied your excellent biblical
creation books. If evidence can convince you, you will see that the
objective view of the life on this planet strongly supports evolution.
And how sad it is to realize that for a lot less effort, one could have
had the real answers to the questions you asked.
Dean Chesterman
Alan Wright
"AC" <tao...@alberni.net> wrote in message
news:slrnbkscf5...@whop-paC-006c.alberni.net...
Don't waste your time (as I did briefly). It's just more "lies for Jesus".
Same old stuff, all copied from elsewhere.
Someone with a *lot* of free time might want to see what other
sources were the primary influences. I could not find any other
web sites that link to this one or talk about it, nor does their ip
address give any hints, so I'm wondering who the authors are
affiliated with.
A WHOIS search on questionevolution.com gives a contact who
appears to just be an ISP. It *is*, however, possibly based in Georgia.
No big surprise there.
Alan
Alan Wright
"Rasputin" <an...@anonymous.com> wrote in message
news:bildo...@enews3.newsguy.com...
Given the interconnectedness of the various sciences, denying evolution,
especially in the manner that they do, does question most all of the other
sciences. As a result of this, a fruitful form of attack on creationism
should be to follow the chain of implications to something that even
the creationists would find absurd, and then question them about it.
When they object, one could then show them their self-contradiction.
Does anyone have any good examples of this kind of argument?
Alan
Carol Lee Smith
> typically, a quick look through these I believe all these points have been
> answered time and again on many good sites... how funny these creation types
> just spitting out the same old crap and ignoring that people have answered
> these issues. Unfortunately the average reader of this site is probably a
> Christian who will never bother to look to anything but pro-Creation sources
> for answers. They will just take it on faith that these are really problems
> for evolution. That is sad...
I agree it is sad-- very sad.
I think you gave more detail in your message to my personal eddress. You
might want to post that here, even if it is mostly preaching to the choir.
Carol
(definitely not a creationist type)
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
AC
Well, I dropped four litres of milk on the ground a few days ago. I blamed
evolution for it, but still had to clean it up :-( Maybe I should have
blamed particle physics.
--
Aaron Clausen
r norman
Won't work. Biblical literalists who insist the universe was created
a few thousand years ago in six 24 hour days already clearly reject
basic cosmology, astronomy, physics, chemistry and geology. Just read
the nonsense in this news group trying to explain Noah's flood. There
is no science in it at all and scientific disproofs have never been
useful. Modern science is totally incompatible with this biblical
literalism.
Once you accept the bible as a metaphorical explanation of important
ideas, phrased in images and concepts that a preliterate and
prescientific society could comprehend, not a factual and historical
record, then you can accept a God who created the universe in an event
we sometimes call the big bang and with the physical laws that would
eventually produce humans who have the capability to choose to do good
or to do evil. There is no conflict between this type of
"creationism" and modern science.
Bobby D. Bryant
> http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
>
> About QuestionEvolution.com
> This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
> evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
> biblical creation, as there are many excellent books that do that.
For a very curious definition of 'excellent'.
> Rather it was created to show that the theory that is presented as
> scientific (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by
> scientific fact and discoveries as the average evolutionist believes.
That's the normal tack that creationists attempt: since there's nothing to
recommend their own ideas they content themselves with throwing mud at the
one idea that _does_ have a lot to recommend it.
> A careful and objective study of the universe points one more in the
> direction of special creation than natural evolution.
Funny, only theists ever reach that conclusion. And usually only
fundamentalist theists at that. (Any conjectures as to why that might
be?)
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Lenny Flank
It's the same old shit I've been hearing from creationist after
creationist for 20-odd years now. Nothing new.
===============================================
"There are no loose threads in the web of life"
Creation "Science" Debunked Website:
http://www.geocities.com/lflank
"DebunkCreation" email list at Yahoogroups:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/DebunkCreation/join
Lenny Flank
I agree completely. There is simply no point in arguing "science"
with creationists, since they don't know science, don't care about
science, and aren't interested in learning any science. They weren't
won to creationism through science, and they won't be weaned away form
it by science.
Creationism is a political movement. It has political goals. It uses
political methods. And it must be fought in the political sphere.
Jason Cortina
I'll do better than that.
QuestionEvolution's Top Ten List of Devastating Questions
about Evolution:
10) [Philosophy Page] - Evolution = Atheism
"How does the evolutionist know that there is no God?"
9) [The Solar System Page] - Earth would have been spinning too
fast in the past
"Earth's spin is slowing at the rate of almost 1 sec/year.
How fast was it spinning 1 billion years ago?"
8) [Geology Page] - Continents would have worn away by now
"Why aren't the continents eroded? At the current rate, the
continents should have eroded much more than they have."
7) [Earth Science Page] - Oceans should be filled with sediment
"Where has all of the sediment presently going into the
oceans gone? Over 27 billion tons of sediments enter the
oceans each year. Even assuming a constant flow of this
pace, the current sediments on the ocean bottom would have
accumulated in only 30 million years."
6) [The Solar System Page] - Short Period Comets
"Where do short period comets come from? A short period
comet would completely "boil off" after about 15,000 years.
There is no known way for a comet to come into existence.
They have been thought to have been around since the start
of the universe. The Oort cloud was devised to try to
explain this but, once again, it is a case of trying to make
the observed facts fit the preconceived notions."
5) [Biology Page] - What good is half a wing or half an eye
"How could wings have evolved? Or an eye? Until complete,
any of these improvements (and many others) would have been
a tremendous handicap, not an advantage. A land animal which
began to lose a pair of legs and evolve wings would have
been eaten by an animal with four good legs."
4) [The Solar System Page] - Shrinking Sun
"How big was the sun 1 billion years ago? The sun looses 4
million tons of mass through fusion per second, and is
shrinking by about 1% each century (5 feet per hour). This
shrinking is responsible for a large amount of the energy
that the sun gives off."
3) [Biology Page] - There are no transitionals
"Why are the missing links still missing? From vertebrates
to invertebrates, reptiles to birds there should be billions
of animals. The transition from legs to wings alone should
have included a countless number of animals, yet none can be
found."
2) [General Page] - What about the 2LoT (1LoT, too)
"How can evolution of universe/life be explained in view of
the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?"
And, believe it or don't,
1) [Biology Page] - <no comment>
"Why are there still monkeys?"
--
Jason A Cortina
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt
up after being drunk all night.
-- Isaac Asimov
John Wilkins
Can I nominate the entire quote as a Chez Watt?
--
John Wilkins
DARK IN HERE, ISN'T IT?
wilkins.id.au
Chris Ho-Stuart
> It is really sad to see a site like this! It looks good and
> required effort and computer skills. It is not just a cut and
> paste from some other creationist's web site. And yet... a
> few minutes of research in any library or on the internet,
> a questioning mind, and a little thinking and you would have
> had answers to all of these "questions".
That was my impression also; not just cut and paste, but
a very amateur effort by well-intentioned amateurs. The
questions probably are taken from a number of sources;
but it it probably not just a straight steal of someone
else's questions.
I suspect the authors might be students somewhere, possibly
in high school, doing some kind of "project". But I'm guessing.
If anyone does email them, it would be appropriate to bear
in mind that they may well be teenagers who have had no
help or guideance in how to handle this stuff. Be gentle...
From their home page:
About QuestionEvolution.com
This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a
class on the evolution / creation debate. [...]
I guess the authors were in some kind of school class which
had no useful scientific input or guidance for how to find
answers to questions in science, and that the students might
really think that they have found a collection of good
questions.
Cheers -- Chris
Dale
news:3f4e...@news.qut.edu.au...
I sent a polite e-mail to in...@questionevolution.com explaining how
spin-orbit coupling can account for the the obliquities of all planets and
moons, no matter how extreme, and got back a polite and understanding reply.
The author, who was not Carol Lee Smith, said that he compiled the list
about 20 years ago, as a sort of hobby, and said he was amazed at how much
the debate has progressed. He says he's got his work cut out for him, but
he'll try to make it a better site.
It's so unusual to find a creationist who isn't full of hubris!
Pip R. Lagenta
wrote:
[snip]
>Creationism is a political movement. It has political goals. It uses
>political methods. And it must be fought in the political sphere.
I have never seen Creationism so grotesquely disparaged.
內躬偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,
Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta Pip R. Lagenta
�虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌`偕爻,虜,齯滌
-- Pip R. Lagenta
President for Life
International Organization Of People Named Pip R. Lagenta
(If your name is Pip R. Lagenta, ask about our dues!)
---
<http://home.comcast.net/~galentripp/pip.html>
(For Email: I'm at home, not work.)
Alan Wright
I suppose I agree with this, but I still think many evolution deniers
are not truly aware of the degree to which their evolution arguments
lead to other problems.
>
> Once you accept the bible as a metaphorical explanation of important
> ideas, phrased in images and concepts that a preliterate and
> prescientific society could comprehend,
It is not at all clear to me that a preliterate and prehistorical society
could
distinguish between what is abstract and what is real, or in any case
actually
did do this.
> not a factual and historical
> record, then you can accept a God who created the universe in an event
> we sometimes call the big bang and with the physical laws that would
> eventually produce humans who have the capability to choose to do good
> or to do evil.
While you "can", there is no need to do so. Nor does anyone seem to limit
their conception of god to this simple, vacuous, meaningless concept.
> There is no conflict between this type of
> "creationism" and modern science.
But there is a conflict with the reasoning principles which guide science.
It's hard to see why someone who accepts arbitrary assumptions
outside of science would turn around and reject them in the other
context (and vice versa).
Alan
Nick Keighley
Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...>
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, JWL wrote:
> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
> > > http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
>
> > > About QuestionEvolution.com
> > > This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
> > > evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
> > > biblical creation, as there are many excellent books that do that.
name one
> > > [...] Rather
> > > it was created to show that the theory that is presented as scientific
> > > (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by scientific fact and
> > > discoveries as the average evolutionist believes. A careful and objective
> > > study of the universe points one more in the direction of special creation
> > > than natural evolution.
describe "special creation"
> > typically, a quick look through these I believe all these points have been
> > answered time and again on many good sites... how funny these creation types
> > just spitting out the same old crap and ignoring that people have answered
> > these issues. Unfortunately the average reader of this site is probably a
> > Christian who will never bother to look to anything but pro-Creation sources
> > for answers. They will just take it on faith that these are really problems
> > for evolution. That is sad...
>
> I agree it is sad-- very sad.
you think it's sad that people will take on faith what pro-Creation sources
say?
<snip>
> Carol
> (definitely not a creationist type)
so why do you uncritically copy creationist propaganda?
--
Nick Keighley
TomS
<8ad2cfb3.03082...@posting.google.com>, Nick Keighley stated..."
>
>I've de-top posted your message
>
>Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...>
>> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003, JWL wrote:
>> "Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
>
>> > > http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
>>
>> > > About QuestionEvolution.com
>> > > This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
>> > > evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
>> > > biblical creation, as there are many excellent books that do that.
>
>name one
>
>> > > [...] Rather
>> > > it was created to show that the theory that is presented as scientific
>> > > (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by scientific fact and
>> > > discoveries as the average evolutionist believes. A careful and objective
>>> > study of the universe points one more in the direction of special creation
>> > > than natural evolution.
>
>describe "special creation"
That *is* a big question, how to describe special creation. It
involves issues like these:
* What is the difference between something that is specially created
and something that is not? Is there even a "working definition" or
"preliminary report" or "executive summary" of what a special
creation is?
* What kinds of things are specially created? Is there special
creation of some *patterns*, which then natural things develop, by
natural means, to fit those patterns? Or do some new *organs* suddenly
(or gradually) appear in already existing animals? Or is it a full-
grown *individual* animal (or maybe a pair)? Or maybe a whole extended
family *group* of animals, with adults and young, maybe some pregnant
females, nursing mothers or nesting with a clutch of eggs? Or is it
a whole fully-functioning ecological *system* of interacting animals
and plants and bacteria and physical environment?
* Does the special creation work on pre-existing things, like atoms
and molecules, energy, and space-time, or previously formed animals
and plants?
* Do special creation and evolutionary biology present any differences,
much less conflicts, with one another? How about special creation with
genetics, developmental biology, or micro-evolution?
* Is there any indication that anybody is even *interested*in*talking*
about these things?
Frank J
Exerpt: "The Evolution Model - Assuming no god and therefore no
divine intervention or direction of any kind. A model which relies on
uniformitism, natural selection, time and chance."
My comment: Right off the bat they admit that what they question is
not evolution.
Exerpt: "The Creation Model - This model, although not relying on the
Bible for proof, does rely on the scenario as described therein,
especially the order of the work performed in the six 24-hour days and
the global, catastrophic flood."
My comment: So it is starting with a conclusion, which is an
admission that it is not a scientific inquiry. And YEC to boot! Don't
they know that they would look a little less absurd if they started
with an OEC interpretation?
Exerpt: "All other models and theories are some mixture of these two,
and were not considered on this website."
My comment: IOW, let's not give any "equal time" to questioning OEC,
"man-as-old-as-coal" etc. So much for the pretense that this is
anything but a tired, old misrepresentation. But at least they admit
up front that there are other models, which is more than I can say for
most evolution misrepresenters.
Jason Cortina
I'll do better than that.
QuestionEvolution's Top Ten List of Questions about Evolution
(meant to DEVESTATE any EVILutionist back to The Way):
10) [Philosophy Page] - Evolution = Atheism
"How does the evolutionist know that there is no God?"
9) [The Solar System Page] - Earth would have been spinning too
fast in the past
"Earth's spin is slowing at the rate of almost 1 sec/year.
How fast was it spinning 1 billion years ago?"
8) [Geology Page] - Continents would have worn away by now
"Why aren't the continents eroded? At the current rate, the
continents should have eroded much more than they have."
7) [Earth Science Page] - Oceans should be filled with sediment
"Where has all of the sediment presently going into the
oceans gone? Over 27 billion tons of sediments enter the
oceans each year. Even assuming a constant flow of this
pace, the current sediments on the ocean bottom would have
accumulated in only 30 million years."
6) [The Solar System Page] - Shrinking Sun
"How big was the sun 1 billion years ago? The sun looses 4
million tons of mass through fusion per second, and is
shrinking by about 1% each century (5 feet per hour). This
shrinking is responsible for a large amount of the energy
that the sun gives off."
5) [The Solar System Page] - Short Period Comets
"Where do short period comets come from? A short period
comet would completely "boil off" after about 15,000 years.
There is no known way for a comet to come into existence.
They have been thought to have been around since the start
of the universe. The Oort cloud was devised to try to
explain this but, once again, it is a case of trying to make
the observed facts fit the preconceived notions."
4) [Biology Page] - What good is half a wing or half an eye
"How could wings have evolved? Or an eye? Until complete,
any of these improvements (and many others) would have been
a tremendous handicap, not an advantage. A land animal which
began to lose a pair of legs and evolve wings would have
been eaten by an animal with four good legs."
3) [Biology Page] - There are no transitionals
"Why are the missing links still missing? From vertebrates
to invertebrates, reptiles to birds there should be billions
of animals. The transition from legs to wings alone should
have included a countless number of animals, yet none can be
found."
2) [General Page] - What about the 2LoT (1LoT, too)
"How can evolution of universe/life be explained in view of
the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics?"
And, believe it or don't,
1) [Biology Page] - <no comment>
"Why are there still monkeys?"
--
Jason A Cortina
What's the point of going out, we're just going to end up
back here anyway?
-- Homer Simpson
Ferrous Patella
> Can I nominate the entire quote as a Chez
Yes but I will probably just list a link on the actual ballot.
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&safe=off&selm=jv6tkvopmchl5um1r413ger4dkoqre65ff%404ax.com
or
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C38A21EB5
Watt?news:1g0gew9.pgdpey1a8rn68N%wil...@wehi.edu.au by
wil...@wehi.edu.au
(John Wilkins):
>
--
Ferrous Patella
"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not
only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the
American public."
--Theodore Roosevelt
May 7, 1918
David Wise
> Carol Lee Smith <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message news:<Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu>...
> > http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
> >
> > About QuestionEvolution.com
> > This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
> > evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
> > biblical creation, as there are many excellent books that do that. Rather
> > it was created to show that the theory that is presented as scientific
> > (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by scientific fact and
> > discoveries as the average evolutionist believes. A careful and objective
> > study of the universe points one more in the direction of special creation
> > than natural evolution.
>
>
>
> It's the same old shit I've been hearing from creationist after
> creationist for 20-odd years now. Nothing new.
>
>
Ditto here. Notice the claim on the home page? "The questions found
on this site remain unanswered by the evolutionist" I'm letting them
know right up front that that is utterly false and that whoever had
told them that was lying to them (albeit that teacher was probably
just repeating the lies that HE had been told).
Then I'm going through them pointing out the history we have of the
claims, when and how they were refuted, and why they are wrong. Plus,
I'm making sure to point out which ones Answers in Genesis has warned
them to not use. And I am requesting explanations and sources from
them for their claims.
Of course, the first one I hit them on was "why are there still
monkeys?"
Frank J
> On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 15:28:44 +0000, Carol Lee Smith wrote:
>
> > http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
> >
> > About QuestionEvolution.com
> > This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
> > evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
> > biblical creation, as there are many excellent books that do that.
>
> For a very curious definition of 'excellent'.
>
> > Rather it was created to show that the theory that is presented as
> > scientific (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by
> > scientific fact and discoveries as the average evolutionist believes.
>
> That's the normal tack that creationists attempt: since there's nothing to
> recommend their own ideas they content themselves with throwing mud at the
> one idea that _does_ have a lot to recommend it.
In this case - make that in *all* cases - it is merely throwing mud at a strawman.
>
>
> > A careful and objective study of the universe points one more in the
> > direction of special creation than natural evolution.
>
> Funny, only theists ever reach that conclusion. And usually only
> fundamentalist theists at that. (Any conjectures as to why that might
> be?)
This one is as good as any:
rossum
<joeBUSH...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[snip]
>how funny these creation types
>just spitting out the same old crap and ignoring that people have answered
>these issues. Unfortunately the average reader of this site is probably a
>Christian who will never bother to look to anything but pro-Creation sources
>for answers.
I suspect that part of the problem is that most fundamentalist
Christians are taught from an early age that what is written in the
Bible is absolutely true and cannot be challenged. This seems to
spill over into anything that the writer claims to be based on the
Bible - it is also true and so cannot be challenged. They generally
have not aquired the skills to critically evaluate what they are
presented, and so keep reproducing the claims they find in and
Biblically based creationist writing. This could also explain why AiG
seems to get so much criticism for its piece on "Arguments
Creationists should not use" - creationists are just not used to
seeing any of their writings criticised.
In the absence of criticism there is no real mechanism to weed out the
false claims that creatinists continue to make. To them there is no
need to develop a mechanism to weed out the false claims in the Bible,
since there are no false claims in the Bible. The same seems to apply
to their other writings.
rossum
--
The Ultimate Truth is that there is no Ultimate Truth
Robert Carroll
"rossum" <ross...@coldmail.com> wrote in message
news:abpvkvs1too9apqij...@4ax.com...
ISTM that there is a lot of mutual criticism in creationist circles, but
they tend to keep it in the family. The problem is that it is inevitably
based on authoritarian arguments.The bible is invoked as an infallible
source. When they venture out into the real world, they attempt to use
bible and scientific quotes as, if not equal, but nevertheless,
authoritarian sources. We are not supposed to be able to counter these
arguments, and when we do, they are baffled and think we are being unfair.
Bob.
David Wise
It seems to me that most of those differences and criticisms among
creationists are due to doctrinal differences and whether or not they
toe the line on certain doctrinal issues.
Rather, part of the reason why they don't see a reason for trying to
weed out the false claims is because it would not serve their purpose.
Scientists need to test each other's results and to weed out the
errors because they are building a coherent and cohesive world-view in
which everything HAS to work. Creationists aren't trying to do that;
they already have a "coherent" world view based on their
interpretation of the Bible. All they are using their "science" for
is to defend and to proselytize that world-view. For them, there is
no need for their "science" to be self-consistent. Ever notice how
the same creationist will not hesitate to use different claims that
contradict each other? It doesn't matter to them, because all that
does matter is that the claims sound convincing.
Kid Cool
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
>
> About QuestionEvolution.com
> This website was originally compiled as a worksheet for a class on the
> evolution / creation debate. It is not intended to make a case for
> it was created to show that the theory that is presented as scientific
> (evolution) is really not nearly as well supported by scientific fact and
> study of the universe points one more in the direction of special creation
> than natural evolution.
>
>
their Solar System questions and have attached my response below. I wanted
to have some of you people look it over before I send it to them. Sort of a
peer review process. So please feel free to offer any suggestions or
corrections.
I found it interesting that in their Rebuttals section that they have
nothing. I can only guess that they are new, or not posting responses from
evilutionists.
thanks
Kid Cool
Before I start I would like to point out one simple fact: none of these
questions have anything to do with the theory of evolution. The theory of
evolution is that organisms change over time through natural selection and
other responses to their environment. It deals with biology, not astronomy
which all these questions on the Solar System are more appropriately
referred to as Astronomy questions. Of course your point is that unless
science can explain these "issues," then obviously humans could not have
evolved from primates.
I consider that a bit of a stretch, but I feel that all these issues are
easily resolved. I would strongly recommend that you refer to
www.talkorigins.org the website has numerous articles that deal quite
conclusively with all the questions you raise.
>Why does Venus rotate backward, while Uranus rotates at a 98 degree angle
to its vertical plane?
>The evolutionist needs to come up with special cases to handle these two
solar system misfits.
Neither one of these planets is outside the bounds of "evolutionist
theories." Venus' retrograde rotations can be accounted for by the effects
of gravity over a long period of time, or a catastrophic collision with an
asteroid or other minor planetary body. The Talk Origins website refers this
issue and I would also recommend
http://astro.oal.ul.pt/~acorreia/cvpubs/venus0.pdf.
Impacts by a large asteroid, minor planet, or comet could easily explain
Uranus being on its side.
http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/features/planets/uranus/uranus.html
>Why do 11 (almost 1/3) of the moons of various planets rotate backward?
>According to current views of the solar system origin, all should rotate in
the same direction and in the same >plane. These backward moons are
difficult (though not impossible) to explain.
>Why do many of those moons have inclined orbits?
>The orbits of the satellites should be coplanar with the revolution of the
host.
First, 11 is not 1/3 of the natural satellites. Jupiter has 60 moons. The
backwards rotation usually indicates that a body has been captured by that
planet's gravitation. Inclined orbits can also be explained in the same
way. Also, there is some variation of the orbital plane for planets and
moons, which is just the way the solar system is. Otherwise, we would have
total solar eclipses every month and be able to observe Mercury and Venus
solar transits every 3- 12 months.
>Why aren't most of the planets composed of hydrogen and helium like the
sun?
In terms of mass most of the planets are Hydrogen and Helium.
>Earth is composed mainly of heavy elements, while the sun has only 1% of
its composition that is not hydrogen >or helium. Interstellar gas is not
composed of heavy elements, but is mainly hydrogen and helium also.
Interstellar gas does have heavy elements. It is the result of supernovas.
Current theories state that our solar system developed from a dust cloud or
nebula that had hydrogen, helium and a variety of heavier elements that we
see on the planets.
>What stopped solar system gasses from falling into the sun?
The spinning of the solar nebula kept particles from falling into the sun
and remain in orbit around its center.
>The sun makes up 99 and 6/7% of the solar system's mass. The 1/7 of 1% of
the remaining solar system's >mass should have followed the rest into the
sun.
>Why didn't that gas simply dissipate?
>For gravitational attractions to be significant, the particles would have
to have been as large as small moons.
Study Newton's laws of gravity. As small particles clump together the
gravity would start increasing. In addition, atoms and molecules have
attractions other than gravitational.
>Where did the moon come from?
>A July 28th,1997 article in USA Today indicated that perhaps a planet about
three times the mass of Mars >could have crashed into the early Earth and
popped enough material into orbit to form the moon. They do >point out that
this would have significantly increased the spin of the Earth in a way that
cannot be observed >today, but something must have made the Earth slow back
down - perhaps another large object hitting the >Earth from the opposite
direction. There has still never been an adequate theory proposed to explain
the >moon's origin.
Yes, there are questions that need answers still in science, but that doesn'
t discredit all scientific research. The slowing of the Earth's spin is
easily explained by the laws of angular momentum. This is the same reason
ice skaters spin faster with their arms in, rather than out. A good review
of an account of the Moon's origin is found in Peter Ward and Donald
Brownlee's Rare Earth pages 227-234.
>How could the earth have had liquid water millions of years ago when the
sun was weaker?
>(See July 1999 Astronomy Magazine for a discussion of this paradox).
Why you are so sure the sun was weaker millions of years ago? Mars had
liquid water millions of years ago on its surface and evidently was warmer
and it is at least 35 millions miles further out from the Sun than we are.
Even if the Sun was weaker, greenhouse gases could have easily have made
this planet much warmer. There is evidence that 90 million years ago we had
no polar ice caps due to a greenhouse effect. The discoveries of champosaur
fossils 600 miles from the North Pole indicate that the temperatures were
more like present day Florida.
>Earth's spin is slowing at the rate of almost 1 sec/year. How fast was it
spinning 1 billion years ago?
Just because Earth's spin is slowing by 1 second a year now doesn't mean it
has always been slowing at that rate. I don't know how fast the Earth was
spinning 1 billion years ago, but 400 million years ago there were 400 days
in a year (see Rare Earth, p 228).
>Why are there any small (less than 100,000th of a cm.) particles left in
the solar system?
>Solar wind, acting for billions of years, should have pushed out all of
these particles by now.
Some of these particles are the present day solar wind. Other forms of dust
come from comets, and still other dust is left over from the solar system
creation. This can be explained because while solar wind may push particles
out, gravity from planets work to pull the particles back in. Also, as you
move further out from the sun the solar wind pressure decreases and the Sun'
s gravity would help to pull these particles back into the solar system. In
addition, we are seeing new dust come into the solar system from what is
being dubbed a galactic dust storm.
(http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/dust_storm_030814.html)
>Where is all of the meteoritic dust on the earth?
>Assuming only present accumulation (which should have been much greater
during early years of the universe) >there should be a 182 foot thick layer
after 5 billion years. This dust is extremely high in nickel content. There
>is no great significant amount of nickel in either sea or land.
This argument has been completely disproved to the point that Answers In
Genesis lists it as an argument not to use.
(see http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moon-dust.html for a good discussion)
(see http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)
>How big was the sun 1 billion years ago?
>The sun looses 4 million tons of mass through fusion per second, and is
shrinking by about 1% each century (5 >feet per hour). This shrinking is
responsible for a large amount of the energy that the sun gives off.
Your assumption is wrong and this is another example of an argument that
should not be used according to Answers in Genesis. The sun is powered by
nuclear fusion, not gravitational collaspe.
>Where do short period comets come from?
>A short period comet would completely "boil off" after about 15,000 years.
There is no known way for a comet >to come into existence. They have been
thought to have been around since the start of the universe. The >Oort cloud
was devised to try to explain this but, once again, it is a case of trying
to make the observed facts >fit the preconceived notions.
First, our solar system's comets have been around since the beginning of our
solar system (4.5 billion years) not since the start of the universe (13.7
billion years).
Your comments about the Oort cloud are incorrect. It is confirmation of a
theory with observation, not making observed facts fit preconceived notions.
There is also a Kuipler belt that has numerous objects in it and Pluto is
believed to be the largest of this class of objects.
As you can see the "Solar System questions for evolutionists" are easily
answered even by a CPA from Florida.
Dave Empey
news:0EV5b.357735$o%2.163635@sccrnsc02:
[quoting some creationist or other at www.questionevolution.com :]
>>Earth's spin is slowing at the rate of almost 1 sec/year. How fast was
>>it
> spinning 1 billion years ago?
>
Earth's spin is *not* slowing by "almost 1 sec/year". It is slowing
by about 0.005 seconds per year per year. See
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-yea2.html>
and
<http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind/howgood-
refs.html#ThwaitesAwbrey1982>
(or <http://tinyurl.com/mbcz>)
The writer has apparently been confused by the fact that leap seconds
are inserted into the calendar fairly often. This does not mean the
Earth is slowing down; it just means the actual year is about 1 second
longer than the calendar year.
--
Dave Empey
Stanley Friesen
>
> >Why aren't most of the planets composed of hydrogen and helium like the
>sun?
>
>In terms of mass most of the planets are Hydrogen and Helium.
The basic reason the inner planets are rocky is that the intense light
from the Sun ejected the lighter gasses from that area while the planets
were still forming.
The peace of God be with you.
Stanley Friesen
Aron-Ra
"Carol Lee Smith" <hu...@csd.uwm.edu> wrote in message
news:Pine.OSF.3.96.103082...@alpha1.csd.uwm.edu...
> http://www.questionevolution.com/index.html says:
I have a great many criticisms of this site that should be addressed, not
the least of which being your "evolutionist" forum. If you'll look at
talkorigins.org, you'll see that there aren't any of the misleading
questions posted there that your site relies on, and in fact there are
several links to creationists sites allowing them to explain their positions
in their own words first-hand. Would you then be so bold as to post a link
to the Talk.Origins Usenet group on your site? I doubt very much if you
would even consider doing something like that. You should see how your site
is being shredded in the thread bearing your name.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Y2D2211D5
I also doubt if you'll make any of the necessary changes to your site should
I show sufficient reason for their correction. For example, the evolution
model is accepted by many Christians, most of them in fact, and it is
accepted many Hindus and those of many other religions as well. Obviously
there is no requirement in it that there be no god. If you leave this
comment intact knowing this, it will be intentionally misleading.
The creation model does rely on religious books as the only evidence, but
doesn't rely on the universe being formed in six literal days. You're
forgetting that Old-Age Creationists are Biblical creationists too. There
are also about 800 million Hindu creationists who's Gitas and Vedas are far
older than your Bible, and these ancient documents claim that the universe
was created more-or-less all at once 4.32 billion years ago. Hinduism
definitely isn't a mixture of either materialism or six-day Biblical
creationism despite your claim that all other models and theories are some
mixture of these two.
There are many other conceptual origins that aren't related to these two
either, including Inuit and Australian creation myths, alien seeding, (as
with the Raelians and Scientologists) and of course Intelligent Design
"theory". But in fact there is only one scientific Theory on the subject,
and that field of study is supported by many Christians including one of the
world's foremost paleontologists, Dr. Bob Bakker, who is both an
evolutionist as well as a born-again Southern Baptist minister. Maybe you
should write him about your site? I'm sure he'd get a kick out of it just
as I'm sure you'd get a kick out of him.
Then finally this site obviously is specifically meant to present a case for
Biblical creationism though you pretend to deny that, and there have never
been any decent books that can even try to defend creationism on scientific
grounds. Evolution is far better supported than you could possibly know. I
and many other "evolutionists" have already answered every question on your
site in public forum as evidenced by the Talk.Origins archives, and will do
so again for you here. None of your challenges are dismissed until they are
disproved, and none of them represent any stumbling block for evolutionary
Theory. Oh, and one more thing. Evolution is a fundamental aspect of
biology. It hasn't got squat to do with the solar system.
So every claim on your home page is already dead-wrong back-to-front, and
that's just the first page! Your entire site is one long list of
falsehoods, and I'm prepared to prove that to your satisfaction if you'll
guarantee that all of my statements will be posted on your site in their
entirety verbatim, and that you will properly address every point and answer
every direct question I put to you. A careful and objective study of the
universe points one only in the direction of natural evolution, and I'm
prepared to prove that to you as well. Take your Aristotle quote to heart
on this one, and try it out.
If you accept, I will begin by addressing each of the questions you pose in
your Biology section, and countering all of the erroneous claims you make
there. I don't intend to waste my time, so this will be a formal exchange,
and you may want to set a page aside just for that.
This message is also being posted to the Talk.Origins Usenet group so that
experts from both sides around the world will know if you refuse my simple
challenge.
L. Aron Nelson
AKA Aron-Ra