Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

Common Creationist Arguments

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.

Suggested Tactics

This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.

Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.

Examples follow:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.

"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.

Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?

Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?

Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:

1. Occam's Razor is a method of choosing between competing scientific theories. It is irrelevant when comparing a scientific theory to the concept of God or creationism because God and creationism are not scientific theories. There are no objective terms in the concept of God. No equations. No mechanisms. No limits. No methods through which it can be used to predict the outcome of natural processes. No methods through which it can be tested, or disproven. The concept of God is actually the antithesis of a scientific theory, in that one resorts to the divine only when one's reason has either failed or been voluntarily suppressed. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines. It couldn't be used to evaluate a machine versus, say, a piece of music.

2. "God" is actually not a "simpler theory" than science. "God" is merely a three-letter name which is affixed to a deity whose machinations are supposedly so complex that they are beyond mortal comprehension! If God's methods are inscrutable and incomprehensible to humans (as claimed in the Bible and by all Christians), then what business does anyone have claiming that they are "simpler" than a theory which humans can understand? In the analogy above, the concept of God is very much like the "black box". The salesman may argue that it's simpler because it's a nice smooth black box instead of a set of gears and motors, but that's a childish superficiality at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

3. Occam's Razor is not invoked unless the competing theories make identical predictions. It is a method of eliminating redundancies, as William of Occam first reasoned, and it only applies when the performance of the competing theories is identical. When two theories make vastly different predictions (as is the case with science and Biblical literalism), then Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines whose performance was identical. If the two machines made widgets of vastly different characteristics, Occam's Razor would be irrelevant.

The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"

This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:

1. All physical processes create entropy (microscopic disorder).

2. The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, ie- entropy can be created but not destroyed.

That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."

Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:

1. "The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

2. "The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

3. "The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."

These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:

1. Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

2. Complexity is not the destruction of disorder or the creation of order. In fact, there is more disorder in complex systems, as any student of chaos theory (or government bureacracies) can tell you. There is far more entropy in a nuclear power plant than there is in an ice cube, and a pretty snowflake has much more complexity than the drop of water from whence it came.

3. Physical laws apply all the time, to everybody, regardless of intent or intelligence. If the second law of thermodynamics truly prohibited the creation of complexity, then it wouldn't matter whether the complexity is created by "deliberate" acts or by random happenstance- it would be impossible in both cases. It is utterly unbelievable to me that creationist ignoramuses would interpret any physical law to only apply in the absence of deliberate intervention. No other physical laws of physics are interpreted to apply only in the absence of intelligent intervention- does gravity shut off when humans intervene?

This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."

"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."

This argument is invalid for the following reasons:

1. Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory, by subjecting an atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane to electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation. This simulates primeval Earth environmental conditions, therefore it is an observed fact, and not subject to debate.

2. Chemical reactions are not random! Elements only bond in certain combinations. Light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, and countless trillions upon trillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms will react to form H2O. Not H8O, and not H5O, but H2O. Purely random combinatorics are a completely invalid way of modelling chemical reactions.

3. The first living cell did not have to form from raw materials. It would have formed from more primitive components such as RNA, which was proposed many years ago as the first self-replicating molecule. It was even experimentally found to have catalytic capabilities for adding new nucleotides to the end of the chain or removing them, leading to the term "RNA World" to describe the origins of life. But even if RNA is not the candidate we're looking for, there is certainly no need to assume that the first organic self-replicators would have been full-blown single-celled organisms. The early self-replicators (such as RNA, if it was indeed the first self-replicator) would not have left fossils.

4. This entire attack is a red herring, because evolution theory and abiogenesis (the formation of organic self-replicators from simpler organic materials) are two completely different theories. Lumping them together is just as fallacious as lumping evolution theory with Big Bang theory. The process of evolution is heritable change in populations over multiple generations. Because the process of evolution requires multiple generations to occur, it cannot possibly happen before the first living organism! It doesn't kick in until after the first living organism already exists! Even if abiogenesis could be disproved, evolution theory would still be valid.

I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.

"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."

More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.

As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"

This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.

Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.

"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"

The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.

Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.

The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.

The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?

Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.

The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.

As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.

[gore3000]

Pitchforks ... torches ... garlic cloves ... CREATIONISM!!!

You seem to be getting the hang of it. f.Christian's posts do require a bit of thought, but if one takes the time (and is on the proper wavelength) they say quite a lot in very few words.

[Doctor Stochastic]

Same with the chimp hemoglobin. All scientists agree that man and monkeys split off somewhere a long time ago so if both man and chimp have it, then the other apes should have it too and this does not seem to be the case from what you say.

Almost. It can also show that the mutation took place after the chimp-human line split from the rest of the anthropoids but before the chimp-human lines split from each other. It's important to note that the chimp-human mutations are in the same place in their genomes whereas the guinea pig mutation is in another place.

[Doctor Stochastic]

The single female and single male ancestors are actually an consequence of probability theory. If you draw a random family tree and allow more or less arbitrary matings and have some prbability of dying before breeding, you will get the single ancestor phenomenon. A similar thing happens with Chinese family names. A branch may die out thus losing its tag (or name). Eventually (with probability one) there will be only one branch left.

As there are two simultaneous branches being looked at (male and female), there will be a single line for each branch. There is no reason that the single ancestor of the male branch is anywhere near in time (or location) to the single ancestor of the female branch. It's not clear that any deep philosophical insight can be drawn from the single ancestor phenomenon.

[gore3000]

Microscopic bone analysis of therapods indicate they were warm blooded and had feathers.

This I have to hear! Please tell us how they found out from bones that dinosaurs were warm blooded!

[gore3000]

First off, you have no parameters upon which to base your calculation of probability.

Yes, we do have the parameters for the calculation of the random chances of producing a specific gene. It is quite simple really. You take the number of Dna codons, raise that number to the 20th power (the number of the amino acids for which DNA codes) and you have your answer. You do not even need to know math, you just need a good calculator.

[gore3000]

of course, it's the same argument he makes over and over and over again, regardless of the evidence).

What can I say, you folk keep asking the same questions and keep refusing to answer my questions. For example, I have been asking for proof of macro-evolution for over a year and have yet to get an answer. All I get is we already gave you the answer, go look it up in the Ultimate Evolution garbage pile, I don't have the time, your are an idiot for asking such a stupid question and similar stuff.

[gore3000]

Nice explanation of your gobledygook, however, I had already refuted your statements in the post you answered. Perhaps you wish to try again:

You have not answered my question as to why these species have not been mutating for 400 million years. There are always improvements possible regardless of how limiting the environment may be. In fact, if punk-eek is to be true for example, the species in the limited environment must overcome the limiting environment in order to spread itself past its boundaries. I also see no particular limitation to the coelacanth's environment. The oceans are huge and there is no reason why the species could not have improved itself. Unless of course the demi-god Darwin ordered them to stop mutating, to stop adapting, to stop evolving.

[Capitalist Eric]

My previous challenge: Put up or shut up. Facts or silence... A lack of facts on your part is a demonstration that you have no facts...

Your reply: What are you babbling about. Please focus and remember coherence is important...

I will take that as an admission that you have no facts at your disposal. After all, if you did, you'd certainly enlighten us, given your desire to "prove" that your position is the correct one.

It was fun while it lasted.

((((((((((((sigh))))))))))))

Another FReeper relegated to the "do not bother responding to this idiot" file...

[gore3000]

I can't remember and am too lazy to check.

The point is Vade, that now you have a definition. You and your fellow evolutionists cannot give the excuse that you do not know what I mean by macro-evolution. You do not have to check what I said, what you have to do is give proof of macro-evolution - something you keep trying to avoid.

[gore3000]

Bad model. I was asking tallhappy earlier why sex is important. It's important because every individual of a sexual species is totally unique. This makes having more than one experiment going on a piece of cake.

It is not a model. Mendellian genetics is science. The fact that Darwin wrote before Mendel changes nothing. He still was wrong and he based his theory on something which has been scientifically proven to be wrong. Genes do not "meld" as they would be required to do according to Darwin. This makes evolution practically impossible.

[gore3000]

You still posting micro-evolution nonsense as proof of evolution. You already read my post on macro-evolution so you are being completely dishonest in trying to pass off that stuff a proof of it. They are still salamanders and warblers. And as a matter of fact I already in my post on what macro-evolution is blew the warbler nonsense out of the water.

[tallhappy]

What would an anti-anticreationist be like?

A rational non-bigotted objective conservative person.

[tallhappy]

My previous challenge: Put up or shut up.

Put up or shut up concerning what?

What facts do you want me to refute or present?

I obviously know infinitely more than you about molecular biology and science in general. What would you like to learn.

[tallhappy]

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance... Or change. Once such incantatory phrases as "we see now through a looking glass darkly" and "mysterious are the ways in which He chooses His wonders to perform" are mastered, logic can be happily tossed out the window. Religious mania is one of the few infallible ways of responding to the world's vagaries, because it totally eliminates pure accident. To the true religious fanatic, it's all on purpose."

You see about this quote, the thing is that for most people here on one side of the debate the word religion can be substituted with "science" or evolution" and it is equally true.

Earlier one of the posters even said, "Science has the explanations" or some such.

It is an inverse fanaticism that is just as strange -- but moreso in that it presumes to actually be based on facts and evidence when it is based as much on dogma derived from belief (or anti-belief in this case).

There is biology and the subdiscipline of evolutionary biology, but then there is what I have refferred to as religious evolutionism which does contain the dyanamic described in King's comment -- just using a different perspective and bible, as it were.

The "debate" on these threads is always a religous fight, not a scientific discussion or argument. That goes for the supposed science following evolutionists who use it as a vehicle for their religious beliefs and argument.

Flip side of the same coin.

[Junior]

The bones of warm-blooded animals have more passages for blood vessels than those of cold-blooded critters. Therapod dinosaur bones have lots of passages for blood vessels (like birds or mammals) when compared to turtle or lizard bones, which have fewer passages for blood vessels.

[Junior]

Libel can be defended through fair comment and criticism. If your writings, actions, whatnot, lend themselves to be commented upon or criticized, then you do not have a case for libel. Your rather unorthodox views lend themselves to fair comment and criticism right off the bat; hell, all scientific hypotheses must be open to criticism or the whole process collapses. Your tendency to call the folks who disagree with you "idiots," or in my case "mentally ill," automatically deprive you of using any instance of name calling in your legal case -- this is the "if you can dish it out, you've got to be able to take it" clause of the defense.

Now, you've put your views out for all to see, and that's good. You only started calling me mentally ill after I ran the numbers on moving Earth from its orbit around Saturn in the Asteroid Belt to its current, near-circular orbit around the Sun. You suppposedly have a BA in Mathematics from Old Dominion University (at least that's what your bios say in the several "odd phenomenon" magazines available on the net). I have a high-school physics class, a college-level astronomy class, and whatever I've picked up over the years in my failed career as science-fiction writer and game designer (you don't make money if you don't finish the project, and I'm a procrastinator extraordinaire). Instead of pointing out any errors in my mathematics, you simply started calling me "mentally ill" and publishing a series of out-of-context quotes (which I've already rectified, thank you). Now, I would think that I would have a case for libel against you, but personally, I like to settle my problems myself; I don't go whining to the judge or moderator every time someone takes a potshot at me, which happens quite often.

If you cannot answer my questions about your hypothesis which I raised just before you started calling me "mentally ill" the answer is not to call me names, but to show how your hypothesis can not only work within the parameters of the real world but explain everything far better and more simply than the current theories of planetary development and evolution. Evolutionists are not idiots or voodoo practitioners as you call them in your "God Hates Idiots Too!" spam (more libel, maybe?). They have looked at the available evidence, drawn conclusions, run those conclusions past their peers, who have promptly found or not found fault, revised their hypotheses in the light of new evidence, ad infinitum. The theory of evolution is the result of lots of observation, experimentation and downright hard work. Your hypothesis may also the the result of observation, experimentation and hard work, but that does not mean it is immune to criticism by fiat. If you cannot defend the current state of your hypothesis without resorting to calling critics "idiots" or "mentally ill" then your hypothesis isn't worth the paper it's printed on.

[Junior]

Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Evolutionists do not use the terms micro- or macro-evolution! It is the same process. As for how structures arise (evidently one definition of "macro" evolution) they are modifications of existing structures. The eye is a modification of light-sensitive skin; the leg is a modification of a fin, which is a modification of muscle and bone tissue already present; bones are a modification of cartilage which is a modification of connective tissues, which are a modification of other tissues.

We have fossils showing the transitions from fish-to-amphibian-reptile-mammal, and from reptile-dinosaur-bird. In these fossils you can see the modifications of pre-existing structures. VadeRetro has posted the series showing the modification of the jaw bones of reptiles to be ear bones of mammals.

No organs or other systems spring full-blown over night. No evolutionist ever says they did. Neither does any evolutionist draw a distinction between micro- and macro-evolution. They are both the same phenomenon, with difference between "kinds" (whatever they are) arising out of the gradual genetic drift of species -- as each species moves farther from any others genetically, it takes on characteristics not shared by any of the others. Over countless generations these characteristics add up, making the critter not resemble some of its predecessors or their offspring.

Now, we've showed you what the fossil record shows. We've backed that up by observation. There are several recorded instances of speciation in our own historical times, as has been posted here time and again. We've run a thread on one observed mechanism for adding information to the genome -- that population of monkeys which has a duplicate gene in their genome that is slowly modifying into some other use. Believe it or not, scientists do not pull these things out of the air. If they did, they'd be laughed at by their more serious colleagues.

[Junior]

Ah, but are you taking into account the affinity of some chemicals for other chemicals, which would up the odds there? Also, are you taking into account the number of reactions taking place at any given time? You see, not all the parameters are understood, so any result must be questionable.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[gore3000]

In post#680 you said:

"gore3000 has said that, for all the fossil record shows, dinosaurs might have had mammary glands. Indeed, for all that ID/creationism says, they might have. Evolution, which has real information content, tells us that they did not.

I asked you to back it up several times, you have yet to do so. Give the proof and stop the nonsense. You cannot give proof so you evade and try to make me the issue.