I think that evolution and creation are not necessarily mutually exclusive, but simply that there is not yet an adequate theory to unify them. The possibility that "nature, red in tooth and claw" was the means God chose to create the universe contradicts the theory that nothing was carnivorous prior to the fall. The theory that all creatures were created in seven days contradicts the fossil record.

I'm of the opinion that how things got here is less important than who's here and how we treat one another. A vitriolic debate between two groups of people who do not share the same basic assumptions nor recognize the right of others to disagree in a civil fashion says more about their own asinine stupidity than it does about their theories.

Would you stage a debate between a group that only spoke German and a group that only spoke Spanish?

--Baloo

------------------
Who is General Failure and why is he reading my hard disk?
www.geocities.com/Area51/Shire/8641/

and as for Omega...

"This was mathematically disproven by a man named Maxwell well over a century ago. And then there's the formation of the galaxies in there. Also mathematically impossible."

I daresay Maxwell lacked the complex mathematics over a century ago to know for sure whether or not he was correct, not did he have a background in astrophysics, I'll wager. I'll bet another scientist of the same period would have proven it "mathematically impossible" to fly to the Moon. Now we know better.

"That leaves the hypothesis of Evolution (I call it hypothesis because a theory actually has evidence in it's favor, and Evolution has none. Also, the theory has a capital "E", whereas the verb has a lower-case "e".).This theory is so laughable, I don't know where to start. Anyone else care to try?"

Okay, a couple of things you can't refute:
1. Natural selection happens. Individuals better able to survive in a particular situation survive, while the others do not.
2. Genetic mutation and variation within a species happens.
3. Lifeforms in similar environmental niches, which yet are different types of life, have the same characteristics.
4. Time passes.
5. The effects of change are cumulative.
That's enough. Apply the above premises, all of which are true, and you;ll likely get a true conclusion, which just happens to be the Theory (soon, Law) of Evolution. Trust me, I've run logic rings around bigger fish than you.

"Oh, and the universe becoming more disorderly (increase of entropy)? God created a perfect universe, we're the ones that screwed up. And if entropy always increases, there must have been some point at which entropy was at zero."

The first part of your statement is nonsensical non sequitur. One, man is not powerful enough to affect the entire universe. Two, the assertion that the universe was ever perfect is unprovable.

The second part is correct. There was a time at which entropy was at zero. It's called the instant of the Bang.

"Dyson sphere? You think Dyson's idea is better that God's? OK, first of all, there'd just be a constant day. Next, there would be no stars, which, to counter another one of somebody's points, are "lights in the expanse of the sky to seperate the day from the night", to "serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years". (Genesis 1:14). Third, a Dyson sphere would be inherintly unstable. One good asteroid and, boom, no more world."

Actually, I think a lot of my ideas are better than the ones you claim God came up with... at least I know enough not to put my Tree of Knowledge where a couple of fruit munching buffoons can get at it. Is Dyson's idea better than God's? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing "better" But it IS more efficient.
As for your comments about the Sphere and it's integrity... well, SF writer Larry Niven has already shown us ways around those problems. Read "Ringworld," which is set on a ring with essentially the same properties as a Dyson Sphere, only smaller. An inner ring solves the sunlight problem nicely, an asteroid defense system takes care of any strays (if there were any left over after building the Sphere -- you'll remember it would take all the mass in the system to do it.) Plus, one asteroid would not likely damage a Sphere irrevocably anyway. Even the one that hit the Ringworld wasn't enough to do much more than affect the local climate.
Your quote from Genesis is pretty, but irrelevant. Much like most of Genesis. Besides, we all know that stars are more than that.

People who believe that matter and energy cannot come about "spontaneously" need to brush up on their theoretical physics. Zero-point energy, and so forth.

I can't help it I'm well-read...

------------------
"When we turn our back on our principles, we stop being human." -- Janeway, "Equinox"

However what was poorly understood at the time was the action of magnetic fields and turbulant flow of the gas which has the effect of transporting angular momentum away from the core to the outer parts of the cloud. When this is taken into consideration gravitaional collapse got only nicely explains the formation of solar systems but also galaxies and galactic clusters.

The fact that animals and plants undergo slight changes over time is well known. An example would be the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution theory predicts that such things should happen and an ability to predict events is a very powerful test of the validity of a scientific theory. The question remains then could humans have arisen in the way predicted by evolution. The answer is almost certainly yes. I say almost certainly because evolution (like all scientific theories is not perfect) however it is still more likely and self-consistant than the theory that the earth and everything on it was formed complete in 4004BC (at 9am one day in August if I remember correctly) as stated by some literal creationists.

Many opponents of evolution generally begin by stating something along the lines of 'I don't want to be related (or even descended from, hence showing a complete lack of understanding of evolutionary theory) to apes-do you?'. Unfortunately not wanting something to be true does not make it any more or less likely. Much is made of the the fact that we share 98% of our genome with the apes. In fact we also share 60% with the common housefly and about 40% with some plants. I must admit that I'm not a molecular biologist so these figures are just what I remember reading sometime ago-I certainly couldn't vouch for their validity or tell you where they come from. So far from evolution having no evidence in its favour there is actually a considerable in fact a vertually conclusive amount.

To me the Bible stories are myths, half-truths and badly translated and recorded oral traditions. But if anybody wished to believe they are true and, more importently, gain comfort from them then that's fine, indeed I would defend your rights to do so. However to attempt to base an understanding of the universe on them, attempt to use (selected) scientific methods of enquiry to back-up these claims and finally insist that they are just as valid as more mainstream theories and should be taught in schools as such is laughable.

The following is a one paragraph exerpt from a Stephen Hawking lecture. To read the entire lecture go to
http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/hawking/BOT.html

Since events before the Big Bang have no observational consequences, one may as well cut them out of the theroy, and say that time began at the Big Bang. Events before the Big Bang, are simple not defined, because there is no way to measure what happened at them. This kind of begining of the universe, and of time itself, is very different to the beginings that had been considered earlier. These had to be imposed on the universe by some external agency. There is no dynamical reason why the motion of bodies in the solar system can not be extrapolated back in time, far beyond four thousand and four BC, the date for the creation of the universe, according to the book of Genesis. Thus it would require the direct intervention of God, if the universe began at that date. By contrast, the Big Bang is a begining that is required by the dynamical laws that goveren the universe. It is therefore intrinsic to the universe, and is not imposed on it from outside.

Someone mentioned the laws of Physics break down at a singularity. This is also discussed in the lecture.

------------------
Outside of a dog, a book is a mans best friend. Inside of a dog, it's to dark to read. Groucho Marx

------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"

"Originally, I thought that the collapse, would be the time reverse of the expansion. This would have meant that the arrow of time would have pointed the other way in the contracting phase. People would have gotten younger, as the universe got smaller. Eventually, they would have disappeared back into the womb."

Anyway I still believe if we are dealing with an all powerful God (which I believe) he could create the Universe anyway he wanted, and the method of creation does not prove (or disprove) the existance of the Creator. Btw I support the Big Bang.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

And if you require any more evidence, well, you can study the myriad of fossils that have been dug up, both human and animal. Dead men (and animals) do tell tales.

People have been trying to explain the universe around them almost since human civilization began. The difference as time goes by is that we have greater and greater knowledge of the workings of the universe. For instance, we believed once that lightning was the creation of a god, that floods and disease and drought and such were the actions of angry gods, but now we know better. We know what causes lightning, we know much more about the weather. And we now know much more about our own origins. Let's not forget that when Genesis was written, the people of that time, even the most educated, had very little knowledge of the geologic history of the Earth, or of the sciences as we know it today.

P.S. Yes, I see the disease resistant bacteria was already mentioned. I seem to be repeating JEM on that point. My memory is short today, it would help if we could see other's posts when typing our own (hint hint CC or anyone else )
------------------
"But, it was so artistically done."
-Grand Admiral Thrawn

"I daresay Maxwell lacked the complex mathematics over a century ago to know for sure whether or not he was
correct, not did he have a background in astrophysics, I'll wager."

Calculus and the laws of gravitation and kinetic energy have been around for centuries. Maxwell was late 19th century. And as for Astrophysics, irrelevant. That's just simply the law of kinetic gasses.

"1. Natural selection happens. Individuals better able to survive in a particular situation survive, while the others do not."

Irrelevant. The specimines within a single species that survive don't constitute a seperate species, and in the case that such a scenario did take place (say, some species moving to an area where food was only available in tall trees, and the ones with longer necks were the only ones that could reach it), the difference between the ones that would survive and ones that wouldn't would be very slight. Genetic variation within a species isn't that great.

"2. Genetic mutation and variation within a species happens."

See my previous statement about variation. In decades of experimenting with fruit flies, over 99% of mutations have been harmful, and no beneficial mutation has ever been found, anywhere.

"3. Lifeforms in similar environmental niches, which yet are different types of life, have the same characteristics."

That's natural selection. Certain types of life are better designed to live in certain areas, so it makes sense that many species that live in the same areas would have similar characteristics, which serve the same function (the fur on an Arctic wolf and that on a Polar Bear, for instance; gotta keep warm).

"4. Time passes."

Well, this statement is irrelevant without the first three, so...

"5. The effects of change are cumulative."

Your point being? The above three responses that I gave show that there are know known ways to produce changes large enough to be considered macroevolution (evolution upward, toward a higher form, as opposed to microevolution, which is "sideways", change within one species).

"That's enough. Apply the above premises, all of which are true, and you'll likely get a true conclusion, which just happens to be the Theory (soon, Law) of Evolution."

OK, let's review the definitions of "hypothesis", "theory", and "law", shall we? A hypothesis is a statement which may or may not fit the facts, and should be tested. A theory is a statement that fits the facts, but has not been (or, in cases like relativity, can not be) prooven. A law is a statement that has been prooven to be true in all cases. There is no evidence in favor of Evolution, and much against it, thus it barely deserves the title of "hypothesis".

"Trust me, I've run logic rings around bigger fish than you."

I'll take that as a challenge.

"The first part of your statement is nonsensical non sequitur. One, man is not powerful enough to affect the
entire universe. Two, the assertion that the universe was ever perfect is unprovable. The second part is correct. There was a time at which entropy was at zero. It's called the instant of the Bang."

OK, a little clarification. God cursed the universe because we did something He told us not to (well, more specifically, Adam and Eve did, but anyway...). You just agreed that the universe was perfect in the beginning. Zero entropy constitutes perfect in my book.

"Actually, I think a lot of my ideas are better than the ones you claim God came up with... at least I know enough not to put my Tree of Knowledge where a couple of fruit munching buffoons can get at it."

OK, so you're suggesting that God should not have put the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in the garden? Then there'd be no way we could sin, as that's about the only thing He told Adam and Eve to do, aside from "Be fruitful and multiply", and we'd all have no free will.

"Is Dyson's idea better than God's? Maybe, maybe not. I'm not arguing "better" But it IS more efficient. As for your comments about the Sphere and it's integrity... well, SF writer Larry Niven has already shown us ways around those problems. Read "Ringworld," which is set on a ring with essentially the same properties as a Dyson Sphere, only smaller. An inner ring solves the sunlight problem nicely, an asteroid defense system takes care of any strays (if there were any left over after building the Sphere -- you'll remember it would take all the mass in the system to do it.) Plus, one asteroid would not likely damage a Sphere irrevocably anyway. Even the one that hit the Ringworld wasn't enough to do much more than affect the local climate."

I know Ringworld, but I've forgotten some details. How exactly did that inner ring work? Some big hole in it for half the rotation period? Anyway, assume God created a ringworld. There'd only be two paths between any two points on the thing, making travel rather inefficient. Then think about how much damage we've done to Earth with all the atomic bombs we've set off. Not much, relative to the entire planet. But if you set off a nuclear explosive on a ringworld, you'd probably knock a huge chunk out of it, and residual radiation would make repairs impossible, even if you knew how to do it. I'd bet you that if you could actually build one, it wouldn't last five years. Of course, that's unproovable either way, so...

"Your quote from Genesis is pretty, but irrelevant. Much like most of Genesis. Besides, we all know that stars are more than that."

They may be more, but what purpose do they serve besides that which I stated?

"People who believe that matter and energy cannot come about "spontaneously" need to brush up on their
theoretical physics. Zero-point energy, and so forth."

With the operative word being "theoretical". The only evidence that I've heard of for zero-point energy is Hawking radiation, and personally I'd throw a theory that violates the law of matter-energy conservation out the window. Of course, why get rid of a theory just because it voilates a few natural laws.

JEM:

"The fact that animals and plants undergo slight changes over time is well known. An example would be the rise of antibiotic resistant bacteria. Evolution theory predicts that such things should happen and an ability to predict events is a very powerful test of the validity of a scientific theory. The question remains then could humans have arisen in the way predicted by evolution. The answer is almost certainly yes. I say almost certainly because evolution (like all scientific theories is not perfect) however it is still more likely and self-consistant than the theory that the earth and everything on it was formed complete in 4004BC (at 9am one day in August if I remember correctly) as stated by some literal creationists."

To use an example to disproove yours, there was (and, I assume, still is) a kind of moth in England, whose name escapes me. Most specimines of this moth would blend in perfectly with a certain type of tree with white bark (whose name also escapes me, although white ash sound right for some reason), thus making it difficult for predators to capture. I say most specimines, because there was also a black variety of this same moth. It was much rarer, as it didn't blend in to the white trees, and thus had no place to hide. Then the industrial revolution came along, and the white trees started turning black due to polution. The black moths now became plentiful, while the white moths are now rare. Some say that the white moths turned black, so they could blend in. Not true. The white moths were picked of and eaten more easily, leaving less of them, while the black moths now had a place to hide, and could thrive. The reasoning here is the same as for your bacteria: certain microbes were already resistant to the antibiotics, and thus, when the non-resistant ones were eliminated, these were the only ones left, thus making the antibiotics useless.

"Much is made of the the fact that we share 98% of our genome with the apes. In fact we also share 60% with the common housefly and about 40% with some plants. I must admit that I'm not a molecular biologist so these figures are just what I remember reading sometime ago-I certainly couldn't vouch for their validity or tell you where they come from. So far from evolution having no evidence in its favour there is actually a considerable in fact a vertually conclusive amount."

And this constitutes evidence because...?

Ziyal:

"Instead of saying how Evolution cannot be proven, why not explain HOW creation can be true and WHY you
believe that?"

Because you can't proove creation, but the only two possibilities are random chance and selective, intelligent creation, and as we all know, if you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, however improbible, must be the truth. A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link. If I can disproove even one part of the random chance sequence of events, and nobody can come up with a better theory, then I have effectively prooven the existance of God. And as for why I believe it, another reason would be Okham's Razor: "The simplest explination is probably the correct one", and random chance is composed of far too many coincidences for my taste. And, to once again steal Elim's quote, "I believe in coincidences. Coincidences happen every day. But I don't TRUST coincidences."

Chimera:

Well, I just disproved your first point with JEM, so how about the fossils? Can you name a single example of a fossil that can be taken as evidence of Evolution that hasn't been prooven to be a hoax? And what part of the geologic history of the Earth can be taken as evidence of evolution?

"To use an example to disproove yours, there was (and, I assume, still is) a kind of moth in England, whose name escapes me. Most specimines of this moth would blend in perfectly with a certain type of tree with white bark (whose name also escapes me, although white ash sound right for some reason), thus making it difficult for predators to capture. I say most specimines, because there was also a black variety of this same moth. It was much rarer, as it didn't blend in to the white trees, and thus had no place to hide. Then the industrial revolution came along, and the white trees started turning black due to polution. The black moths now became plentiful, while the white moths are now rare. Some say that the white moths turned black, so they could blend in. Not true. The white moths were picked of and eaten more easily, leaving less of them, while the black moths now had a place to hide, and could thrive. The reasoning here is the same as for your bacteria: certain microbes were already resistant to the antibiotics, and thus, when the non-resistant ones were eliminated, these were the only ones left, thus making the antibiotics useless."

Uh...so what exactly does this disapprove?

"Why create an entire universe in such a manner that you have to wait 11 trilion years for anything interesting to appear?"

Define interesting. I could say the forming of galaxies and solar systems are interesting enough. And who said it took that long for extraterrestrial civilizations to form?

"If God created the universe through Evolution, then death was widespread before Adam and Eve. If death was widespread before Adam and Eve, then death was not a result of Adam and Eve's sin. If death is not a result of Adam and Eve's sin, then sin is fiction. And if sin is fiction, then what need is there for Jesus?"

That is if you insist on taking Adam and Eve literally. I tend to agree with the Catholics and see Creation and the Garden of Eden as metaphors. Perhaps sin didn't happen when Adam and Eve supposedly ate an apple, but started from the beginnings of humankind.

One more thing. IF Creationism was true and IF we were created directly, why did God create dinosaurs, Neanderthals, trilobites, etc, and then make then extinct? (On the assumption that God doesn't make mistakes and didn't get rid of those creatures because they were mistakes.) To give archaeologists a job?

------------------
"I would be delighted to offer any advice I can on understanding women. When I have some, I'll let you know."
--Picard to Data, "In Theory"

Actually the way I like to think about God and evolution is God started the ball rolling and kind of let nature take it's couse, basically after the Big Bang. However when God finally Decided to create humans what he did was basically give highly intellegent apes an immortal soul and free will, which made us humans. And yes taking Adam and Eve literally would be foolish, what the story is about is humans thinking they are gods, and by that how they turned away from God, it's about arrogance, not about eating the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

------------------
HMS White Star (your local friendly agent of Chaos:-) )

The reason I stated that "time passes and change is cumulative" is to show that:

1. Yes, we only can corfirm microevolution through observation, but that's because we haven't been looking very long, comparatively speaking. Significant change doesn't take place within a single human lifetime, or within several. This, however, is no reason to deny that the latter is possible. (Remember, the Sky-Godders insist that their God is there, despite the fact nobody can see Him, either)

2. However, suppose there's a small change, and a small microevolution to deal with it. Then another small change, further in the same direction, and another small microevolution to deal with it. Then another. And another. And say this happens over the course of a couple million years. The end result is a life-form which, while somewhat genetically related, is COMPLETELY different in habits, and posibly even form, as its "parent" species. THAT is macroevolution.

As for your comments about my comments on the Tree of Knowledge, and your resultant statements about "free will"... you DO realize, I suppose, that the concept of free will is a JOKE when you're dealing with an entity which knows EVERYTHING that's ever going to happen. Omniscience DENIES free will, as does prophesy, angelic intervention, miracles, and every other "act of God" you can name.

And go reread "Ringworld" and its sequels. I don't think you quite grasp the SCALE of the design. A sea on the Ringworld contained an exact 1:1 scale model of the Earth's continents. The entire Earth was the size of a few small bits of island, compared to the vastness of the Ringworld.

You've also forgotten "scrith," of which the base of the Ringworld is formed, which is essentially Neutronium, and would ignore a nuclear blast like we ignore one of the microsopic animals that live in our eyebrows.

Incidentally, local paper reported on Friday that Australian scientists have found traces of eukariotic bacteria activity in shale that is 2.7 BILLION years old. Yep, that's right, now we even have the capability to find those "primitive, soft life forms" that most of the creationists say we can't find...

Oh, I noticed you mentioned "fossil hoaxes." Now, besides "Piltdown Man" and the Cardiff giant, neither of which were perpetrated by reputable individuals, can you name any offhand? I know of at least one Creationist hoax, the Juarez (I think) river fossils.

Back a few decades ago, they found this set of sauropod dinosaur tracks along a riverbed. Alongside the sauropod tracks were another set of footprints that looked strangely like human footprints. Well, needless to say the Creation Squad JUMPED on these tracks as "proof" that humans and dinosaurs walked the earth together, while more reputable and level-headed folks said "no, it's almost certainly not the case." What the creationists WON'T tell you in their books, is that about 10 years later there was a small flood in the river valley, which uncovered a continuation of the tracks. It turned out that what LOOKED like human prints were actually distorted prints of a small theropod (like a raptor) which had been slogging through the mud. The later footprints showed this CLEARLY... but the Creationists ignored that and STILL use the river fossils in their arguments.

"This isn't really going anywhere, is it? You aren't exactly calling us "moronic satan-worshippers", but a simple word like "Irrelevant" to start off some of your rebuttals is like saying, "I'm not even gonna listen to you because you are ABSOLUTELY WRONG but I'll just reject your every point to get it off my chest and try to offend you as much as possible without coming off as a jerk." I'm not even exaggerating."

I don't mean to come off like that. I do listen to my opponents arguments. I just like the word "irrelevant". Too many Borg episodes, I guess. : ) My sincere and humble apologies if I have offended anyone. I truely did not mean to.

"Uh...so what exactly does this disapprove?"

Sorry, I was being distracted by my brother as I wrote that first sentance. I sometimes start to write something, then change my mind, but I try to salvage as much of the original text as I can. I think "counter" would fit better. My point was that this isn't a genetic mutation. The genes have always been there, they just aren't apparent until they are needed. Well, now that I think about it, I can't proove that, but my point is that it isn't necesarily a mutation.

"Define interesting. I could say the forming of galaxies and solar systems are interesting enough. And who said it took that long for extraterrestrial civilizations to form?"

Now let's not bring ET's into this. We can discuss that in a seperate thread, or later. Got a point, here, though. I believe that God is love, and it's kinda hard to love an inanimate object, but that's not what I'm trying to proove. I'm just trying to show that God must exist, not any particular aspect of that God. Thus the bounds of this debate force me to concede to your point. See, I'm not completely pig-headed. : )

"That is if you insist on taking Adam and Eve literally. I tend to agree with the Catholics and see Creation and the Garden of Eden as metaphors. Perhaps sin didn't happen when Adam and Eve supposedly ate an apple, but started from the beginnings of humankind."

Ah, but then, who defines humanity? (Rhetorical question.) Even if humanity began through evolution, it would still take billions of years of death to reach that point, and my original point would still stand. Unless, of course, all life from the beginning of life could be considered human, and thus could sin, but that's a bit (understatement) of a stretch. And if the Catholics believe that Eden is a metaphor, what's to stop them from saying that the whole Bible isn't? It's not that much of a difference scientifically between believing that God, a non-corporeal entity, concieved Jesus' earthly body within a virgin (which they heavily emphasize) and to believe that He created the entire universe.

"One more thing. IF Creationism was true and IF we were created directly, why did God create dinosaurs,
Neanderthals, trilobites, etc, and then make then extinct? (On the assumption that God doesn't make mistakes and didn't get rid of those creatures because they were mistakes.) To give archaeologists a job?"

Who says they're extinct? The decaying body of a pleasaur that had been dead for about a month was found off the east coast of New Zealand by a Japanese fishing boat. It weighed two tons and was 32' long. One of the crew took five pictures and made a sketch. They also kept a piece of one of it's four flippers, but they had to throw the corpse overboard to keep from contaminating the fish they were carying (well, that and the smell). The flipper has been analized as being reptillian or ichthian, and the neck was too long to be a fish. It's neck also had vertebre, which are present in only a few sharks. A pleasaur is the only known creature to fit this discription. I personally believe that most dinos were killed in the flood, and the ones on the ark had trouble finding food afterwards. Of course, the flood is fodder for yet another thread. As for Neanderthals, Heidelberg man, Cro-Magnon man, and such: they're still around, too. The remains that were found were later confirmed to be those of humans with extreme arthritis and/or rickets (such as that caused by extreme old age, say in the neighborhood of 800 or so : )).

H.M.S.:

"To Omega: Well it actually cool that someone is taking the Creationist point of view, that's not popular here and I [think it's] brave to take an unpopular view, even if the view is hard to defend."

Well, thanks. It's nice to know that at least someone here doesn't think of me as a nut. : ) Of course, I'd say that YOU guys are the ones in the position that's hard to defend, but that's just my opinion. And the story isn't about people thinking they were gods, it's about people wanting to be LIKE God. Not even going to touch the interpretation, though. Not my field of expertise.

1 of 2:

"You just don't seem to be gleaning the fact that evolutionary change takes place over a LONG period of time. That's the biggest problem with Creationists, they think the Earth is young, and they therefore have to believe that all change takes place quickly. Personally, I think too many of them get their ideas about "mutation" from reading "X-Men" comics and watching bad SF movies."

No matter how much time you take, the original genetic material is still all you'll have to work with, with the exception of mutations, which, as I said, have NEVER been shown to be beneficial, and are almost always harmful. And the Earth is young. There are several dozen different ways of dating an object. One says a certain rock is two billion years old, another, six billion, another twelve billion. Almost all of the rest date the rock as being about 6000 years old (+- a couple millenia). You only hear about the ones that give the age evolutionary scientists want to think the rocks are. Radiocarbon dating is only reliable if you assume that the atmospheric ration of carbon-14 to carbon-12 has remained constant. Again, I'd be glad to go into another thread to discuss the age of the universe. I never touch X-Men, and I rarely watch Sci-Fi movies.

Omniscience doesn't deny free will. Just because God knows what's going to happen doesn't mean that He causes everything. The devine intervention part, too, does not defy free will. God told Jonah to go to (WHAT is the capital of Assyria?) Ninevah, and he didn't go. Well, he eventually did. Bad example. How about Moses. God told him to talk to the rock and water would come forth, but instead, he hit the rock twice. The water still came, but Moses was punished. This is yet another topic. Care to go to another thread? I don't mean to seem like I'm trying to avoid the issues, here, but I just don't want this thread to get shut down because it's too far off the subject. I like this kind of debate! : )

Well, there's your problem right there! People always recognize that neutronium would be practically indestructable, but no one notices that a handfull would be enough to knock the planets out of orbit. If the whole ring was made of neutronium, it would suck the photosphere of the star into the ring! I will check out Ringworld at my local library.

"Oh, I noticed you mentioned "fossil hoaxes." Now, besides "Piltdown Man" and the Cardiff giant, neither of which were perpetrated by reputable individuals, can you name any offhand? I know of at least one Creationist hoax, the Juarez (I think) river fossils."

There's Java man and Archaeopteryx, right of the top of my head. Java man was supposedly reconstructed from some parts of a jawbone, which were assembled in such a way as to look like a human jaw. As it turns out, the man who found the fossils had taken remains of four creatures which were obviously apes (gibbons, I believe), and removed them from the same site, so as to make the jaw fragments look authentic. The discoverer, one Eugene Dubois, later admitted to the hoax. I'll explain Archaeopterix if anyone is interested. There are also fossils that evolutionary scientists have jumped to conclusions about. The afore-mentioned Neanderthal, the Nebraska man (for which the only evidence was a pig's tooth), Peking man, Homo habilis (for which there was no evidence of human proportions, and evidence of apelike proportions was recently discovered), and Australopithecines (eg. Lucy). As for the riverbed hoax, I'd never heard of that particular story, but there are similar fossils is Turkmenistan and Arizona, and horse hoofprints were found in Virginia, alongside over 1000 dinosaur footprints, in rock that is dated to be around 300 million years old. Dinosaur, whale, horse, and elephant remains, and even crude human tools, have been found in phosphate beds in South Carolina. And as for Creationists ignoring the newer evidence in the riverbed, maybe most just haven't heard about it. I'd be a lot more enthusiastic about passing along news that confirmed my beliefs to others than about news that conflicted something I'd said previously. Most people don't like to admit they're wrong.