who are these people?..5 percent of american natural and physical scientists believe in the creationist view..55 percent support the view that evolution occured without the need of a god, 40 percent support the view that god was behind it all..where do all these scientists that have adopted the creation model disappear to when these polls are being taken?

as for americans. . . 45 percent believe the creationist view, 40 percent that god guided evolution, 10 percent that evolution happened without a god..odd, though, that americans are the most scientifically illiterate people in the industrialized world, and america has the highest percent of young-earthers..only 7 percent of people surveyed from great britian accept the literal interpretation of genesis 1..the norwegians, dutch, germans and russians all ranked far lower than americans in biblical literalism

the groups most likely to accept the biblical account were(in alphabetical order): blacks, fundamentalist protestants, older americans, poorly-educated americans, southerners and women

there ought to be an increasing emphasis on examining data from a creationist viewpoint and a decreasing emphasis on searching out failures of the evolution model to make true or testable predictions.

creationists make up their own evolution model, then attack it..they say evolutionary theory needs species with half-wings, half-arms..they ask why no therapsids(the predecessors to mammals) have mammalian ear structure, mode of tooth replacement and jaw mechanics even though those are the things that determine whether something is a therapsid or a mammal..most "failures" they point out are failure's of the creationist's evolution model, not an evolutionist's evolution model..most others are "failures" that are either lies, misunderstandings or outdated(such as the lord kelvin argument)..and any others just haven't been answered by science yet(like with behe)..but, then again, they always have the "how can you believe that ape-like animals were are ancestors?"..(somebody gave me one of them "big daddy?" flip thru booklets with an ape next to it..quite hilarious, actually)..then, there's the "piltdown man was a hoax, how can you trust an evolutionist?", which is like me saying "400 years ago the church said the sun revolved around the earth," "the church used the believe the earth was flat," or "the church used to believe there were three continents surounded by a circular ocean" against christianity..it was science that revealed the piltdown man hoax..the christian problems were not revealed by the church..(and, christian--and islamic--mobs didn't help when they destroyed the library of alexandria, which had info on the first two--and, therefore, the third)

More than enough of the latter has been done than is needed to convince anyone not hindered by non-scientific considerations, such as ignorance, prejudice or philosophy.

people not hindered by non-scientific considerations are accepting their brand of pseudoscience?..what exactly is the science behind the creationist literature?..what is the science behind making up your own model of evolution, then attacking it because it doesn't make sense?

Although creationists will continue to call attention to unfounded assumptions and conclusions made by evolutionists

what unfounded assumptions and conclusions are those?

increased effort should now be spent on building a more comprehensive creation model.

wow..imagine that, a creationist actually trying to support their beliefs without attempting to attack evolution

In addition to re-interpreting the data produced by evolutionists, we hope to see creationists increase their emphasis on carrying out studies specifically designed to test and refine the creation model.

you cannot "test" the existence of a god, without that god coming down and showing his face..it hasn't happened with your god yet..once you start inserting a supernatural being, then you are outside the realm of science..that's not to say that science denies the existence of the god, it just assumes that it's possible to have occured without a supernatural being

Natural selection is an integral part of the current creation model, in which it serves two purposes.

it's a part of evolution, too..(it doesn't create species, but that doesn't mean it doesn't do anything)

If, within the gene pool of the population, there exist genes that produce characteristics better adapted to the new environment, these genes will, through natural selection, increase in frequency, increasing the fitness of the population as a whole.

i thought evolution was a myth..why are creationists saying things like that?..a change that is better suited for its environment will spread faster in a small population..that's how evolution happens..those less well adapted for an environment are likely to produce less offspring than those better adapted for that same environment..if an environmental change happens, then those that might have been less well adapted could be better off

What is the source of the variability which enables P. dardanus to mimic the distasteful species with which it is sympatric (occupying the same area)?

because the p. dardanuses that were like the distasteful species were the ones more likely to produce offspring

The creationist recognizes four sources of variability within each baramin (created kind).

and what exactly is a "kind"?..creationists don't put hard definitions on "kind" because they know that taxonimists will destroy the idea

here is what a biblical kind is:THE BIBLICAL WORD FOR "SPECIES"..creationists say it doesn't mean "species" because they know it'd be absurd to think that over a million species could have fit on the ark, and that nobody in their right mind would accept that all species are specially created

Finally, the environment itself produces variation among individuals in a population,

i don't think the environment produces variation..it seems more likely that the environment would choose which individuals are more likely to reproduce

which is not inherited such that two individuals with identical genes for body size may differ due to differences in their diet.

if they had identical genes, their diet should not be different..their chances of producing offspring should be the same

From all we know about mutations occurring today, they are virtually always harmful or, at best, neutral.

if mutations are virtually always harmful, and that is supposed to prove evolution is false, then why do creationists claim that evolution has occured within kinds?..wouldn't it disprove that, too?..either creationists ought to claim one million species were specially created 6000 years ago and mutations make evolution impossible, or they should shut the heck up..some creationists claim all species--the one million we see today, not including extinct species--came from a pool of 15,000 different "kinds"..a rate of evolution that NO evolutionist would ever claim!..that's 66.6666(forever) for every one originally created kind

nobody ever said mutations were positive in all environments..most mutations are harmful or useless to the environment they're in..however, if you change environments, certain mutations can be positive..for instance, if a desert animal has a mutation that has stronger arms for climbing, it isn't going to do a thing..if that species moves to a forest or the species lives near the forest, that mutation could be advantageous..or if there's an animal in a hot or cold region and a mutation causes it to have less hair and more blubber, it is going to be a disadvantage..however, if the animal is an aquatic species, the mutation will be an advantage

Of all of the variations which appear to be true mutations, one can count on one hand the examples that can be considered as possibly beneficial.

do you expect mutations to be good for every environment?..nobody ever said that!

Because of this, the creation model predicts that almost never would adaptive variation in the prehistoric past be due to mutations, but rather would be a result of created variability.

what prehistoric past is there with the young-earth model?..isn't that one of their arguments for creation?..since written language was invented about 5 or 6 thousand years ago, then the earth can't be that old?

the variation had better been there for 15,000 species to grow to 1 million in 4200 years

This is no problem as far as the original creation is concerned, but the historical record of the world-wide flood indicates that, of most land animals, only one pair survived.

what historical record would that be?..hydrolic(sp?) sorting?..that's absurd..there is no way that a global flood could account for the current fossil record..if you don't know that, i feel sorry for you because the creationists have decieved you

So we see that the entire array of variability in the mimicry of P. dardanus most probably results from that introduced by the Creator into the baramin of which P. dardanus is the whole or part.

why?..why do creationists act like the only way for it to happen is there had to be some super genius thinking about it?..why couldn't he have done it in the first place?..why not create special kinds?..(don't say he's been resting for 6,000 years, either..he had to be doin' something during the flood)

Furthermore, in the isolated population on the island of Madagascar, the females look just like males.

if you go to madagascar to look at them, take a look at the mammals

How do these observations contribute to the creation model?

they don't

complete version of impact #18

email me