# Top Ten Scientific Proofs of Creation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2012, 2:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231 "2012-04-19T02:09:50Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 16\ **Page:** 25
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/482 "2012-04-27T04:36:09Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Mangetout was ad hominem (to the man) by saying Gish said “things that are demonstrably false, misleading or downright dishonest.” in post 449 of this thread. > > Kobal2 went straight “to the man” in post 448 with “You’re going to bring Gish into the mix, a debater so dishonest” > > And I ran poor ole Gish down the road a few times myself in this thread so yes I think that the above posters had every right and possibly even obligation to give their honest opinion on the mans character and track record. > > And none of us three committed a fallacy because we were not refuting an argument we just gave an opinion that can easily be backed by using Gishs own words, I do find it odd thought of all the ad hominem attacks on this thread (many more than I have listed) you chose mine to criticize. > Would you care to explain why. Not all the time one can say that there is a fallacy: > **[Ad hominem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem)** > > Ad hominem (Latin for 'to the person'), short for argumentum ad hominem, refers to several types of arguments that are usually fallacious. Often currently this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's characte... > [@](#): > > Doug Walton has argued that ad hominem reasoning is not always fallacious, and that in some instances, questions of personal conduct, character, motives, etc., are legitimate and relevant to the issue,[12] as when it directly involves hypocrisy, or actions contradicting the subject’s words. And [with someone that has even a fallacy named after him](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop), (a form of an a combination of Argument from Authority with the Ad nauseam one) we have already many examples of his dishonesty, so many that one can not help pointing at the obvious: honesty is not a property one can say Gish has. > **[Scientific Creationism and Error](http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/cre-error.html)** > > 'Scientific' creationism differs from conventional science in numerous and substantial ways. One obvious difference is the way scientists and creationists deal with error. > [@](#): > > Gish’s refusal to acknowledge the nonexistence of his chicken protein is characteristic of ICR. His boss, Henry Morris, gave Gish’s handling of the matter his tacit approval by what he said (and didn’t say) about it in his History of Modern Creationism. Morris referred to the protein incident and took a swipe at Russell Doolittle (who he identified as “Richard Doolittle”), but he offered no criticism of Gish’s conduct. Instead, he accused PBS of misrepresenting Gish!(6) > > Meanwhile, Gish has been obfuscating behind the scenes. The only creationist publication to directly address the protein affair has been Origins Research. In the Fall 1985 issue, editor Dennis Wagner (1) wrongly identified Glyn Isaac as the source of Gish’s bullfrog and (2) wrongly stated that Gish sent me a tape of the lecture in which Isaac supposedly made the statement. Wagner’s source, it turns out, is a letter Gish wrote to Kevin Wirth,(7) in which Gish apparently confused Glyn Isaac with Garniss Curtis. He also claimed to have a tape and a transcript of the “Isaac” (presumably Curtis) lecture, and he claimed that he had reviewed them. In the same sentence, Gish claimed that he sent me his “documentation,” and Wagner quite naturally assumed that meant at least the tape. But Gish sent me neither, nor has he sent copies of said tape or transcript to others requesting them. As with his chicken proteins, we have only Gish’s word for their existence. > > For the record, it is no longer important whether Gish’s original statements about chicken and bullfrog proteins were deceptions or incredible blunders. It is now going on four years since the PBS broadcast, and Gish has neither retracted his chicken statement nor attempted to justify it. (Obviously, the lysozyme apologetic doesn’t count, but it took Gish 2-1/2 years to come up with that!) And if the Curtis story is all he knows about his chimpanzee protein, on what basis did he promise to send me its sequence at the 1983 National Bible-Science Conference? Gish has woven himself into an incredible web of contradictions, and even some creationists now suspect that he has been less than candid. > > Gish’s steadfast refusal to acknowledge the facts seems to characterize creationism. ---
**Author:** ![Cat\_Whisperer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/cat_whisperer/32/4839_2.png) [@Cat\_Whisperer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cat_Whisperer)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 4:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/483 "2012-04-27T04:46:41Z")
You guys amaze me - I don’t know where you get the stamina to keep arguing these same points over and over for years and years. ::Raises a glass to the Straight Dope Ignorance Fighters:: ---
**Author:** ![Jon55](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/2bfe46/32.png) [@Jon55](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jon55)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 5:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/484 "2012-04-27T05:31:21Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > My mother grew up during the Depression when she got a book a year for her birthday. She taught me. I’ve got 5500 SF books, but this is still in my bones. > > Read some Bible analysis and you will see where the two contradictory stories come from. Neither story is anywhere close to the physical evidence. > Say a person is found after having fallen from a five story window. Did he jump or was he pushed? It is hard to tell, but if someone confesses and gets the layout of the apartment wrong, things the dead person is the wrong sex, and says it happened hours before it actually did, you know you don’t have the culprit. I see that you have read and understood the text at least on the surface and thats great. I hope you have analyzed it yourself and not relied solely on the commentaries. Nothing wrong with commentaries to point out things you might not have thought of but they are not the last word. You are in your case and I am in mine. The great thing about the Bible is we can all be experts. Its a big collection of books but not really that big. Its a little shorter than the Harry Potter series. I am not going to debate Bible contradictions with you at least not now on this thread but when the Bible is talking in symbols it will always give you a literary cue. In this instance “On the seventh day God rested from his labor”. On the one hand we have a writer smart enough to craft a work that would stand for thousands of years (the ultimate bestseller) but on the other hand he writes that that God had to take a whole day to rest. It dosent add up except as a literary cue. > [@Voyager](#): > > This is true for many hill-climbing strategies. What it isn’t is optimal. > [@Voyager](#): > > Just an observation. If a parasite kills its host long term, but lets it live long enough to reproduce, it is win/win. After an organism successfully reproduces, it doesn’t matter. Look at salmon. > > Yes and no. When you simulate something like a process, you often have millions of free variables, and a set equation giving you an output given a set of inputs. Through various means you can twiddle the input parameters through their allowable ranges to find something like the best collection for the best result - then you try to implement your process using these parameters. (Massive over-simplification.) I understand and agree. > [@Voyager](#): > > If you are looking at an existing process, you again take known relationships and see what combinations of parameters give results which you actually have observed. After filtering for plausible sets you can measure some on real things (like mutation rates) to see if your model predicted the parameters we actually see. If it does, you may have a good model, if not, you have more work to do. Yes it is a usefull tool for learning what works and what doesnt I am certainly not saying simulations are worthless but I am saying they are not absolute proof of anything. For example Uranus was discovered with errors in the calculations even tho they were small. But then the errors that led to the discovery of Pluto were large. Getting the right answer is not always indicative of understanding the process. > [@Voyager](#): > > What do you think natural selection is selecting for? The Weasel program as the link and Dawkin state, is not a model of evolution but just a disproof that highly unlikely results can’t be obtained by mostly random means. There is no goal in evolution and natural selection except reproduction. The great diversity of life indicates that there are many, many ways in which a gene can propagate itself. When you want a goal, genetic algorithms work the way the weasel program works, with selection based on some level of goodness, with small changes across generations, and usually with ways of two answers combining for more diversity. I see nothing unlikely about it given such a small amount of variables and a target to shoot for. The mutations (the real ones) are random in every sense of the word in Darwininan evolution. One of the other problems I see with the Weasel program is that there are no neutral and no negative mutations. There is nothing for it to compete against. In short natural selection is a very messy business and the Weasel describes it in a very tidy way. > [@Voyager](#): > > I’ve reviewed a lot of papers on these. The interesting things are that they work without any detailed algorithms on how to solve a problem, but they are a lot slower than solutions using detailed algorithms. In my area they are in universities only, not in industry. If there were a designer he’d be a fool to use evolution, unless he had a lot of time on his hands. He could have done much better in other ways. Please give me a link to the best simulation you know of that is explained on a university website. > [@Voyager](#): > > I think a bit problem for the religious is that evolution states that we as human beings are just one of many solutions to how to reproduce. Clearly the world ticked on for quite a while without any intelligent species, and could have gone on much longer. In the short run we are very successful. In the long run we’ll see. If you feel the need for reassurance that humanity as we are is not accidental, you need a designer or creator. I don’t have that need. You and I are just as much accidents as humanity - a different position, a different time, a different day, and neither of us would have been here to worry about it - someone else with the same name and different genes would be. (Not the same name if the sex was different.) Does that bother you? If not, then the accidentness of humanity shouldn’t bother you either. I need no such reassurance I think many atheists assume that all those who believe in some sort of ID only do so for the comfort. Its not always so comforting when you those you love living in ways that you consider wrong. Its not that the lights out…shows over view is so comforting but it would be a nice alternative to thinking someone like yourself would be in an unpleasant place forever. And then compare that to those I am close too. I think many atheists have very good emotional reasons to feel the way they do just like many Christians. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/485 "2012-04-27T07:01:48Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > Mangetout was ad hominem (to the man) by saying Gish said “things that are demonstrably false, misleading or downright dishonest.” in post 449 of this thread. That’s not what ad hominem means. It would have been ad hominem if I’d said “Gish’s mom dresses him funny, therefore his arguments are false”, or “Gish kicks puppies, therefore his arguments are false”, or even “Gish comes from _Kansas_, therefore his arguments are false” (it’s true he comes from Kansas, but, assuming there was some negative connotation, it would still be an irrelevant attack about some other detail of the man, therefore ad hominem) But when the subject under discussion is already _the arguments put forward in support of creationism by Mr Duane Gish_, it’s not ad hominem to say that he has a tendency to put forward misleading arguments. It might be an overgeneralisation (it was one sentence, after all) It might even be factually incorrect (I don’t think it \*is \*incorrect -so we could debate this if you like), but it’s not ad hominem. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 7:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/486 "2012-04-27T07:29:24Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > The mutations (the real ones) are random in every sense of the word in Darwininan evolution. One of the other problems I see with the Weasel program is that there are no neutral and no negative mutations. This is incorrect - the mutations in the weasel progam are random. > [@](#): > > There is nothing for it to compete against. In short natural selection is a very messy business and the Weasel describes it in a very tidy way. Both of these statements are true, but missing the key point that _it’s meant to be a very, very simple analogue of the process, in order to be illustrative of a general mechanism_. If it was more complex, you’d be able to complain that it was too messy to be able to be sure what’s really occurring. The real world really is a messy place, but even in a really messy domain, a slight statistical leaning tends to have a measurable effect - consider a weighted die - starting with a perfectly fair die, I drill the tiniest hole in one side (let’s say the side with one spot on it) and insert the tiniest speck of a lead weight in there - the weight is so very small that it makes hardly any difference to an individual throw - certainly the die doesn’t noticeably flip and land on six (i.e. one spot facing down) every time, and it’s still easily possible to roll a 1 (i.e. with the weighted side uppermost) But perform ten million throws of the die, and, because there’s a tiny weight on the one-spot, it’s quite certain that more sixes will be rolled than any other number. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 8:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/487 "2012-04-27T08:10:10Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > The great thing about the Bible is we can all be experts. Its a big collection of books but not really that big. Its a little shorter than the Harry Potter series. Say what? That is why we don’t have any differing churches nor splintergroups nor obscure sects in Christianity, the book is so concise and easy to interpret. > [@](#): > > I am not going to debate Bible contradictions with you at least not now on this thread but when the Bible is talking in symbols it will always give you a literary cue. In this instance “On the seventh day God rested from his labor”. So the whole bit from “In the beginning…” is all symbolic? What is your criterium to establish whether to take stuff literally or not? If it sounds rather silly then it is symbolic? > [@](#): > > On the one hand we have **a writer** smart enough to craft a work…but onother hand he writes … A writer? As in 1? You really should read some bible analysis books. ---
**Author:** ![gamerunknown](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/6bbea6/32.png) [@gamerunknown](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gamerunknown)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 12:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/488 "2012-04-27T12:07:10Z")
> [@jon55](#): > > BTW you committed two textbook strawman fallacies in the first paragraph of your post. > [@gamerunknown](#): > > Then why shift the goalposts and extrapolate from one flawed argument of Dawkins to refuting the Selfish Gene? I never said that one erroneous argument disproved an entire canon of work, I said most users would address claims by Dawkins exactly as claims by Gish: on their merits. > [@jon55](#): > > I have no expectation that Dr. Dawkins could put aside his well documented bias and have no interest in reading his book. Which was funny, because you were also equivocating between Dawkins and Gish. > [@jon55](#): > > Because the judge did not rule in their favor on the grounds of religious discrimination as we can see in his opinion he did not base his decision in any way on the Nixons religious rights… His argument is based on what the Nixons got not what they asked for. Shifting the goalposts again: > [@Dawkins](#): > > the Nixons’ lawyers appealed to the constitutional right to freedom of religion. > [@Jon55](#): > > Read the books, decide what agree with, prepare a paraphrase of the same and get back to me. This entire argument was because you disagreed that there could be a scientific account for altruism. You understand or at least linked to a decent summary of altruism and just declared that it failed on its premises, so Voyager gave you a recommendation to a longer book which explains the concepts and methodology in greater detail, which you rejected with an ad hominem attack. > [@Jon55](#): > > One problem is altruism. > [@Voyager](#): > > I suggest you read “The Selfish Gene”… I don’t have a copy of the Selfish Gene or The Evolution of Cooperation to hand since I borrowed them from the library. I doubt I can improve on the summary you linked yourself, but I remember two powerful arguments. The first is that Selfish Gene theory is essentially a restatement of kin selection – one is likely to be evolutionarily predisposed to preserve one’s own genes (this is an amoral statement), whether they exist in one’s own body, the body of one’s twin, sibling or cousin, to varying degrees. There are various strategies for gene preservation in societies: in fact, without such strategies, stable societies would not form. These are known as evolutionarily stable strategies. They are not necessary the ideal strategies for every individual practising such a strategy. Another is that stotting behaviour (jumping in front of predators) may be beneficial to each individual genetic strategist, as it discourages the predator by making a cost/benefit analysis: the stotter is easier to catch due to being closer, but also healthier than the average group because it is willing to take such a risk. The stotter that lives will have offspring which are more difficult to catch for a predator on average. > [@Jon55](#): > > The honest answer is I do not know Well, I’m glad of your honesty, but this isn’t a trivial point for me. If pain is a necessary component of free will and free will is the ideal state, then we are being punished in the afterlife by having our free will stripped of us. If free will and knowledge can exist without pain, then we are being punished in this life unnecessarily. If this life is a test, God has set the parameters knowing precisely who will fail the test, both in terms of biology and environment, due to God’s omniscience. If the fall explains the imperfection of our existence, then the teleological argument falls apart. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 12:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/489 "2012-04-27T12:29:39Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > [Like so](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcAq9bmCeR0) (Always found that vid fascinating). That’s really good - thanks. Slight shame that it’s presented a bit confrontationally, as it makes it less palatable for presenting to someone who _hasn’t_ been trotting out a bunch of watchmaker canards, but I guess the author probably had valid reasons for wanting to pitch it that way. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/490 "2012-04-27T17:19:01Z")
> [@Jon55](#): > > I see that you have read and understood the text at least on the surface and thats great. I hope you have analyzed it yourself and not relied solely on the commentaries. Nothing wrong with commentaries to point out things you might not have thought of but they are not the last word. You are in your case and I am in mine. The great thing about the Bible is we can all be experts. Its a big collection of books but not really that big. Its a little shorter than the Harry Potter series. That the Bible has multiple authors, and that there are multiple versions of stories has been know for centuries. But the authorship of Genesis is not why it is wrong - it is wrong because it contradicts the best available data. > [@](#): > > On the one hand we have a writer smart enough to craft a work that would stand for thousands of years (the ultimate bestseller) but on the other hand he writes that that God had to take a whole day to rest. It dosent add up except as a literary cue. Or this passage was included to support the already existing and very important concept of Sabbath. What better reason for the people to follow it than that God himself did. The Christian Sunday is in no way as significant as the Sabbath - books of prayers and rituals for holidays are full of extra things to say if the holiday falls on the Sabbath, for instance. > [@](#): > > Yes it is a usefull tool for learning what works and what doesnt I am certainly not saying simulations are worthless but I am saying they are not absolute proof of anything. Of course not - they just support the correctness of the hypothesis. > [@](#): > > For example Uranus was discovered with errors in the calculations even tho they were small. But then the errors that led to the discovery of Pluto were large. > > Getting the right answer is not always indicative of understanding the process. Neither of those things have anything to do with simulations. When I was a kid, before the Oort cloud was discovered, it was known that Pluto was too small to explain the orbits of the inner planets. And calculations were always inaccurate before computers. Babbage created the Difference Engine because of a study showing that the mathematical tables England depended on were full of errors. That the gravitational equations work is demonstrated by all our space probes. > [@](#): > > The mutations (the real ones) are random in every sense of the word in Darwininan evolution. One of the other problems I see with the Weasel program is that there are no neutral and no negative mutations. There is nothing for it to compete against. > In short natural selection is a very messy business and the Weasel describes it in a very tidy way. I got the impression that “mutations” which did not advance the move to the solution were generated - otherwise I find it hard to understand why it took even an hour to reach the right answer. There are tons of neutral mutations in our genome, inside our junk DNA, for example, which is used to measure the time since we diverged from the ancestors of another animal. Negative mutations don’t last long due to selection pressure. And remember, this is not a model of evolution, just of ways that random processes can produce results which pure randomness cannot produce. > [@](#): > > Please give me a link to the best simulation you know of that is explained on a university website. I was describing genetic algorithms. Simulation is used in industry - we’ve got well over a thousand cpus doing simulations pretty much full time. Just search for genetic algorithms. The ones I read assume specific domain knowledge, not related to GAs, and might be confusing. > [@](#): > > I need no such reassurance I think many atheists assume that all those who believe in some sort of ID only do so for the comfort. > Its not always so comforting when you those you love living in ways that you consider wrong. Its not that the lights out…shows over view is so comforting but it would be a nice alternative to thinking someone like yourself would be in an unpleasant place forever. And then compare that to those I am close too. > I think many atheists have very good emotional reasons to feel the way they do just like many Christians. This is not a creationist/evolution split. There are plenty of theists who totally accept evolution but who also believe in a god who silently guided the process to create us. This is the position of the Catholic Church. For instance, mammal became dominant when the asteroid wiped out the dinosaurs. Was that just luck, or did the hand of god cause it? There is no way of knowing. However both sides of that issue accept the asteroid hit, that dinosaurs (except for birds) went extinct long before man appeared, and this all happened a long time ago. You can do just as good science with the goal of understanding god’s subtle handiwork was you can without god belief. When you are convinced you know the answer in advance, and reject evidence which contradicts, that is when you do bad science. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 5:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/491 "2012-04-27T17:29:32Z")
> [@Mangetout](#): > > The real world really is a messy place - Which made me think of one aspect of messiness not considered in this program of GAs in general - that in the real world, the success function keeps changing. Features that get selected for to reproduce in a warm environment win - oops, the environment just turned cold. It is clear that if you changed the selection function for Weasel in the middle of a run, the program would eventually converge on a new answer. I don’t know how IDers handle this problem. Mostly by ignoring it, I guess. Does God twiddle with the design to put fur on the elephant? ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 5:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/492 "2012-04-27T17:36:46Z")
“twiddle?” Why in the world would “twiddling” be required? There is no doubt that there can be a lot of variation within an animal’s kind. God certainly did not create lon-haired dogs and short-haired dogs as seperate kinds, why would long-haired and short-haired elephants be any different? ---
**Author:** ![elbows](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/b3f665/32.png) [@elbows](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elbows)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/493 "2012-04-27T18:32:49Z")
I can’t help but wonder what that ‘Loving God’ thinks of his defenders when they pick a fight, then skulk away unable or unwilling to defend him? I bet he’s not impressed. That’s gotta cost them a few brownie points, don’t you think? ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/494 "2012-04-27T19:13:06Z")
> [@DrFidelius](#): > > “twiddle?” Why in the world would “twiddling” be required? > There is no doubt that there can be a lot of variation within an animal’s kind. > > God certainly did not create lon-haired dogs and short-haired dogs as seperate kinds, No, but we did. > [@](#): > > why would long-haired and short-haired elephants be any different? Kind is not well defined. Woolly mammoths and regular elephants are certainly different species, and I doubt they could mate, you your average Hebrew might consider them different kinds. But this gets to the point that creationists believing in the flood also believe in rapid evolution and speciation quite beyond anything accepted by science. Basically, if they accept that woolly mammoths evolved, they might as well give it up. ---
**Author:** ![Buck\_Godot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/buck_godot/32/6573_2.png) [@Buck\_Godot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Buck_Godot)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 7:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/495 "2012-04-27T19:47:18Z")
> [@Voyager](#): > > There are tons of neutral mutations in our genome, inside our junk DNA, for example, which is used to measure the time since we diverged from the ancestors of another animal. The thing that evolutionists fail to appreciate is that gene sequencing has done for evolutionary theory what space flight did for heliocentrism. We are no longer in the realm of speculation based on indirect observation, we now can see directly the way in which the genome has changed over millions of years and how the tree of life branched. To deny evolution is to say that the sun revolves around the earth but the devil has deluded all of NASA to make it look the other way around. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/496 "2012-04-27T20:06:51Z")
> [@Buck\_Godot](#): > > The thing that evolutionists fail to appreciate is that gene sequencing has done for evolutionary theory what space flight did for heliocentrism. We are no longer in the realm of speculation based on indirect observation, we now can see directly the way in which the genome has changed over millions of years and how the tree of life branched. To deny evolution is to say that the sun revolves around the earth but the devil has deluded all of NASA to make it look the other way around. Some of the more with-it creationists used to say that evolution was not a science, since it could not be falsified -any fossil could be shoved into the record some way. Sequencing however was an excellent opportunity to falsify evolution, since if the sequencing did not support the fossil record it would be a serious problem. Of course it did support evolution. And we all know the response “that doesn’t _prove_ it,” as if that statement made any sense at all. ---
**Author:** ![DrFidelius](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drfidelius/32/3447_2.png) [@DrFidelius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrFidelius)\ **Post date:** [April 27, 2012, 8:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231/497 "2012-04-27T20:39:00Z")
Feh. All this “sequencing” only shows that the Designer used a standard template. We already knew that, from all the evidences the evolutionists say supports monkeys turning into people. A common plan does not mean an actual family relationship! (Hey, somebody’s gotta keep up the Creationists side until one wanders back to speak for themselves.) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/top-ten-scientific-proofs-of-creation/619231.md?page=24)