<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/</link>
	<description>books, essays, columns, reviews, and multimedia clips of famed skeptic Michael Shermer</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Mar 2010 03:36:35 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Genesis Revisited - A Reimagining of Genesis by Skeptic Magazine Editor Michael Shermer &#124; JazJaz</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3162</link>
		<dc:creator>Genesis Revisited - A Reimagining of Genesis by Skeptic Magazine Editor Michael Shermer &#124; JazJaz</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 23 Jun 2009 08:52:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-3162</guid>
		<description>[...] Full transcript is here. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Full transcript is here. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Genesis Revisited &#124; dv8-designs</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3160</link>
		<dc:creator>Genesis Revisited &#124; dv8-designs</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:45:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-3160</guid>
		<description>[...] Genesis Revisited scientifically summarises the scientific field of Creation Science (warning: science) [transcript] [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Genesis Revisited scientifically summarises the scientific field of Creation Science (warning: science) [transcript] [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Genesis Revisited &#124; Design Website Easy</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3159</link>
		<dc:creator>Genesis Revisited &#124; Design Website Easy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:22:14 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-3159</guid>
		<description>[...] Genesis Revisited scientifically summarises the scientific field of Creation Science (warning: science) [transcript] [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Genesis Revisited scientifically summarises the scientific field of Creation Science (warning: science) [transcript] [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Amy</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-3103</link>
		<dc:creator>Amy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 May 2009 12:23:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-3103</guid>
		<description>Jim, my understanding is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems.  Organisms are open systems exchanging material and energy with their surroundings...shown by my toddler&#039;s growth chart and the budding leaves outside my window.  In fact, put your glass of hot water on top of my car in August and it won&#039;t become room temperature and where I live, it won&#039;t take long for mosquitoes to breed in it.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jim, my understanding is that the Second Law of Thermodynamics applies to closed, isolated systems.  Organisms are open systems exchanging material and energy with their surroundings&#8230;shown by my toddler&#8217;s growth chart and the budding leaves outside my window.  In fact, put your glass of hot water on top of my car in August and it won&#8217;t become room temperature and where I live, it won&#8217;t take long for mosquitoes to breed in it.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-2984</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Apr 2009 23:39:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-2984</guid>
		<description>Sounds like a bunch of school kids trying to one up the other.  The idea of evolution alone is problematic as well.  Regardless of what you believe, its obvious that animals and Humans physiology can adapt to dramatic changes in the their environment. Duh!  That doesn&#039;t prove evolution or disprove I.D.  Be Objective!  There is no more proof for evolution than I.D.. At least be honest with the evidence.  It also takes a great leap of faith to believe in pure evolution.  

For instance, The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured.
The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms.
NASA&#039;s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has taken the best measurement of the age of the Universe to date. According to highly accurate observations, scientists now have the best estimate yet on the age of the Universe: 13.73 billion years.( How do they know this is the best estimate? How do they know the observations are highly accurate?) Its a guess at best.  Just because I can only see 40 miles through my telescope, doesn&#039;t mean theres nothing beyond that.  
If Evolutionists really want to be as objective as they claim from a scientific viewpoint, they also have to admit evolutions short comings.  
Once we get to that point. Then the &#039;Objective&#039; discussions can really begin.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sounds like a bunch of school kids trying to one up the other.  The idea of evolution alone is problematic as well.  Regardless of what you believe, its obvious that animals and Humans physiology can adapt to dramatic changes in the their environment. Duh!  That doesn&#8217;t prove evolution or disprove I.D.  Be Objective!  There is no more proof for evolution than I.D.. At least be honest with the evidence.  It also takes a great leap of faith to believe in pure evolution.  </p>
<p>For instance, The Second Law of Thermodynamics refers to the universal tendency for things, on their own, to “mix” with their surrounding environment over time, becoming less ordered and eventually reaching a steady-state. A glass of hot water becomes room temperature, buildings decay into rubble, and the stars will eventually burn out leading to the “heat death” of the universe. However, the evolutionary scenario proposes that over time things, on their own, became more ordered and structured.<br />
The “Cambrian Explosion” in the “primordial strata” documents the geologically rapid appearance of most major groups of complex animals. There is no evidence of evolution from simpler forms.<br />
NASA&#8217;s Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has taken the best measurement of the age of the Universe to date. According to highly accurate observations, scientists now have the best estimate yet on the age of the Universe: 13.73 billion years.( How do they know this is the best estimate? How do they know the observations are highly accurate?) Its a guess at best.  Just because I can only see 40 miles through my telescope, doesn&#8217;t mean theres nothing beyond that.<br />
If Evolutionists really want to be as objective as they claim from a scientific viewpoint, they also have to admit evolutions short comings.<br />
Once we get to that point. Then the &#8216;Objective&#8217; discussions can really begin.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: earthmuse</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-2242</link>
		<dc:creator>earthmuse</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 22 Sep 2008 20:39:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-2242</guid>
		<description>I.D. are the first 2 letters in 
the word Idiot...

(grins evilly)

From Monty Python &amp; the Most Holiest of Grails...

Arthur: Consult the Book of Armaments! 
Brother Maynard: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one. 
Cleric: And Saint Attila raised the Hand Grenade up on high, saying, &#039;O Lord, bless this Thy Hand Grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies into tiny pieces... in Thy mercy.&#039; 
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chu — 
Brother Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother. 
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, &#039;First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once at the number three, being the third number be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.&#039; 
Brother Maynard: Amen.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I.D. are the first 2 letters in<br />
the word Idiot&#8230;</p>
<p>(grins evilly)</p>
<p>From Monty Python &amp; the Most Holiest of Grails&#8230;</p>
<p>Arthur: Consult the Book of Armaments!<br />
Brother Maynard: Armaments, chapter two, verses nine to twenty-one.<br />
Cleric: And Saint Attila raised the Hand Grenade up on high, saying, &#8216;O Lord, bless this Thy Hand Grenade that, with it, Thou mayest blow Thine enemies into tiny pieces&#8230; in Thy mercy.&#8217;<br />
And the Lord did grin, and the people did feast upon the lambs, and sloths, and carp, and anchovies, and orangutans, and breakfast cereals, and fruit bats, and large chu —<br />
Brother Maynard: Skip a bit, Brother.<br />
Cleric: And the Lord spake, saying, &#8216;First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin. Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three. Four shalt thou not count, neither count thou two, excepting that thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once at the number three, being the third number be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight, shall snuff it.&#8217;<br />
Brother Maynard: Amen.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Kay</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-1886</link>
		<dc:creator>Kay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Jun 2008 05:39:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-1886</guid>
		<description>...telling them to go forth and multiply (but not in those words). 

This is lovely, really. I&#039;m memorizing this for my speech class. And to use against my dear {but Mormon} friend.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8230;telling them to go forth and multiply (but not in those words). </p>
<p>This is lovely, really. I&#8217;m memorizing this for my speech class. And to use against my dear {but Mormon} friend.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: The Portable Atheist - Some Internet Sources &#171; Breaking Spells</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-1220</link>
		<dc:creator>The Portable Atheist - Some Internet Sources &#171; Breaking Spells</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 06 May 2008 05:11:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-1220</guid>
		<description>[...] 32. Michael Shermer, Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] 32. Michael Shermer, Genesis Revisited: A Scientific Creation Story [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mike</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-1085</link>
		<dc:creator>Mike</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 16 Apr 2008 17:48:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-1085</guid>
		<description>&quot;What many secularist fail to recognize is that creationism follows two distinct philosophical lines: Young earth vs old earth.&quot;

Ok, but doesn&#039;t it go without saying that this article only addresses new earth Creationism? Why would you bother pointing out this distinction if the essay doesn&#039;t make an references to old earth Creationism?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;What many secularist fail to recognize is that creationism follows two distinct philosophical lines: Young earth vs old earth.&#8221;</p>
<p>Ok, but doesn&#8217;t it go without saying that this article only addresses new earth Creationism? Why would you bother pointing out this distinction if the essay doesn&#8217;t make an references to old earth Creationism?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JesusFreak</title>
		<link>http://www.michaelshermer.com/2001/12/genesis-revisited/comment-page-1/#comment-803</link>
		<dc:creator>JesusFreak</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 08:09:55 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://michaelshermer.com/writing/2007/07/26/genesis-revisited/#comment-803</guid>
		<description>The weekend is indeed a good idea. Thanks, God!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The weekend is indeed a good idea. Thanks, God!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
