Talk.origins is a Usenet newsgroup devoted to the discussion and debate of biological and physical origins. Most discussions in the newsgroup center on the creation/evolution controversy, but other topics of discussion include the origin of life, geology, biology, catastrophism, cosmology and theology. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ What is talk.origins? ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Talk.origins ("t.o.") is a newsgroup devoted to the discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. Topics discussed include, but are not limited to, evolution, creation, abiogenesis, catastrophism, cosmology, and theology. Be assured that you will find lively, often heated, exchanges between people of all persuasions. Much of the bandwidth of t.o. is used for discussion of the merits of various ideas about origins. Other types of posts, however, are welcome (and, in fact, refreshing!), particularly [MI]: - A scientific Theory of Creation - Personal experiences which have affected your attitudes on the subject - Relevant news, scientific and/or political - Anything original, entertaining, and/or downright brilliant :-) What is the purpose of this file? This file is intended to explain to new participants, in particular those who do not accept the currently dominant scientific explanations of origins [TS], how best to avoid flames. Following these guidelines should facilitate intelligent, thoughtful interaction while minimizing distracting flamage. Though this FAQ is addressed mainly to creationists, the guidelines are general for the most part, and should be followed by everyone. There is also a short section addressed to non-creationists in a later section of this document. Understand, however, that following these guidelines, while we hope it will reduce the heat directed against you, is far from a guarantee that you will be treated politely at all times. Expect your every statement to be gone over with a fine-toothed comb, every assertion to be challenged, every assumption to be questioned. Some of these actions will take the form of polite discourse, but many will not. You can count on being flamed sometimes, no matter how rational you act, no matter how good your arguments are [WE]. These flames, however, will be nothing compared to the flames incurred when someone fails to follow the basic rules of courtesy and argumentation suggested here. How can I get the most out of discussion on t.o.? I am assuming here that your purpose is to engage in rational discourse. Thus, "getting the most out of a discussion" implies a give and take of ideas, with a willingness to consider the ideas and points put forth by one's opponents, and the assumption that he/she has the same willingness. This willingness, however, does not imply that one's opponent will immediately accede to the superior power of one's argument. Remember that the t.o. regulars have been at this a long time, and have seen lots and lots of arguments. With that in mind, let's jump into the guidelines I've been babbling about. Understand your argument - Be prepared! Understand the assumptions behind your argument. Many people come in to the origins debate with some very convincing-sounding arguments about "why evolution can't have happened." These arguments are often based on a vague understanding of some principle of chemistry, physics, probability, or other field. Before you post your argument, make sure you really understand the principles upon which it is based. As one example, if your argument is based on the Second Law of Thermodynamics ("entropy"), make sure that you really know and understand the Second Law. Understand what you're arguing against. Many people have incorrect, or at least very vague, concepts of the various theories of origins, and even the meanings of words like "theory." Perhaps the most common logical fallacies committed by newcomers to t.o. are strawman arguments such as, "If evolution says man evolved from apes, how come there are still apes around?" Since evolution does not say man evolved from apes, such an argument is, of course, pointless. If you read no other FAQ, read Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolution FAQ before you post, to make sure you truly understand what you're arguing against. This FAQ also contains references to textbooks and popular books about evolution. Don't assume your argument's never been heard before. Read the FAQs! A sure way to get the t.o. regulars to check the pilot lights on their flame throwers is to start with an argument they've all heard numerous times before. Even if you came up with an argument yourself, it may have been heard before. Of course, it is perfectly possible that your argument may be one we've never seen before; this section, therefore, is not meant to discourage you from posting your argument altogether [CS]. You will want to do your best, however, to ensure that we haven't seen it before. To do this, you should check the FAQ's, which contain the responses to a large number of these oft-heard questions. T.o. has more FAQ's than the average newsgroup, each dealing with a subset of the numerous types of questions revolving around the issue of origins. The FAQs may be found on the world wide web at http://www.talkorigins.org/. Some of files may also be obtained via anonymous ftp to ftp.ics.uci.edu: /pub/origins. Wesley Elsberry maintains a glossary of terms you are likely to encounter on t.o. [WE] Use Good Argument Style Read and carefully consider the posts to which you respond. Since the question of origins is an emotional issue for many people, they take the often-harsh-seeming responses to their posts personally. This, combined with the excitement of debate, often leads to a downward spiral of posts which are more knee-jerk responses than well-thought-out discussion. Before responding, make sure you have read and considered every point made by your opponent. Also, don't feel the need to respond to every single post directed at you. Often, there will be several posts making essentially the same point. Rather than contributing to the flood of posts by responding to each one individually, it's best to summarize the main points of all the posts, then compose a single, well-thought-out response. Object to specific points in your opponent's argument. We hope that a natural result of following the last guideline will be that you have specific objections to a given argument. Make those specific objections. A frighteningly common strategy, and a sure way to get flamed, is to either: (1) respond to a several-paragraph-long post with a single sentence disclaiming the entire argument, making no effort to show why the argument is wrong, or (2) merely ignore a response, then post a minimally-reworded version of the post to which the original response was directed. Don't be a hit-and-run poster. Posting an assertion, then not responding to any of the responses, is a sure way to get a flood of nasty e-mail. Some folks seem to enjoy the scorn they receive, and have been posting via the hit-and-run method for years. Basically, to avoid being put in the "hit-and-run" category, you should support your assertions. No one is going to be convinced by the rote repetition of an opinion, therefore you should always back up your opinions with evidence and logic. Posting an unsupported assertion is a sure way to induce flames. Doing it numerous times will completely destroy your credibility. [CS] Another hit-and-run tactic is to post objections to one or two examples which someone has used to support an argument, and imply that this destroys the entire argument. Remember that raising difficulties with one or two supporting lines of evidence out of many is not a fatal blow to someone's argument [TS]. Don't abandon a line of argument in the middle and then try to start up another one. This technique is looked upon by regulars as an intentional attempt at avoiding the original argument, and will be taken as an admission that you were wrong. Regulars do not forget when their opponents have abandoned a line of argument. Statements such as, "Well, I'm not sure about that. Let me do some research on it..." will be remembered forever, and you will be reminded from now until doomsday of your implicit promise to get back to that line of argument. (Not that research itself is discouraged, mind you - just the use of research as an excuse to change the subject.) Don't submit scatter-shot posts. [CS] It is common for a new participant to start out by posting a list of objections to evolution. Though this won't get you flamed in and of itself, the common result will. If you post a long list of objections, you can count on getting several posts per objection in return. There is no way any human can deal with the large number of separate discussions which often ensues from this situation, and so it eventually becomes necessary to drop a few of the discussions. Unfortunately, this tends to be seen as a violation of the last guideline. Therefore, it's best to post one well-thought-out objection at a time, thereby avoiding the potential hassle. Be careful and explicit in your use of quotations. [WE, CS, TS] Often, participants in the discussion will quote someone as making a statement supporting or refuting a given idea. If you do this, you must first, of course, check to make sure you aren't committing the fallacy of Argument from Authority. Is your source well informed in the field about which he/she is commenting, and does he/she give any evidence to back up the statement? If the answer to either of these questions is no, then you're arguing from authority. To avoid this fallacy, make sure you're quoting the authority because of the facts or arguments he/she presents, not just because he/she is a respected person [BJ] Just as important as avoiding the Argument from Authority fallacy is making sure your quotations accurately represent the position of the person you're quoting. Make sure you understand, and include, the context of the quotation when you transcribe it (failing at this is a sure way to ignite ire). Avoid clipping words out of the middle of a quotation, but make sure you use ellipses when you do. And always give the source for your quotation or paraphrase, even if the source is an unpublished document such as a church bulletin or seminar handout [TS]. If your quotation is secondary - that is, if you are quoting from a work which is quoting another work - make sure you reference both the original work and the work you're directly quoting. If you reference only the original source of the quotation, without ever seeing it, you are accepting personal responsibility for the accuracy of the quotation [CS]. Miscellaneous suggestions Don't assume that all people who accept evolution are atheists. [TS, PN] A wide variety of religious beliefs is held by scientists in general, and many of these beliefs are held by those on this group. Among the variety of beliefs, you might even find one much like yours. The many religious scientists on this group are likely to be offended when someone makes blanket statements regarding "atheistic evolutionists" or the like. Always keep in mind that evolution is not the same as atheism, and atheism is not a necessary result of acceptance of evolution. For information on the compatibility of God and evolution, read Kurt vonRoeschlaub's God and Evolution FAQ. Understand the limitations of Usenet. This method of communication is exciting and dynamic, but it has a lot of characteristics which make it a less-than-ideal medium for thoughtful, rational discourse. While we can't fix these, we can make them less traumatic by keeping them in mind. a. Posting is easy. Too easy. Therefore, violating the guideline regarding careful consideration of posting becomes very easy to do. Force yourself to stop and consider your posts before you send them. b. It's impossible to be sure of the true emotional motivations behind others' posts, or their implied emotional content. Therefore, it's best to avoid assumptions about the feelings and motivations of others on the net. [WE] c. Time lags are inherent in the system. Some people take longer to get posts than others. When you see a new post which says things you've already responded to, therefore, consider the possibility that the poster has just received an old post of yours. In fact, it is possible that some users may see and respond to a response to a post before ever seeing the original post. This can on occasion result in some bizarre misunderstandings and quotations out of context. Be charitable [TM]. d. Remember that USEnet debates are qualitatively different from speech debates. Speech debates rely as much on style and poise as on substance of one's arguments. On USEnet, however, posters have all the time in the world to think and respond. Over this medium, it is impossible to hide behind impressive-sounding rhetoric. This is why it is so important that you understand your argument and your opponent's before you jump into the debate. [CS] To really impress the regulars, come prepared with a scientific Theory of Creation. The ToC is the Holy Grail of the origins debate - everyone talks about it, but no one's ever seen it. If you argue against evolution, or imply in any way that creationism is scientific, then you can count on being asked to supply a theory. A scientific theory must have predictive value, must be internally consistent, must be falsifiable, and must explain at least those phenomena explained by the currently dominant theory. Thus, such statements as "God created the heavens and the earth..." are not theories, as they are neither predictive nor falsifiable. While no one has ever presented a scientific theory of creation to us, we maintain that it is necessary for an honest comparison of various ideas of origins. Because of the properties listed above, theories provide specific points for comparison of the explanatory value of different ideas. Without a predictive, falsifiable theory of creation, it remains impossible to objectively evaluate the idea of creation. Guidelines for non-creationists [JA] Of course, everyone is expected to follow the general rules of conduct outlined above. Some additional points need to be made, however, specifically to non-creationists. Since there are many people in the science/evolution camp, it can be difficult to resist falling into a group mentality. Before you submit to the temptation to "pile on" to an argument, consider: (1) whether the point you wish to make has already been made, and (2) whether you're really adding anything. Humor is always appreciated, but it often detracts from real discussion to add a content-free post to an already-excessive pileup of responses [JA]. Also, it's a good idea to make sure that you know what you're talking about before you post on a technical topic. Several t.o. regulars have advanced training in the subjects we discuss here - wait for responses from the experts before replying to questions about such topics. Remember that, while what you have read in popularizations of technical topics is not likely to be wrong, it is often overs implified to the point of being misleading. If you post statements based on a gross misunderstanding of some topic, you are just as likely to be reprimanded as a creationist. [PS] If you fail to follow these guidelines, you can count on being soundly flamed within your first several posts. If you continue to post without following them, the flames will get hotter and hotter. Many construe this behavior on the part of the regulars as an unwillingness to discuss their ideas. On the contrary: discussion of various ideas of origins is the very reason we are here. Discussion is likely to be much more productive, however, if all participants agree to follow standard rules of argumentation and etiquette [PN, KvR] Am I really expected to read all these FAQs? Some new participants become offended when they ask a question and are repeatedly told, "Read the FAQ." However, if you think of it from the t.o. regular's perspective, you can see that it must be very frustrating to have someone insist on a spoon-fed explanation when the information can be just as easily found in a concise, well-written document like the t.o. FAQ's. [OA] As I have said, t.o. has a lot more FAQ's than the average group. Therefore, it is probably unrealistic for us to expect you to read them all. You should, however, definitely read those that are relevant to the arguments you intend to make. In addition, if you are directed to a particular FAQ for the answer to a question, don't insist on a personal answer from the person directing you. Make use of the FAQ's when they are relevant. Since most discussions on t.o. revolve in some way around the predictions and assumptions of evolution, most new participants will definitely want to read Chris Colby's Introduction to Evolution FAQ. Other FAQ's deal with specific issues surrounding the debate; if one of those issues is related to your argument, read the FAQ associated with it. Some FAQs which you are likely to find to be relevant are [MI]: - evolution-fact (Larry Moran) - Is evolution a fact or a theory? - faq-transitional (Kathleen Hunt) - Some transitional fossils - faq-age-of-earth (Chris Stassen) - The age of the earth - isochron-dating (Chris Stassen) - How isochron dating works - jury-rigged (Chris Colby) - Evidence for "bad" design - faq-god (Kurt vonRoeschlaub) - Religion and Creation/Evolution - indexcc - An Index to Creationist Claims. How do I get the FAQs? [MI] Visit the Talk.Origins Archive at http://www.talkorigins.org/. We hope that, if you try to follow the suggestions in this file, your experience on t.o. will be a stimulating, educational experience. Welcome aboard! Acknowledgements I would like to thank the following people for their invaluable assistance in the preparation of this file. They offered criticism and suggestions, only a few of which could be adequately acknowledged within the text. Onar Aam Jim Acker Wesley Elsberry Mark Isaak Bill Jefferys Jim Loats Thomas Marlowe Paul Neubacher Tero Sand Thomas Scharle Paul Schinder Chris Stassen (who also suggested the hierarchical organization of Section 3) Brett Vickers Kurt vonRoeschlaub If you have comments, criticisms, or suggestions for improvement of this file, please contact me. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Frequently Asked Questions and their answers ------------------------------------------------------------------------ The following is a list of questions that appear frequently in the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins. Brief answers are given for each question along with a pointer to one or more relevant files. Outside links will open in new windows. Q: What is the purpose of the talk.origins Usenet newsgroup? A: The purpose of the talk.origins newsgroup is to provide a forum for discussion of issues related to biological and physical origins. See the talk.origins Newsgroup Welcome FAQ. Q: What is the purpose of the Talk.Origins Archive? A: The purpose of the TO Archive is to provide easy access to the many FAQ (frequently asked question) files and essays have been posted to the Usenet newsgroup talk.origins. The Archive exists expressly to provide mainstream scientific responses to the many issues that appear in the talk.origins newsgroup. See the Talk.Origins Archive's Welcome Page and the Talk.Origins Archive's Must-Read FAQs. Q: I thought evolution was just a theory. Why do you call it a fact? A: Biological evolution is a change in the genetic characteristics of a population over time. That this happens is a fact. Biological evolution also refers to the common descent of living organisms from shared ancestors. The evidence for historical evolution -- genetic, fossil, anatomical, etc. -- is so overwhelming that it is also considered a fact. The theory of evolution describes the mechanisms that cause evolution. So evolution is both a fact and a theory. See the Evolution is a Fact and a Theory FAQ, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution is Only a theory. Q: Don't you have to be an atheist to accept evolution? A: No. Many people of Christian and other faiths accept evolution as the scientific explanation for biodiversity. See the God and Evolution FAQ and the Interpretations of Genesis FAQ. Q: Isn't evolution just an unfalsifiable tautology? A: No. Evolutionary theory is in exactly the same condition as any other valid scientific theory, and many criticisms of it that rely on philosophy are misguided. See the Evolution and Philosophy FAQ. Q: If evolution is true, then why are there so many gaps in the fossil record? Shouldn't there be more transitional fossils? A: Due to the rarity of preservation and the likelihood that speciation occurs in small populations during geologically short periods of time, transitions between species are uncommon in the fossil record. Transitions at higher taxonomic levels, however, are abundant. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, the Fossil Hominids FAQ, 29 Evidences for Macroevolution: Intermediate and Transitional Forms, the Punctuated Equilibria FAQ, and the February 1998 Post of the Month Missing links still missing!?. Q: No one has ever directly observed evolution happening, so how do you know it's true? A: Evolution has been observed, both directly and indirectly. It is true. See the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Has Never Been Observed and 29 Evidences for Macroevolution. Q: Then why has no one ever seen a new species appear? A: Speciation has been observed, both in the laboratory and in nature. See the Observed Instances of Speciation FAQ and another FAQ listing some more observed speciation events. Q: Doesn't the perfection of the human body prove Creation? A: No. In fact, humans (and other animals) have many suboptimal characteristics. See the Evidence for Jury-Rigged Design in Nature FAQ. Q: According to evolution, the diversity of life is a result of chance occurrence. Doesn't that make evolution wildly improbable? A: Evolution is not simply a result of random chance. It is also a result of non-random selection. See the Evolution and Chance FAQ and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Proceeds by Random Chance. Q: Doesn't evolution violate the second law of thermodynamics? After all, order cannot come from disorder. A: Evolution does not violate the second law of thermodynamics. Order emerges from disorder all the time. Snowflakes form, trees grow, and embryos develop, etc. See the Second Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability FAQs and the Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution FAQ: Evolution Violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. Q: Didn't Darwin renounce evolution on his deathbed? A: The Darwin deathbed story is false. And in any case, it is irrelevant. A scientific theory stands or falls according to how well it is supported by the facts, not according to who believes it. See the Lady Hope Story FAQ. Q: How do you know the earth is really old? Lots of evidence says it's young. A: According to numerous, independent dating methods, the earth is known to be approximately 4.5 billion years old. Most young-earth arguments rely on inappropriate extrapolations from a few carefully selected and often erroneous data points. See the Age of the Earth FAQ and the Talk.Origins Archive's Young Earth FAQs. Q: But radiometric dating methods rely on the assumptions of non-contamination and constant rates of decay. What if these assumptions are wrong? A: Radiometric isochron dating techniques reveal whether contamination has occurred, while numerous theoretical calculations, experiments, and astronomical observations support the notion that decay rates are constant. See the Isochron Dating FAQ and the Age of the Earth FAQ. Q: I heard that the speed of light has changed a lot. This means that light from galaxies billions of light years away might not really be billions of years old. Is this true? A: Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of a decay in the speed of light was based on flawed extrapolations from inaccurate measurements, many of which were taken hundreds of years ago. See the C-Decay FAQ. Q: If Earth is so old, doesn't that mean Earth's decaying magnetic field would have been unacceptably high at one time? A: No. The Earth's magnetic field is known to have varied in intensity and reversed in polarity numerous times throughout the planet's history. See the Alleged Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field FAQ. Q: Isn't the fossil record a result of the global flood described in the Book of Genesis? A: No. A global flood cannot explain the sorting of fossils observed in the geological record. This was recognized even prior to the proposal of evolutionary theory. See the Problems with a Global Flood FAQ, the April 2002 Post of the Month A Flood Geologist Recants and the Talk.Origins Archive's Flood Geology FAQs. Q: What about those fossils that cut through multiple layers? A: They have natural explanations: tree-roots that grew into soft, underlying layers of clay, and fossils found in inclined strata. They can also be observed forming in modern environments. See the "Polystrate" Fossils FAQ. Q: What about those human footprints that appear next to dinosaur footprints? A: The "man-tracks" of the Paluxy Riverbed in Glen Rose, Texas were not man tracks at all. Some were eroded dinosaur tracks, and others were human carvings. See the The Texas Dinosaur/"Man Track" Controversy FAQ. Q: Didn't they find Noah's Ark? I saw something on TV about this. A: The producers of America's 1993 CBS television show, "The Incredible Discovery of Noah's Ark," were hoaxed. Other ark discovery claims have not been substantiated. See the Sun Pictures and the Noah's Ark Hoax FAQ. Q: The odds against a simple cell coming into being without divine intervention are staggering. A: And irrelevant. Scientists don't claim that cells came into being through random processes. They are thought to have evolved from more primitive precursors. See the Probability of Abiogenesis FAQs. Q: Creationists are qualified and honest scientists. How can they be wrong? A: The quality of an argument is not determined by the credentials of its author. Even if it was, a number of well-known creationists have questionable credentials. Furthermore, many creationists have engaged in dishonest tactics like quoting out of context or making up references. See the Suspicious Creationist Credentials FAQ, the Talk.Origins Archive's Creationism FAQs, Quotations and Misquotations and Creationist Arguments: Misquotes Q: What about Immanuel Velikovsky? Didn't he show that Earth has experienced a lot of major catastrophes? A: No, he simply claimed that certain written legends must have described real events. See the Talk.Origins Archive's Catastrophism FAQs and the Velikovsky FAQ. Q: Where can I find more material on the Creation/Evolution debate? A: Contact the National Center for Science Education [off site], or see the Talk.Origins Archive and its "Other links" page. Also see the talk.origins Book Recommendations FAQ and the Creation/Evolution Organizations FAQ. Q: What about "intelligent design"? A: "Intelligent design" (ID) advocates often use the very same arguments that the young-earth creationists have used in the past. The Archive does have some FAQs on Behe's "irreducible complexity", Jonathan Wells's "icons of evolution", and Dembski's "specified complexity" (see questions below). Further essays on "intelligent design" can be found on our sister site, TalkDesign [off site], and at TalkReason [off site]. "The Quixotic Message," or "No Free Hunch" [off site] deals with ID claims in a humorous manner. Q: Doesn't irreducible complexity (as described in Behe's Darwin's Black Box) shown that some biomechanical systems could not evolve gradually, but must have all their parts created at once? A: Behe's "irreducible complexity" considers only an unrealistically simplistic model of evolution. Evolutionary mechanisms that Behe doesn't consider, such as functional change and coevolution, make irreducible complexity not only possible, but expected. See Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe FAQs and Irreducible Complexity Demystified [off site]. Q: Hasn't Jonathan Wells shown that Darwinist claims about such "icons of evolution" as the peppered moth, Haeckel's embryos, and Darwin's finches have been disproven? If so, why are these claims still found in biology textbooks? A: Scientists have been complaining for decades about the poor quality of science instruction in school and about the content of science textbooks. However, Dr. Wells's arguments include many false statements, many misunderstandings of the science involved, and many misunderstandings of the significance of the subjects that he pontificates on. See the Icons of Evolution FAQs and The Talented Mr. Wells [PDF format, off site]. Q: Doesn't William Dembski's "specified complexity" mean that an intelligent designer had to be responsible for the observed complexity and diversity of living things? A: The sophistication of Dembski's arguments is superficial. One of the most thorough examinations of Dembski's ideas is available on the Archive. See: Not a Free Lunch But a Box of Chocolates, A Presentation Without Arguments [off site], Mr. Dembski's Compass [off site] and The AntiEvolutionists: William A. Dembski [off site]. Q: Isn't it true that scientists are abandoning evolution? A: That is not even remotely true. See: The Imminent Demise of Evolution: The Longest Running Falsehood in Creationism [off site], Project Steve: Humorous Testing of the Scientific Attitudes Toward "Intelligent Design," and Amicus Curiae Brief of 72 Nobel Laureates Q: If evolution is true, why don't you take Dr. Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge and make yourself rich? A: Kent Hovind's $250,000 challenge is a propaganda ploy and nothing more, rather like the "doctorate" Hovind claims from Patriot University. See: Kent Hovind FAQs: Examining "Dr. Dino." Q: Don't you know that the earth is round? A: Yes, we do. We keep a copy of the "International Flat Earth Society" flyer here to document that real people in modern times do assert that the earth is flat, not because we think the earth is flat See: Documenting the Existence of "The International Flat Earth Society." Q: Where can I learn more about evolution? A: You might start with the talk.origins FAQs. If, however, you want a thorough understanding of evolution, a library would be a more appropriate place to look. The following FAQs provide some good references: the Creation/Evolution Reading List, the Introduction to Evolutionary Biology FAQ, the "What is Evolution?" FAQ, and the Talk.Origins Archive's Evolution FAQs. Q: Isn't the Talk.Origins Archive just some website that has no particular credibility? Those FAQs and essays aren't peer-reviewed, and many are written by interested laymen rather than specialists, so they can be ignored, right? A: We encourage readers not to take our word on the issues, but rather to look at the primary literature and evaluate the evidence. While materials on the Archive have not necessarily been subjected to formal peer-review, many have been subjected to several cycles of commentary in the newsgroup prior to being added to the Archive. Most of our materials provide links and/or bibliographic references to enable the reader to evaluate the evidence for themselves. While anyone can decide to ignore our materials, the Archive has been recognized as a valuable online resource by many well-known groups, magazines, and individuals. Further, a number of college courses have chosen to use materials from the Archive in their coursework. See: Awards, Honors, and Favorable Notices for The Talk.Origins Archive.