Czarcasm can you please change the title. Creation vs. Evolution. Im sorry about that mistake. Thanks
…man i love all the friends im making on these boards. Im sorry you dont deem the bible as scientific, it is. Thanks for all the responses all. I will see what i can write in the morning im a little tired now. 
Love you all
Do you have a clue what “scientific” means?
Meatros: I’m definitely with you and all the other “evolutionists” here, but Nomadic_One did get at least one thing right in his nonsensical creed: the full title of Origin of Species is, except for three typos, exactly as he gave it. And it’s there on the site in your link, specifically here.
Of course, his use of the term “race” does not mean that Darwin was racist, but boy, have all the creationists jumped on that word to smear him (and by association, all us “evolutionists”)! A few sites that counter the racist slander are here and here.
It’s been 20 years since I read Origin, but I seem to recall that he used “race” as a sort of sub-class of species. But someone who has read it more recently will provide a better explanation.
I’m an evolutionist, and I’m also a molecular biologist. I can’t see how I could possibly do my work with creationism as an intellectual framework. But if you can give scientific answers to the following questions, I’ll consider the possibility that creation science might be right:
1.) Why do the calculated phylogenetic trees (ie “family trees”) of orthologous proteins agree with the pattern of relationships between species which evolutionists claim to have reconstructed from the fossil record?
2.) Why do unrelated proteins serve similar functions in cases where evolutionists claim that those functions evolved independently in the fossil record? (For example, odorant binding proteins in vertebrates and insects, and lens crystallins in vertebrates and molluscs.)
3.) Why does the arrangement of genes and pseudogenes in the hemoglobin clusters correlate with their calculated phylogenetic trees?
4.) Why are similar functions sometimes served by completely different proteins? Why are completely different functions sometimes served by similar proteins?
5.) Why do retrogenes lack introns, and have a poly-A tail? Why are they sometimes cut short? Why are they flanked by repeat sequences which are characteristic of transposons and other inserted sequences?
6.) Why do pseudogenes exist? How do you explain their observed features?
7.) Why do transposons exist? Why do some transposons carry pseudogenes for transposases?
8.) Why do introns exist? How do you explain their observed features?
9.) Why are exons predominantly of class 1-1? Why is exon class conserved when particular exons appear over and over again in different proteins?
10.) Why do pseudoexons exist?
11.) Why do we see the observed mutation rates (creationists might prefer to think of them as “observed number of differences”) for different classes of genetic information? Why do pseudogenes differ between species roughly as much as introns and fourfold degenerate sites do, while protein coding genes differ much less?
12.) Why do amino acids on the outside of proteins show higher mutation rates (or observed differences, if you prefer) than amino acids in the hydrophobic core or active sites of proteins?
Oops! I missed Tinker Grey’s post making the same point I did. Sorry.
Nomadic_One, does it it bother you that you are repeating lies? Your sources of information are those I call the Nine Commandment Christians, since they generally wish to exclude the prohibition against bearing false witness in their screeds.
Here are a couple of quick examples:
While there were racists among the early proponents of the Theory of Evolution, Darwin was not one of them and he never proposed that the “Negro” was a “lower” species than the “Caucasian.”
The only hoax associated with Nebraska man is the one perpetrated by Creationists. The teeth of pigs and primates share a number of similarities. In reality, a tentative identification of the tooth as coming from a primate (not even an ape) was made in 1922 and almost immediately dismissed by the scientific community. The claim was retracted by its author within a couple of years and was never a “hoax” that went on for “years.”
Again, the only lie is that of your source. Dr. Duboise never claimed a “half man/half ape.” He identified a specific set of bones (correctly) as belonging to a pre-human ancestor and later changed his mind regarding the specific category it should be accorded. However, Java Man was not a composite and Duboise never hid its origins–he just disagreed with other scientists regarding its classification. (Even the “giant gibbon” phrase is a lie, in which the Creationists take a phrase out of context to twist what Duboise actually described.)
Is there a particular reason why it is acceptable for Christians (or so they claim) such as Hovind and Gish to bear false witness against Duboise, Osborn, and Darwin?
OK. You convinced me. I’m an evolution believer!
but the earth’s still flat… right?
I will change the title;
Will you show us that you know what “evolution” even means?
Oh look! The fundie can make baseless assertions!
I’m with Diogenes the Cynic. Could you please tell the audience what would make you possibly think that the Bible has any validity as a scientific reference manual?
Right. There’s nothing to sphere but sphere itself. 
Considering the number of factual errors, the number of contradictions, and the complete lack of physical evidence presented by the bible, no, it is not. It is a collection of anecdotal stories, which may or may not be true. Any chance you can explain why the bible is scientific?
Furthermore, most of the article seems to be using Chick tracts as the basis for their information. It is, quite simply, wrong:
There have been many observed cases of microevolution, and observed cases of speciesation. That’s pretty clear to me.
“Only one possible solution” is a bit of a simplification. A more acurate statement would be, “the only possible solution with any solid evidence supporting it.”
Demonstrated… Where?
Simply absurd. The process that brought forth life can, indeed be analyzed under the scientific method. Every possibility can be tried. If only one theory shows any success - as it happens to be, now - then it’s reasonable to assume that was probably how it happened.
Another absurd statement. First off, there is a big difference between the common conception of “race” as black/white/hispanic/etc, and race/species in the sense of lions/bears/wolves/etc. And second, other people using something as a platform for immoral purposes does not invalidate that thing in itself (If it did, then consider that christianity, having been around hundreds upon hundreds of years longer than the theory of evolution, has been used for far more evil than evolution could be considered to have been. When using logical fallacies, it’s particularly bad to pick one that works against you).
The “Mein Kampf” example is, quite simply… Stupid. I wouldn’t be surprised if “God” appeared “over and over” in that book. Or Germany. Or people, for that matter. Are all these things bad simply because Hitler spoke (wrote, in this case) the word for them? Of course not. And congratulations on the early Godwinization of the thread. If it weren’t for the incredible length of the OP, you’d probably win some sort of SDMB award for the speed that one came up, I’m sure.
Funny, they seem to do just as well pushing those “vile philosophies” with gods, currently. Perhaps better. It’s probably easier to whip religious fanatics into an irational frenzy than it is to do the same to rational thinkers.
Bzzzzt. Evolution has nothing at all to do with the Big Bang, as already mentioned several times (I just wanted to include it to be thorough).
The Big Bang theory is that the big bang created all of space-time. The moment of the big bang was the very begining ot time (T=0). There was nothing before the big bang, because there was no before.
Not true. We have no way of knowing how many planets out there are capable of supporting life in some form. Even on just Earth, alone, the odds aren’t too high (I think I remember some creationist claiming the chance of ambiogenisis was around 1 in 1 million… Per year). Even if it’s only one in one million total, then by those odds, there are probably thousands if not millions of planets in the universe that could have formed life. Further, while you claim that even the most basic of life is more complex than a computer, laboratory tests have shown that organic materials can form from inorganic ones in conditions such as the early earth (Amino acids, primarily), and also in a later test, that such simple early materials, when prompted by stimuli (I forget what, but I think it was heat, something that was easily found back then) would form up into a ball almost identical to cells.
Just “no?” No attempt at an explanation? Probably for the better.
As noted above, Carbon-14 dating is only one form of radiometric dating. I’ll leave the finer details to someone who knows more about it than me. However, do you (Or the original author) have any cites for any of the above? I suspect context may be important…
Not true at all:
Ramapithecus: Scientists originally considered a hominid species, and possibly an ancestor to humans. Eventually they came to the conclusion that it was a closer relative to Orangutan than humans. “Evolutionists” produced the truth here.
Nebraska Man: This was widely suspected from the start. In the same year it was discovered, many scientists pointed out that it was impossible to extrapolate a whole species from a single tooth. Many questioned wether it was even from a primate. Eventually, they proved that it was false. Again, “evolutionists” produced the truth.
Piltdown Man: Probably the closest one you have, but not really. This was a case of someone with good knowledge in the field, trying to provide a false creation for his own gain. The only reason it did so well was because the people involved knew enough to make it plausible, and there had still been little in the way of discoveries. As more and more ancient hominids were found, Piltdown was seen as more and more out of place. Eventually, of course, they figured out that they had been hoaxed. It took a while, but eventually, the “evolutionists” figured out the truth, even when presented with a skilled hoax.
Peking Man: They weren’t apes, that’s for sure. The largest skullcap, at 1225cc, was twice as large as that of a large male gorilla. Also, while the originals are gone, we still have the casts (Not models, an important difference), photographs, measurements, and even x-rays.
Australophithecus Afarensis (Lucy): Solly Zuckerman promoted the theory that Lucy was just an ape in the '50s, and started some debate on it, but the evidence was against that idea and it was abandoned. Creationists still like to bring it up like it’s commonly accepted to be true, however… Oxnard tried to prove it again in the 70s, but his data used measurements of often fragmented or poorly-preserved bones, and ignored important details such as how they effected locomotion.
Java man: It’s not from a gibbon, the skullcap has ten times the volume of a gibbon. A giant gibbon? Just where did that come from? And further, Duboise never reversed his possition. He stated eventually that it was “a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons,” but always maintained that it was bipedal, had much to large of a brain capacity for an ape, and was an ancestor to humans. Saying he revealed it as a “lie” is, well, a lie.
The National geographic Dinosaur: National Geographic foolishly rushed publication on the Archaeoraptor before scientists had a chance to peer-review the fossil. Sure enough, when the scientists did, they revealed it as fake, within two weeks. “Evolutionists” finding the truth, yet again.
Check out talkorigins’s cite on human evolution sometime.
Useless. You’re about as likely to win the argument by saying “faith in the word of Darwin.” However, scientists have higher standards (Hence the practice of peer review).
Ahh. I remember working this one out in high school. A 6000-year figure only works if the population’s growth rate for those 6000 years averaged modern rates of growth. However, I don’t think there’s been any period in time where growth rates have been as high (Birth rates, maybe, but death rates are way down). Further, there are notable periods when the human population was stagnant or declining (Dark ages, IIRC). And also as noted, humans would have had to live through a huge number of potentially extinction-level meteorite impacts in those 6000 years, if that’s how old the world is.
And, of course, it ignores the various known facts about geology. Fossils just don’t form that quick, for example.
There are numerous links. However, the creationists have a nice possition. They can ask for the missing links. Scientists find one between apes and humans. Creationists ask for the missing links between those three. Scientists find some. Creationists ask for the missing links between those ones. If one can’t supply every single missing link, then the creationists still have something to point to. BFD.
There are nearly universal folklore stories of dragons. Shall we accept this as proof dragons exist?
The whole flood/noah’s arc bit was done quite well in another thread already, but I can’t find it. The few bits I remember was that it would takes dozens (Or was it hundreds?) of times more water than exists on earth, to cover the earth as was told in the bible. The estimated 15,754 would take up a HUGE amount of space (And that’s not including amphibians, and invertabrates like slugs). And that’s 15,754 animals for 40 days. That’s a lot of food. Hell, that’s a lot of weight, estimated at about 5,000 metric tons. The longest modern wooden ships are 300 feet long, and require iron straps to reinforce them, and yet still leak badly enough that they have to be constantly pumped; the ark was 450 feet and had no such problems. There are serious issues about fitting brachiosaurs, tyrannosaurs, and such all on the ark (The only way young-earth creationists can figure out dinosaur fossils are the bodies of those that died in the flood being burried, and this means there were dinosaurs alive then. This is, of course, bunk, but hey… Note also that dinos weren’t factored into the weight calculations above). Enough water vapor in the atmosphere to rain just 40 feet (Far less than the Bible’s flood) would have raised the atmosphere’s pressure dramatically, so that oxygen and nitrogen levels would have been toxic. Then there’s the ludicrious theory of the geological record being formed in the flood; The formation of the magma structures alone in those 40 days would release enough heat to vaporize the earth’s oceans.
Creationists love to say this, but they never understand it.
The Earth is not a closed system. We get energy input from the sun, as it “decays.” The “decay” of the sun currently outweighs the increase in order on earth. Under thermodynamics, certain portions of the system may increase in complexity, so long as the overal system decreases. Even with evolution, we aren’t breaking from that.
Further, we’ve got examples of individual parts becoming more complex without a “higher power” in the form of ambiogenesis experiments (Unless you count “higher power” as in arranging to setup a situation just like the early earth for the experiment).
#1 is more of an argument against the Big Bang, but I’ll address it as well. According to the big bang theory, matter didn’t have to be created. It has simply always existed… Ever since the begining of the universe (See T=0 again).
Anecdotal stories, many of which are done better by other mythologies? You’ll have to do better than that…
As far as I can tell, this statement does not actually mean anything. Explain?
Endnote: Good grief, I think that’s the longest thing I’ve written in my entire time here. I’m going to go cool off my brain, now… Hope I didn’t make any mistakes in there…
I thought about trying to post a serious, intellectually responsible reply to the OP(s), but really, what’s the point? There’s no actual argument there, it’s just a lot of unsupported assertions, leavened with the odd outright lie. (Anyone who wants the actual straight dope on the science vs. creationism “debate” should please refer to the Talk.Origins Archive.)
So, you’re saying creationism is prevalent in places where people are ignorant?
“So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political, and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.” – Gary North, “The Intellectual Schizophrenia of the New Christian Right”, The Failure of the American Baptist Culture, p. 25.
“The Christian goal for the world is the universal development of Biblical theocratic republics, in which every area of life is redeemed and placed under the lordship of Jesus Christ and the rule of God’s law.” – David Chilton, Paradise Restored, Appendix A: The Eschatology of Dominion: A Summary
“The present world’s population of people is said to be nearly 6 billion. It is expected to rise to 8.9 billion by 2030, and reach 10 to 14 billion by 2050…[M]ost of the ways proposed and being tried to control the human population is blindness, foolishness, immoral and thus infringes upon the God-given rights of the weakest and most innocent of the human community. There is a better and more sane way to control the human population without allowing immorality, without doing injustice to anyone and while not seeking to discourage pronatalist views among the human population…[T]he way to control the population growth is through the increase of the human mortality rate by legitimate means. Not through the crimes of abortions, infanticide, euthanasia and etc; but through the automatic DEATH PENALTY for the broad spectrum of deeds that are high crimes in the sight of the true GOD…blasphemy against the true God; idolatry; breaking the Lord’s day; dishonor to parents; murder; adultery; incest; homosexuality; bestiality; rape; kidnapping; seeking to destroy the righteous; putting to death the innocent (such as putting innocent embryos and fetuses to death in abortions); seeking to overthrow God’s appointed authority, etc…This principle of controlling the population would positively affect the economic prosperity of nations, positively affect the health and increase the life expectancy of lawabidding citizens, properly educate the human race, positively affect the family structure, overwhelmingly reduce crime, etc. Every legitimate aspect of the human society would benefit greatly.” – Robert T. Lee, “Controlling the World’s Population”
Paul was a hater of reason and a fan of self-sealing logic: if they disagree with you, this just goes to show you that they’re wrong. His warnings work for and against any view at all: anyone can play that cheap game. And if you disagree with me on that, well that just goes to show how throughly you’ve been corrupted, and how arrogant you are.
Actually, even your account contains bits of the creationist distortion of the truth. No one extrapolated a whole species from a tooth in the way that it is often described. What happened was that the Illustrated London News (a popular newspaper, not a scientific journal) had an artist draw a rendition of early man’s ancestors. But though the story was about the tooth, it WASN’T based on the tooth: it was based on the Java man. And the article even contained the disclaimer that the "reconstruction is merely the expression of an artist’s brilliant imaginative genius.” Even then scientists still criticized it as being misleading, and it was never reprinted until creationists discovered it as a usual PR tool to spin lies about (in their account, they make it sound like “scientists” all conspired to publish a reconstructed picture based solely on the tooth, when in reality, even the tooth wasn’t ever taken all that seriously in the first place.)
More here:
http://members.cox.net/ardipithecus/evol/lies/lie020.html
But don’t read if you don’t want to see yet another litany of blatant creationist dishonesty.
“Sigh”
Puts a check mark through one of the annoying threads we have not seen in a while.
Nomadic_One, you have reached an age now when you can either choose to drown in the ignorance of someone else’s confused thinking or you can be open to the possibility that evolution, in itself, is not an “anti-God” science.
I don’t know how much of the information that you posted is what your friend gave you to post. But I do know that parts of your OP are word for word what is on other websites. It is really important at SDMB that you think for yourself and express your own opinions rather than just borrowing meaningless phrases and words like elitiest educrates and the like. Those are not the words of someone who has learned to love his fellowman. SDMB can be a good place for you to practice the thinking skills that you are going to need when you are on your own soon.
Two suggestions:
-
Express your opinions in your own words and then, if you need to, provide a link to support your ideas. (It’s very important to back up what you say with factual information. Don’t just base your opinions on someone else’s opinions.)
-
Educate yourself on the different points of view before you decide what is right for you. And you have all the time in the world to do that!
One of the fairest accessments of the divergent views on how life has been created is at this site: http://www.religioustolerance.com/sci_rel.htm
You will find many, many interesting links about science and religion – with differing opinions. You may be particularly interested in the link on creationism and evolution.
It’s a good place to start and I don’t think that you will find yourself insulted by it. Yet it is easy to follow.
Let us know what you think or if there are parts of what is said that you would like to discuss. Okay?
I hope that I am not sounding to patronizing. I don’t mean to be. I’m just the remnants of what used to be a high school teacher and I still love young people. I’m not trying to change your religious faith, but I am hoping that at some point you will have a different understanding of science.
Peace.
Holy crap.
And I mean that in every way and with every erg of irony I can wring from it.
However, most has already been covered. As much as I’d like to post “Cite?” after each of your biblical quotes, I’ll content myself with a reiteration of an old favorite:
Ah, yes. Yet another who asks “What was there before the Big Bang?”, but feels that a perfectly valid answer to “So where did God come from?” is God is eternal. He always was, and always will be.
I’m still waiting for a creationist to explain that one to me.
Apparently since the Bible doesn’t specifically say, nor even hint, as to God’s own origins, then the only explanation must be that he always existed.
However, even though through testable data gathered over decades we can reliably and repeatably postulate that the universe is expanding, and can thus by extension theorize that it must have begun that expansion at some point, this was not mentioned in the Bible, and runs contrary to the concepts of the “Young Earth” and Creationism, and thus could not possibly be true.
Care to give me the Cliff’s Notes version of an answer to that, Nomadic_One, but without quoting the Bible? (Which is no more a scientific source than a Harry Potter novel.)
I would hardly call him a freind then if I were you.Anyone who would send me onto a battlefield armed with a rubber chicken, assuring me it was a grenade could be no better than the worst kind of miscreant.Andrew Thone is either sending you into class with a “Kick Me” sign on your backor he is the type of person who would replace the contents of a diabetic friend’s insulin vials with some type of oil to watch him suffer.At best he is grossly uneducated.
If you(or he) would like to know more about evolution theory or fact I would be glad to help or point you towards a more qualified source of information(as I am not a biologist myself) just as I am sure you would be so inclinde to help me if I were stuck on some niggling detail about the Bible.
I must insist on honesty in any case though(foreign as that concept is to most Biblical literalists).
Zoe, really really excellent post. :claps long and loud:
Ben, I love your famous 12 Stumper Questions, but of course no one ever even attempts to answer them – they’re way too technical. Sometime, could you expand the list by defining a few terms, providing a few examples, etc.? (I realize the matter is so highly specialized that this may not be possible.) But if that list were in a shape where a somewhat-educated person would not merely go “huh” when presented with it, but be intrigued, I’d show it around to quite a few people. Just a comment, not intended as a criticism.
Nomadic_One, it’s obvious from the OP that you haven’t read much if any material on creation/evolution on this board. I’m a little insulted, as an SDMB member, that you presume to come and teach us, when you have no idea what’s gone down before you got here. You’ve been a member long enough that if you’re interested in the topic, you have no excuse for not reading up on it here. If you sincerely wanted to convince people of anything, that would be the least you could do. Otherwise, your post comes off as a grudging duty on your part. “See, Lord, I showed them the truth, and they wouldn’t listen.” Have a little more respect for this community. We’ve been back and forth over this topic since the very beginning. You’re not the first one to have thought of it.
Well thank you all for showing your opinions on my post. I will try to get to answer the questions but i need to go to work and I need a little more time. First of all I want to say I am a little shocked that no one agreed with me. Usually when I post a topic of this nature on other message boards (there are quite a few) I usually get some pro responses. I find that intriguing. Well please know that I do get both sides of these topics. I have googled this so many times I must be their number one user. And this isnt just the conservative side of the issue I look at the evolution side just as often as I look at the Creationism side, if not more. At this time you will be thinking …man that kid is really ignorant or blind. I try not to be. MEB I have even used that newsgroup from time to time. interesting stuff. Well I’ll answer most of your rhetorics later tongiht. thanks again…lol i thought you would have at least liked that joke.