Just an FYI for folks interested in this: The National Academy of Sciences put out a second edition of their publication, Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences.
This is a major revision from their 1984 edition, updated with the latest discoveries in evolutionary science and including refutations of “new” intelligent design creationism claims.
If you’d like to preview or download it, you can find it at: http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/ .
Justin:
Tom~
Sorry for that last post. I really didn’t hit SEND and was amazed when it took of.
At any rate,
Justin
I am always amazed that the creationists only believe in nine commandments. For some reason, they don’t seem to think that “Thou shalt not bear false witness. . . .” applies to them.
The story of Darwin’s death-bed conversion was created by Mrs. James Hope, widow of the British admiral, in an address to the students of the Northfield Seminary in Massachusetts in 1882. The story was quickly proven false when Darwin’s daughter pointed out that Mrs. Hope had never visited the Darwin home on any occasion–and certainly not during Darwin’s last hours. Nevertheless, biblical creationinsts continue to propagate this lie.
As to Justin’s other conclusions: a) I am not aware that atheists are miserable as a natural condition of life; b) if majority rules, then Christians should have converted to Buddhism long ago (and Protestants should have converted to the much larger Catholic Church just before they all became Buddhists).
Tom~
tomndebb said:
Well, you know, it’s one of the less-important commandments. When you compare it to the overall goal of getting people to believe in their god, I guess it’s just not a big deal to lie – as long as you’re lying for God.
“Most creatures prefer a warm lie to a cold truth. If you make them feel good, the masses will love you. If you make them think, they will hate you. I warn you: He who dares disturb the sleepwalk of masses, prepares for nightmare.”
– Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
I would like to thank Justin for sharing his little rant with us. Blocks of capitalized letters always help put your point across.
I had always felt that Darwin showed a great deal of faith in his writings, even if he annoyed representatives of some organized religions. But, to repeat myself, a person’s faith or religion are irrelevant to questions on biology.
Justin- we have a very nice religion thread going for that sort of discussions. We try to keep the topic here on the debate between “Evilutionists” and “Cretinists”. If you would like to share any reasons why you feel descent with modification is an invalid model for the history of life on this planet, please do. If your “evidence” is “Because the Bible and my pastor tell me so” then bring it to the Great God Debate threads.
Dr. Fidelius, Charlatan
Associate Curator Anomalous Paleontology, Miskatonic University
“You cannot reason a man out of a position that he did not reach through reason.”
Oh, and Justin, we were not discussing atheism versus theism here. I don’t know where you got that idea.
DrFidelius said:
Because (ok, I’m sure you know this, but I’ll say it anyway) many creationists don’t understand the difference. To them, arguing against creationism is an atheistic position. Damn the facts, either you’re a creationist or an atheist!
“Most creatures prefer a warm lie to a cold truth. If you make them feel good, the masses will love you. If you make them think, they will hate you. I warn you: He who dares disturb the sleepwalk of masses, prepares for nightmare.”
– Richard Walker, The Running Dogs of Loyalty: Honest Reflections on a Magical Zoo
Yep, that’s pretty much their MO. It’s a key part of the ad hominem attacks they inevitably resort to when defending their ludicrously indefensible hypothesis. Michael Shermer talks about it in Why People Believe Weird Things, when he was in a public evolution-creation debate with the noted super-creationist Duane T. Gish:
I think it’s an attempt to drag the whole debate from the realm of scientific inquiry, where they secretly know they can’t win, to the domain of religion where they consider themselves the victors by default. They do it a lot.
How did fecal matter evolve?
¾È ³ç, ÁÖ µ¿ ÀÏ
Here’s a little thought on the “Intelligent Design” argument. A creator who designed the extinction of 98 percent of all species that ever roamed the planet might NOT be considered too damn intelligent after all.
This gives god a 2 percent success rate in species-making. Hows THEM odds?
Ah, but Slythe, he planned it that way so that people like you would make that argument and test the faith of those who truly believe.
“We must fight any attempt on the part of the fringers and irrationalists to call to their side the force of the state. … That we must fight to the death.”
– Isaac Asimov
… so the zookeeper was astounded to see the monkey reading, both the Bible and Darwin’s Origin of Species. Howcome? he asked. “Well,” said the monkey, “I wanted to figure out if I was my brother’s keeper, or if I was my keeper’s brother.”
Chimpanzee’s thoughts while in the zoo:
“Am I my keeper’s brother?”
BeerUser said:
It didn’t. It just happens.
=================================
Since this controversy has reared its ugly head once again, I thought I’d bring this one up front.
Boy, you do like resurrections, Polycarp, don’t you? What, two evolution threads not enough for ya? Oh, I forgot…you like things in sets of three. Or do you think all three evolution threads are actually the same thread? 
“Happiness is nonetheless true happiness because it must come to an end, nor do thought and love lose their value because they are not everlasting.”
So! How 'bout them pseudogenes and introns, huh?
I got your missing links right here…
No, seriously.
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/events/99/feather/
Recently in China, more fossils were uncovered. The fossils seem very likely to be those of what can best be described as dinosaurs with feathers.
They are: Sinornithosaurus millenii, which was “covered with feathers… could leap but not fly,” according to the photo caption.
The other animal is Archeoraptor liaoningensis, which had feathers and was very likely capable of flight.
If you go to the above link and then scroll down, you’ll see other links to other stories describing other recent dinosaur fossil discoveries, including a feathered dinosaur fossil found in Argentina two years ago called Unenlagi comahuensis. It is described as “the most bird-like dinosaur ever found.”
Further information on the Chinese fossils will be published in the November issue of National Geographic, which ought to be available even now.
If these fossils do not convince people that birds are descended from dinosaurs, then I don’t know what will.
Those who do not learn from the past are condemned to relive it. Georges Santayana
For some, the answer is: “Nothing.” 
Well, the fossils certainly indicate to me that there existed at one point bird-like dinosaurs and dinosaur-like birds. But then, a bat is a bird-like mammal, and it doesn’t imply that mammals evolved from birds, or vice versa.
-andros-
Friendly Neighborhood Advocatus Diaboli™
And I noticed that National Geographic link didn’t give dates for these fossil finds. Was archaeoraptor 90M years old, or 150M years old?
I cite those figures specifically, because Archaeopteryx fossils date to about 150M years ago, while the earliest Raptor-like dinosaur fossils (before the discovery of Eoraptor, at least) dated to only 90M years ago – meaning that Archaeopteryx couldn’t have evolved from any of those newer raptor-like dinosaurs.
Quick-N-Dirty Aviation: Trading altitude for airspeed since 1992.