Chromosome challenge

[Malak]

Originally posted by: dgevert

Fine, I'll make it a question. Where is the evidence for creationism? Real, actual evidence, not an argument from ignorance or pseudophilosophical blather?

Not my fault you're offended by the truth.

I'm here to discuss science. Creationism isn't science. It's not a "Highly Technical" topic. You want me to discuss creationism with you? Fine, I can take it over to Politics, where I can discuss the dishonest motives of the creationist movement and the credentials of its leaders. Would you like to do that, or would it offend you to learn that the people who have been preaching to you are liars?

With responses like that, why would I ever bother discussing anything with you? Anyone with a clear open mind can see you don't care to discuss anything, you just want a target to flame. You sir are a troll.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: JAGedlion
I must say, I love how everyone is saying how wrong the creationist is, without giving any reasons that hold any water, and the responses of the creationist that are similarly empty.

He continually is claiming that "macroevolution" is not scientifically accepted. Then he throws out the "it'll never be more than a theory" line.

At this point, debate is impossible. You're dealing with two possibilities. Possibility one is that he's ignorant (and wishes to stay that way) about science in general and biology in particular. Possibility two (and sadly, probably the more likely one) is that he's not ignorant about science in general or the specifics in this case, but is deliberately attempting to mislead others. Others may try to post links, but he'll ignore them, for one of those two reasons. Then he'll claim that no one really wants to give him information.

The reason there is no intelligent debate is because one side has nothing intelligent to contribute to the debate. Therefore, they pull out every fallacy in the book, and repeat them a lot, because lots of noise gets attention.

 

[Gilby]

With responses like that, why would I ever bother discussing anything with you? Anyone with a clear open mind can see you don't care to discuss anything, you just want a target to flame. You sir are a troll.

Possibly. But you're a con artist who isn't interested in any sort of debate as you know you don't have anything real to back you up. And even so, he continues to provide support for his arguments while you do no more than attack and back up your claims with your own claims.

So on second thought, troll doesn't seem to be the proper word to describe him. I admit he's highly contemptuous of your arguments...but your arguments really lack any sort of reason and logic and deserve any and all contempt. I admit he's highly contemptuous of you...but again....

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: malak
With responses like that, why would I ever bother discussing anything with you? Anyone with a clear open mind can see you don't care to discuss anything, you just want a target to flame. You sir are a troll.

"Clear open mind" - what do you mean by this? If you want to demand that I give your religion the same (and the same type) of respect that well-established science gets from me, you're going to be sorely disappointed. Don't expect me to treat religious dogma with any kind of reverence; nothing is accomplished by not challenging ideas. I've debated dozens upon dozens of creationsts, and I know enough to know that they never provide actual evidence for their beliefs.

I'm sorry, but I'm not going to sit here and treat creationism as a scientific movement when it's not. It's a political movement, and always has been.

 

[imported_tss4]

I think its kind of interesting that creationalism can't coexist with evolution. I mean really, think about it. The problem is that quite a few christians insist on taking every word of the bible literally. But you have to remember that the bible was written by god BUT through men. Thus, man's inability to grasp what he was showing them was present. If you look at the bible a little more symbocially, its actually quite correct on describing big bang, the creation of earth and even evolution. First there was light... (big bang), animals created before man, etc. Imagine a man from before the birth of christ trying to make sense of evolution. It might come out exactly as the bible has it written.

 

[Peter]

Well, the one thing we know is the Bible, as well as all other "one true" books we have on the planet, was written by humans, with the aid of whatever weed was popular in these days.

In case of the Bible in particular, we also know it has been substantially rewritten many times over through the centuries, for POLITICAL reasons. The One Truth, to be taken literally? Hardly. Is the Earth flat? No. We know that. Several people have been "up there" to witness. We have photos and video footage. Still, the bible says so. With pictures. Now what?

(Remember the scientific rule that _one_ negative example is enough to topple a theory? In this case, the theory that the Bible is to be taken literally*.)

*my fingers wrote "seriously" at first ...

 

[Jack31081]

I found this quote on Fark the other day and saved it. Seems like this thread could use an injection of common sense:

The thing that gets me is, evolution is a solid scientific theory that is not religious in nature. Evolution does not claim to answer the question "where did we come from". Even traced back to "The Big Bang", if you'd consider that part of evolution, there is no explanation as to where the materials that went "bang" actually came from. There are theories, but that's getting more into physics than evolution. At no point in all of my public education regarding science was I ever taught or lead to believe anything anti- or pro-religion. And as for me personally, I am not religious. Though I speculate that god does not exist, I fully understand that it is possible that I may be wrong. And science has nothing to do with with my position, and I don't think there are many people that would use science as "proof" there is no god.

As I'm sure someone has said at every point in recorded human history that this discussion has occured, why not teach the most sound, currently accepted science in the schools and leave the teaching of faith where it belongs, home, church, community, etc. If faith must adapt to science as more knowledge becomes available, so be it. It's been done many times before and religion is still going strong. There's nothing to be afraid of, the existance of God will never be proved or disproved, and will forever remain an article of faith.

The people that demand some 'proof' of creationism are just as absurd as those that demand evolutionary theory to explain exactly how every species evolved from every other species, right here, right now. Evolutionary theory will likely never be able to explain everything. No scientific theory explains everything having to do with its topic. That's why science still exists. We're always finding out more and always adapting our theories to our current state of knowledge. Scientific theories take all the evidence at the time and construct the best working explanation of a phenomenon so that we can make sense of the world around us, much in the same way religion was created to explain the world around us.

On the other hand, religion is based on faith. God's existence, or any part of religion, will never be proven or disproven. That's not what being a person of faith is about. Believing in God requires just that, belief. Anyone looking for proof one way or the other is bound to be sorely disappointed.

Even if evolution is somehow 'proven', and abiogenesis is somehow 'proven', and the big bang is even proven, it still does not disprove the existence of God. You simply cannot conjecture about the motives of a God, should he exist. It is equally as likely that God created Earth in seven days and created Eve from Adam's rib as it is likely that God gave birth to the entire universe via the big bang and created life on earth via the process of evolution, knowing full well that the result of evolution would eventually be beings created in his own image (and by image I hope you don't think I mean physical, visual image, because that's just plain nonsense).

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
I found this quote on Fark the other day and saved it. Seems like this thread could use an injection of common sense:

The thing that gets me is, evolution is a solid scientific theory that is not religious in nature. Evolution does not claim to answer the question "where did we come from". Even traced back to "The Big Bang", if you'd consider that part of evolution, there is no explanation as to where the materials that went "bang" actually came from. There are theories, but that's getting more into physics than evolution. At no point in all of my public education regarding science was I ever taught or lead to believe anything anti- or pro-religion. And as for me personally, I am not religious. Though I speculate that god does not exist, I fully understand that it is possible that I may be wrong. And science has nothing to do with with my position, and I don't think there are many people that would use science as "proof" there is no god.

As I'm sure someone has said at every point in recorded human history that this discussion has occured, why not teach the most sound, currently accepted science in the schools and leave the teaching of faith where it belongs, home, church, community, etc. If faith must adapt to science as more knowledge becomes available, so be it. It's been done many times before and religion is still going strong. There's nothing to be afraid of, the existance of God will never be proved or disproved, and will forever remain an article of faith.

The people that demand some 'proof' of creationism are just as absurd as those that demand evolutionary theory to explain exactly how every species evolved from every other species, right here, right now. Evolutionary theory will likely never be able to explain everything. No scientific theory explains everything having to do with its topic. That's why science still exists. We're always finding out more and always adapting our theories to our current state of knowledge. Scientific theories take all the evidence at the time and construct the best working explanation of a phenomenon so that we can make sense of the world around us, much in the same way religion was created to explain the world around us.

On the other hand, religion is based on faith. God's existence, or any part of religion, will never be proven or disproven. That's not what being a person of faith is about. Believing in God requires just that, belief. Anyone looking for proof one way or the other is bound to be sorely disappointed.

Even if evolution is somehow 'proven', and abiogenesis is somehow 'proven', and the big bang is even proven, it still does not disprove the existence of God. You simply cannot conjecture about the motives of a God, should he exist. It is equally as likely that God created Earth in seven days and created Eve from Adam's rib as it is likely that God gave birth to the entire universe via the big bang and created life on earth via the process of evolution, knowing full well that the result of evolution would eventually be beings created in his own image (and by image I hope you don't think I mean physical, visual image, because that's just plain nonsense).

Not really sure what your point is, since you're arguing against three main things that have never even been claimed.

However, one thing that can be ruled out is that if there is a God, and he is the god of the Bible, he did not create the earth/universe in seven days as we know them. The earth is NOT 6,000 years old, and we know that it isn't for a fact.

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: tss4
I think its kind of interesting that creationalism can't coexist with evolution. I mean really, think about it. The problem is that quite a few christians insist on taking every word of the bible literally.

Well, yes. Those scoffing at the creationists aren't scoffing at christians in general, just a small subset that are particularly dense.

But you have to remember that the bible was written by god BUT through men.

See, at this point, the creationists don't like you. Their creationists because they are (or they call themselves) bible literalists. The bible is completely and utterly true in every way. Making an exception that something is metaphorical leads to the possibility that the entire thing is wrong. There's a jesus quote from somewhere in the new testament that they like to quote, something about if you can't trust him (jesus, but the literalists obviously read it as god/the bible in general) on every thing, how can you trust him on anything?

If you look at the bible a little more symbocially, its actually quite correct on describing big bang, the creation of earth and even evolution. First there was light... (big bang), animals created before man, etc.

That's the thing. You can't look at it symbolically and be a creationist. (When I say creationist, I'm assuming young earth creationism [YEC]. The earth was created in or around 4004 BC, there was a 7 day creation, special creation of species, a great flood, etc, etc. There are those that believe that, while a god created earth, it took a long time and possibly included everything that the YEC's attack as "evolutionism," they aren't the problem because they don't have an argument with modern science. They don't feel that their entire belief system is threatened by science.)

Imagine a man from before the birth of christ trying to make sense of evolution. It might come out exactly as the bible has it written.

Possibly--but it's not something for science to try to explore. Honesty, the way so many of the really esoteric stuff comes to light, I can't discount the possibility of a trickster-creator, which fits my beliefs just fine. Lazy stuff like reusing DNA, including the mistakes, is exactly what you'd expect from Nanabozho. But that is also not something for science to explore.

 

[Gilby]

In case of the Bible in particular, we also know it has been substantially rewritten many times over through the centuries, for POLITICAL reasons. The One Truth, to be taken literally? Hardly. Is the Earth flat? No. We know that. Several people have been "up there" to witness. We have photos and video footage. Still, the bible says so. With pictures. Now what?

That's sort of a bad example. There are those out there, today, that have problems with the whole earth-goes-around-the-sun thing. I'd have to look for the web site, but they attack modern YEC's for being inconsistant--attacking modern biology and accepting the devil that is modern astronomy/astrophysics.

This just goes to show that no matter how dumb someone is, you can probably find someone dumber.

 

[dgevert]

Well, yes. Those scoffing at the creationists aren't scoffing at christians in general, just a small subset that are particularly dense.

Exactly. I accepted evolution while I was a Christian, and, while on a philosophical level, when dealing with liberal Christians, I may object to what I personally view as a logically inconsistent methodology of reading and interpretating the Bible, but at the end of the day, whether their methods are logical or not, consistent or not, or objective or not doesn't matter to me, so long as they don't allow their faith in god and Christianity to override their ability to be rational, humanistic people..

 

[imported_kouch]

evolution is just a theory just like gravity and nothing more! There is no way that God meant only the fittest to survive and weak to die. There is no reason why everyone can't be successful in life, since god created everyone equally, it must be society's fault.

 

[Jack31081]

Originally posted by: dgevert
Not really sure what your point is, since you're arguing against three main things that have never even been claimed.

However, one thing that can be ruled out is that if there is a God, and he is the god of the Bible, he did not create the earth/universe in seven days as we know them. The earth is NOT 6,000 years old, and we know that it isn't for a fact.

When most people are trying to discredit creationism and ID, they are also trying to discredit God's existence at the same time. If you are not doing such a thing, then that's cool.

However, if you are trying to discredit God's existence, you need to understand that nothing you ever say can do such a thing, because faith adapts as our knowledge base grows. The plethora of religions on this planet proves that.

 

[el burninator dapeoples]

Originally posted by: kotss

I think the bulk of your statement is very well worded and very open-minded. I will not bother to argue
about most of the merits of you statements. The one thing I do see as short sighted is the bolded
statement. (most people cant begin to explain e=mc2 but accept it practically as fact , even though its only a theory.).

I do have a good grasp of what the relationship is between mass and energy.

The reason people can accept it as fact is because it is fact and has been proven over and over.
The "damaging statement is that you come off with the pithy "even though its only a theory" which is used
whenever evolution comes up. E=MC(^2) is what came out of theory of relativity. E=MC(^2) has been
proven time and time again. It is fact. A theory can be fact if all of its postulates are true. Saying it is
just a theory even though proven derides all the work having gone into proving the theory. Saying
Gravity is just a theory is correct, but that does not mean it is any less real.

Even though this is off-topic of the thread I felt I had to speak about this misdirection.

believe me, it wasnt my intention to come off as pithy, or undermine one of the most brilliant minds of our time. my reasoning for that particular illustration was to point out that we all accept certain ideas on the general basis of faith. assuming no one here has yet vibrated fast enough to release the enormous amount of energy they have been secretly stockpiling, the most we have to go on is what images fill our head while thinking critically about the concept. exploring the tutiledge of greater academia in its applied form is in itself a measure of faith, considering most of us havent gone out and built our own nuclear device for personal testing. you are correct, it has been proven against the evidence that e=mc2 is applicable (we know all too well the transision from point a to point b comes with a bit of a bang) but only a limited scope of evidence and testing exists, and the ? factor is always around the corner. more to the point, it has been a very short cycle of testing since einstiens epiphany and present day.

scientists were VERY uncomfortable when they came to understand that newton, might not have had it all correct, but sometimes change, as necessary as it seems to be is not always as welcome, even to scientists. what we know now will change, im sure we can both agree on that. theories, even factual ones, become the building blocks for new discovery and we can all be appreciative of that.

 

[Peter]

Newton wasn't "wrong", he was just being inexact. In the narrow snippet of mechanical physics that have been observable in his time, and with the limited precision he had in measurements, his stuff is spot on actually.

You'll find that for low-speed low-mass objects like those Newton had available, applying Einstein's relativistic formulae eventually ends you up with Newton's, simply because the relativistic influences are negligibly small. That's why Newton is still being tought in school - for the world we live in daily, his rules are absolutely good enough. (Like, have you noticed that cars driving past appear shorter to the bystanders than parking cars? They do!)

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Jack31081
When most people are trying to discredit creationism and ID, they are also trying to discredit God's existence at the same time. If you are not doing such a thing, then that's cool.

However, if you are trying to discredit God's existence, you need to understand that nothing you ever say can do such a thing, because faith adapts as our knowledge base grows. The plethora of religions on this planet proves that.

That's not true at all...the goal is to get the anti-science, anti-evolution crowd to realize their error and stop trying to corrupt science with their dogmatic views. Evolution and those who support it was never meant to be an argument for atheism.

Besides, there's plenty of better arguments against the existence of god(s) than can be found in a scientific theory. But that's not for this topic.

 

[Iron Woode]

I just love threads like this.

On one side you have science with factual data backing up hypothesis to make theories.

On the other side you have creationists with faith and religous doubletalk dressed up as quasi-science which spends an enormous amount of time confusing scientific theory and scientific hypothesis.

The end result is pure intellectual entertainment.

There is no reason for bitterness or hurt feelings. Science requires facts and faith doesn't. And creationists certainly don't let facts get in the way of a good arguement.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: RotoSequence
Assuming that this genetic "crossing" is plausible to occur in nature, we have to think about this. Why do we not hear about gorillas or monkeys giving birth to human beings, or vice-versa?

That's not what evolution describes happening.

Speciation is an event that happens to a population, not to individuals.

Speciation begins when a population divides into two or more reproductively separated groups. The separation is commonly geographical, which is why groups of islands and similarly geographically separated areas generally are inhabited by a wider variety of species than regions like plains, where there is little separation. Over time, the two population's gene pools diverge because they no longer can share genes between them. When the gene pools have diverged sufficiently to prevent interbreeding, speciation has occurred.

 

[Iron Woode]

Here is an interesting news tidbit:

http://www.cbc.ca/story/scienc...1/songbird-050121.html

This should make this debate most exciting.

 

[Terumo]

Creationists don't *have* logic. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "to a creationist mentality..."

That's like saying Evolutionists have monkey brains and are stupid.

I personally believe creation and evolution go hand in hand. So neither pro/con argument is the truth to me. The unexplained I'm happy some Creator created it. What man can explain with his puny mind, it's okay as long as his ego and other problems don't take them to extremes -- one Hitler is enough.

There's demigods on both sides both claiming their view is the right one, each claiming the other "stupid" "insane" "irrational" for their belief system.

Meanwhile who'll die today of starvation, disease and war? And who'll excuse it as being just "the facts of life"?

 

[dgevert]

Originally posted by: Terumo

Creationists don't *have* logic. I'm not sure what you mean when you say "to a creationist mentality..."

That's like saying Evolutionists have monkey brains and are stupid.

I personally believe creation and evolution go hand in hand. So neither pro/con argument is the truth to me. The unexplained I'm happy some Creator created it. What man can explain with his puny mind, it's okay as long as his ego and other problems don't take them to extremes -- one Hitler is enough.

There's demigods on both sides both claiming their view is the right one, each claiming the other "stupid" "insane" "irrational" for their belief system.

Meanwhile who'll die today of starvation, disease and war? And who'll excuse it as being just "the facts of life"?

Except,

#1, creation ISN'T backed by any form of credible science. There is no logic or fact that provides the basis of their arguments. Their arguments are PURELY religiously and politically motivated.

#2, both sides claim their view is right, but which side is based on credible science? Evolution. Which side is based on the claims of liars like "Dr." Kent Hovind, "Dr." Ken Ham, and Glenn Morris? Which side continues to use arguments even after they've been refuted dozens of times? Which side is motivated PURELY by their religious and political beliefs?

#3, medical science would be nowhere near where it is today without evolutionary biology. And as far as who excuses it...guess what...it's the creationists there, too. They just chalk it up to man's sinful nature, and claim that natural tragedies are some god's wrath.

To claim that both sides stand on any form of equal footing is idiocy.

 

[AUGrad]

This is my first vist to the highly technical forum. This is not what I expected to see here. Unfortunately, I now find myself with questions that I want answered.

First, let me make a few things clear:

1. I am a computer geek. I teach CS at the University level. I haven't had a biology class since high school.
2. I am a cynic. I tend to disbelieve whatever is thrown at me. The hard it's thrown, the more I doubt.
3. I don't claim to know where we came from. I wasn't there. My understanding of science is that the onlw way to know something is to observe it. That's why Comp. Sci. people are always trying to get people to make their computer crash again, this time where it can be observed by someone who knows what their seeing.

Having said these things, I find myself wanting to doubt the evolutionists more than the creationists. I haven't seen one creationist on this board say anything along the lines of "that's just the way it is. If you don't agree, you must be stupid." This is a dogmatic response more appropriate in the defense of dogma than of science. Evolutionists that say these things are hurting their position more than they are helping it. Most of the creationists, here at least, seem to be reasonibly asking for a discussion of fact, but noone on the evolution side seems to have patience for this. That's a shame.

Now, on to my questions. If they seem simple and ignorant, I have already admitted to that, so please don't bother to reply just to tell me that they are. That would classify as troll behavior.

Evolutionists:
Where are all of the things between cat and dog, ape and man, reptile and mammal, etc?

Why aren't things still evolving -- and don't give me this "it's so slow you can't see it mess." If it's always happening, then there should be some that started a half million years ago and are far enough along that we coulds observe the changes. Also, don't tell me about a germ becoming resistant to a bacteria or sickle cell, I want to see the kind of change that turns a reptile into a primate or a fish into a mammal.

In the instance of things like birds, how does survival of the fittest support evolution when birds are not fittest until they have finished evolving? If flight is what makes a bird survivable, how does it ever get there?

If the earth is so old, yet the universe is so unstable, how is it that life on earth has survived this long? If Earth started hot and is cooling (assuming the Sun is burning out slowly), is the window of habitabiliy really long enough for everything we've seen?

Creationists:
What evidence, other than stuff in your religion, is there to support the idea that we didn't evolve?

If we were just created, then why is there so much evidence supporting an old earth?

Please don't give me the "God used creation" bit. According to Jewish, Christian, and Muslim doctrine, the first death occurred after man sinned. Since evolution requires lots of things to die before man, this doesn't float.

If the earth really is young, how did mountains, the grand canyon, various races all over the place, etc come about?

Feel free to answer any, all, or none of these...

 

[Gibsons]

Where are all of the things between cat and dog, ape and man, reptile and mammal, etc?

There aren't any. Nor should you expect to see any.. they've been evolving seperately for a long time and thus have diverged pretty far from the common ancestor (other posters have mentioned this in this thread). Since they had common ancestors at some point, you might be able to find those in the fossil record, with some some luck. But a common ancestor isn't something "in between," they are previous.

Note that once a population is split, the divergence to different species is pretty much a mathematical certainty given the error rate of DNA replication and enough time.

Why aren't things still evolving -- and don't give me this "it's so slow you can't see it mess."

Things are still evolving. And uh... it's pretty slow.

If it's always happening, then there should be some that started a half million years ago and are far enough along that we coulds observe the changes. Also, don't tell me about a germ becoming resistant to a bacteria or sickle cell, I want to see the kind of change that turns a reptile into a primate or a fish into a mammal.

If you're expecting a huge visible change in your lifetime, don't hold your breath. As a demonstration, let's say some species of bird has an average wingspan that is currently getting 0.5% longer per generation. Let's say the average wingspan is 10cm now. Is that a rate of increase that anyone would ever notice? Even if they were out in the field measuing every day? What happens if you take that 0.5% per generation (and let's say a generation is one year) out for a thousand years?

In the instance of things like birds, how does survival of the fittest support evolution when birds are not fittest until they have finished evolving? If flight is what makes a bird survivable, how does it ever get there?

I don't think anything ever "finishes" evolving, unless there's no selection or no variation in alleles among offspring (neither are likely even under pretty contrived circumstances). As for the bird needing flight, this is the "transition" argument"... does a flying squirrel fly? Does it have wings?

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: AUGrad
Where are all of the things between cat and dog, ape and man, reptile and mammal, etc?

Since your field is CS, you can conceive of species as forming a tree. Children of the same node, say family felidae, are relatively closely related though they range from lions to the domestic cat. The tree experiences both addition (new nodes) and pruning (removal of nodes.) The reason that we perceive large differences between canines and felines is because of pruning of the nodes between them, while relatively fewer nodes within each grouping were pruned.

Why aren't things still evolving -- and don't give me this "it's so slow you can't see it mess." If it's always happening, then there should be some that started a half million years ago and are far enough along that we coulds observe the changes.

They are still evolving, and we do see such changes. Half a million years ago, there was no homo sapiens, but the closely related homo erectus existed, with its smaller size and particularly brain.

In the instance of things like birds, how does survival of the fittest support evolution when birds are not fittest until they have finished evolving? If flight is what makes a bird survivable, how does it ever get there?

Two thoughts on this account:

1. Bird's wings are arms with extended fingers with webbing between them. They're obviously not designed from scratch. Think about these questions: what uses could webbing have besides flight? Bug catching? What other animals have an in between position between ground dwellers and true fliers? Flying squirrels do, among others.

2. Try applying an analagous argument to a skyscraper. How could it get there? Scaffolding enabled the workers to build it, but it's not there any longer. Characteristics are dropped as well as added, and some of them serve as a kind of scaffolding to develop characteristics that couldn't be developed without such scaffolding.

If the earth is so old, yet the universe is so unstable, how is it that life on earth has survived this long? If Earth started hot and is cooling (assuming the Sun is burning out slowly), is the window of habitabiliy really long enough for everything we've seen?

I'm not sure what you mean by the universe being unstable.

The Sun is getting brigher over time and will continue to do so for over a billion years.


As a computer scientist, you may want to look at genetic algorithms to see how powerful selection can be and how differently it works compared to design. Adrian Thompson's work on creating FPGAs using genetic algorithms at http://www.cogs.susx.ac.uk/users/adrianth/ade.html is one application of this sort of technology, which shows designs considerably different from those of human engineers but much closer to the structure of living organisms. For a more popular look at his work, check
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=01/12/29/007258

 

[Gilby]

Originally posted by: AUGrad
Having said these things, I find myself wanting to doubt the evolutionists more than the creationists. I haven't seen one creationist on this board say anything along the lines of "that's just the way it is. If you don't agree, you must be stupid." This is a dogmatic response more appropriate in the defense of dogma than of science. Evolutionists that say these things are hurting their position more than they are helping it.

Can you think of a better resonse to a group that, despite repeatedly being shown evidence, claims that none exists? Can you think of a better response to a group that repeately makes false claims with no more backing than those false claims? There really are only two possibilities. Stupid tends to be a lesser evil than unethical.

Most of the creationists, here at least, seem to be reasonibly asking for a discussion of fact, but noone on the evolution side seems to have patience for this. That's a shame.

Why don't you try reading a thread before responding. The opening post of this thread dealt with evidence on the genetic level.

Now, on to my questions. If they seem simple and ignorant, I have already admitted to that, so please don't bother to reply just to tell me that they are. That would classify as troll behavior.

Yeah, you are exhibiting troll behavior, but I'll try to be nice anyway. Your post suggests that you really don't know the first thing about the sciences that you are trying to critique (which reflects pretty poorly on your teachers throughout the years, I guess.) Your questions on evolution might best be answered by introductary college-level biology, geology and astronomy texts. You're basing your arguments against biology, geology and astronomy on your own ignorance and incredulity--that reflects very poorly on you. If you do want to get over your ignorance, and aren't merely trolling, but don't want to hunt down college textbooks, try www.talkorigins.org/. It handes a lot of the questions that are frequently asked from a position of ignorance. It also happens to cover a lot of the unethical and misleading "information" you might get from a creationist when you ask your questions.