One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The theory does not purport ‘only the physical part’
The theory purports to describe where we came from. How we came to be.

But not why, does it?
Does Evolution say the words “God had nothing to do with it” or anything to the effect?

To explain the origins of human beings, the soul cannot be ignored.
As you correctly surmise, the soul defines us from animals.

I totally agree with you, but Evolution is not the end of the discussion
like you claim it to be. Evolution explains HOW God made our biolog-
ical part and God explains the origin of our souls. We can’t in honest
nature say that only one is enough to explain everything in full detail.

Because evolution only works if we ignore the soul.

That isn’t true, you just refuse to allow the soul to exist in Evolution.
Again, what does the scientific community say about the Evolution
in regards to the soul? Nothing, because it doesn’t deal with that.
Evolution describes one aspect of nature, God explains another.

It defines the human being in only physical terms.
Not because it does not cover the spiritual, but because it seeks to define us only as the physical.
It is like describing a glass of water but ignoring the water.

Evolution, again, doesn’t seek to define us only as physical soulless creatures.
Evolution doesn’t deny the soul, it doesn’t say we don’t have a soul, where are
you getting this? Some scientists are atheists yes, and do hold the position
you are claiming on Evolution, but that is not universally accepted by every
single scientist in the scientific community.

I am sure that makes it sound more authoritative, but it still is unproven, and likely is outside of being able to be proven.

I recommend this link, skip down to “Evolution is only a
theory; it hasn’t been proved,” or read it all if you’d like: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-misconceptions.html
Tell me what you think of it too, so I know you really read it.

To define a human being, but leave out the soul, is to fail to define a human being.

Evolution, ONCE AGAIN, doesn’t define a human as ONLY an animal product of
change within species over millions of years, but only talks about what the phys-
ical part is, the way it came to be as it is today.
In what way does Evolution leave out the soul? Does it simply not
discuss the soul, or do you claim that it outright says “Don’t look
at the soul, it doesn’t exist, it isn’t really real, just look at the part
we can see!” Which is it, do you think?

 

[edwest2]

The theory does not purport ‘only the physical part’
The theory purports to describe where we came from. How we came to be.

To explain the origins of human beings, the soul cannot be ignored.
As you correctly surmise, the soul defines us from animals.

Because evolution only works if we ignore the soul.

It defines the human being in only physical terms.
Not because it does not cover the spiritual, but because it seeks to define us only as the physical.
It is like describing a glass of water but ignoring the water.

I am sure that makes it sound more authoritative, but it still is unproven, and likely is outside of being able to be proven.

To define a human being, but leave out the soul, is to fail to define a human being.

Very true.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Very true.

Peace,
Ed

No, Not True

 

[Gary_Sheldrake]

Look up the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Notice how many foreign scientists are doing their work in the United States.

I think the point was about the American education system being sub par. While I do not personally have an opinion on the matter, the fact that many foreign scientists work in the United States may well suggest that we had to bring them in from elsewhere, which means we’re not developing them well enough here. Are you sure that’s what you wanted to say in defense of the American education system?

 

[Monkey1976]

That is totally incorrect. That is why advocates will never convince those that know the truth.

Peace,
Ed

What did I state that was incorrect?

Were early relatives of whales not animals that looked like hooved foxes?

Has a modern animal such as a blue whale, chimpanzee, or rabbit been found alongside the forms that are measured to be tens of millions of years old?

Is every find somehow incorrectly dated, even though multiple different methods give the same age range?

Are science and religion actually opposites?

Is the understanding of evolution as a biological process which is mute on the points of the human soul and the uniqueness of our first parents incompatible with the Faith?

Is God indeed a trickster?

 

[epan]

You’ll have to provide evidence of any decline in American science and engineering.

Mechanical engineers do not have to know this theory.
Inorganic industrial chemists do not have to know this theory.
Electricians do not have to know this theory.

Look up the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency. Notice how many foreign scientists are doing their work in the United States.

defensenews.com/article/20120521/DEFREG02/305210016/Chinese-Counterfeit-Electronics-8216-Flood-8217-U-S-Military-Aircraft-Senate-Report

You should contact those who exploit China and India for cheap labor.

money.cnn.com/2013/09/06/technology/apple-china-labor/

Peace,
Ed

Peace,
Ed

Just look at the number of patents issued, and the trend. Look at the number of advanced degrees granted in science and engineering fields, in plain numbers and also as a ratio of the population. The trend is staggering to contemplate. The US was once dominant, accounting to many multiples of patents granted as compared to the rest of the world combined. The US was in third place, behind Japan and China in 2011 with South Korea coming up in 4th. The predictions are that in 2014, the US may drop to number 5 or 6, perhaps lower. The trend in places like India is noteworthy. This is the result, in large part, of the long term reductions of funding for education. The long term consequences of “trickle down” ideas which failed in the 1980’s, and continue to fail. Apparently a good education doesn’t trickle down very well either.

Several generations have now been betrayed in the US by the preceding generations which benefited themselves by availability an (essentially) free higher education. The price that we are paying now by revoking that privilege in order to siphon more money into the pockets of the top 1% is not merely the mountains of debt that are being accrued by students, but also the decline in the average level of education of our populace, as compared to other countries which encourage educational achievement both culturally and financially, and as a matter of government policy.

The shift to American dominance in areas of scientific research happened quite rapidly after WW2, and it appears to be shifting away just as rapidly. The focus of high energy physics and stem cell research are shifting away, as funding dries up in the US. There was to be a collider built in Texas which was to be more than twice the size of CERN. That funding was cut by Congress. The Bush years decimated funding in general to the scientific research, and in particular in the emerging areas of biological and health sciences. Also, the Bush energy polices gutted basic research in alternative energy sources. But don’t worry, China is becoming the leader, right now, which we could easily have become, given our headstart with the technologies used in space exploration. Oh, and by the way, speaking of that, NASA has been killed.

The writing is on the wall Ed. Get ready to look to China and India, unless we do something quickly.

 

[Gricken]

You are the one who said that Beirlinski doesn’t know what he’s talking about because he is not an expert in the field and has a PhD in Philosophy. Why should we listen to you? Why do you know what you’re talking about? And you’re attitude has been very condescending to those who disagree with the dogma of evolution.

I’m not the one that said that actually. That was the other person here. I don’t even know who Beirlinski is.

However I could ask the same things of you. Though I suppose you would consider that as insulting as I do.

 

[Gricken]

That is totally incorrect. That is why advocates will never convince those that know the truth.

Peace,
Ed

Quite true. You advocating is doing very little in the way of convincing us few here that know the truth.

 

[Gricken]

Please give specifics.
I would like to review such proof for myself.

Um. That quote is specifics. If you want more information on the subject, go to a museum or look up the proofs he just mentioned. He’s posted quite a few other links here. It is up to you to read them and go out and search for more information.

 

[ringil]

This statistic tempts me believe that there are really “2 America”.

Or rather one America and one 'merica.

 

[Gricken]

Quotes please.

I am afraid I have missed what you apparently have seen.

Leave"apparently" out of it and stop being so condescending.

Actually, evolution is only the popular theory until something better comes along…

 

[Gricken]

Not barking up any tree. Just pointing out the obvious.

In any case, within this thread, there are those claiming God to not be involved.

In your own words. Quotes please

 

[Gricken]

What evidence? Cite your ancient precedent. If evolution is true and if humans were around for 200,000 years then those who existed 5, or 4, or 3 thousand years ago did not mention anything about it. The moderns all of a sudden know more than the ancients? Based on what you call deductive reasoning? How about evolutionary assumptions? You never heard of the slur creatards? Start here.

huffingtonpost.com/michael-zimmerman/the-party-of-stupid-from-both-a-scientific-and-a-religious-perspective_b_2162795.html

To question macro evolution is construed as being anti science. I can provide examples ad naseam. Most of your hard sciences do not need evolution assumptions to do their work. Its not like Astronomist is telling anybody without macro evolution i could not do my job.

Okay first off not everything needs to have “ancient precedent”
As somebody else pointed out here earlier, we have writing dating to 11,000 years ago. Not just 5, 4, or 3 thousand years
Why did the they not mention it in their writings? The transition from hunter gatherer societies to actual civilization was a slow one, and such a time was lost to myth. It wasn’t considered important to write about the days when nothing happened.
And yes, we do know more than the ancients. Our technology and science show this. That doesn’t make them stupid. It just means we’ve been able to do more. Knowledge increases at an exponential rate, not a linear one. You can’t argue that history proves that.
And biology doesn’t need physics in order to do it’s work. Does this mean that Physics is useless? You can’t say that evolution is false because it does not have an impact on other sciences.
I don’t go to huffington post. 'Tis a silly place.

 

[Farsight001]

I’m still waiting for you to cough up answers to my original query.

Until such, I am not considering anything else you have to say.

I did that already, and it is quite dishonest for you to continue acting as though I have not.

 

[estesbob]

 

[lightbeamrider]

Okay first off not everything needs to have “ancient precedent”

Will take that as a concession. Many modern assumptions have no ancient precedent. Secular scholarship denied Kingship of David. Later proven wrong by archeology. Denied existence of Bethlehem at the time of Jesus. Later demonstrated wrong. Notorious for late dating the Gospels and early dating gnostic gospels. GoThomas for example is dated before Mark. Luke used Josephus. all these assumptions by modern scholarship disputed.
patheos.com/blogs/godandthemachine/2012/05/first-ancient-proof-of-bethlehems-existence-discovered/

As somebody else pointed out here earlier, we have writing dating to 11,000 years ago. Not just 5, 4, or 3 thousand years

Prove it. If you have writing from 11,000 years ago then where is the proof? The burden of proof lies with the person who makes the claim.

news.discovery.com/history/archaeology/oldest-writing-121023.htm

The world’s oldest undeciphered writing system is close to being cracked thanks to a new technology and online crowdsourcing, Oxford University researchers have announced.

Called proto-Elamite, the writing has its roots in what is now Iran and dates from 3,200 to 3,000 B.C. So far, the 5,000-year-old writing has defied any effort to decode its symbols impressed on clay tablets.

Why did the they not mention it in their writings? The transition from hunter gatherer societies to actual civilization was a slow one, and such a time was lost to myth. It wasn’t considered important to write about the days when nothing happened.

Speculation with zero evidence carries as much weight as opinion.

And yes, we do know more than the ancients. Our technology and science show this. That doesn’t make them stupid. It just means we’ve been able to do more. Knowledge increases at an exponential rate, not a linear one. You can’t argue that history proves that.

The fact they ancients were thousands of years closer to events and they had sources which did not survive to present day. For example Josephus referenced an Egyptian source as validation for Hebrew slave revolt [Exodus] which only survives in the writings of Josephus. The moderns have techniques the ancients did not have but the moderns also have built in assumptions esp as it relates to Biblical history. Someone printed earlier the Bible is not a science book. I was reading in Revelation this morning. Chapter two writes about the harlot being thrown into a sickbed and her lovers thrown into great tribulation. Deut. 28. The Lord will smite you with the boils of Egypt, plagues and the diseases of Egypt. Clearly these ancients had an understanding illicit sex brings on disease. If you want a snapshot into the diseases of Egypt go to Lev. 18. Bestiality, homosexuality, incest to name a few.

And biology doesn’t need physics in order to do it’s work. Does this mean that Physics is useless? You can’t say that evolution is false because it does not have an impact on other sciences.

Point taken.

I don’t go to huffington post. 'Tis a silly place.

God spoke to Balaam through a donkey. Huffington post contains articles by experts. Not always wrong.

 

[brigantine]

Checked out the images, seems to also downplay the Big Bang Theory,
which was realized by the Catholic priest named Monseigneur Georges
Henri Joseph Édouard Lemaître. I don’t think Science is silly.

I don’t believe in a dishonest God who would set up the universe in such
a way so as to let us see and discover ideas like the Big Bang and Evo-
lution etc if they were indeed false.

I believe the words of Paul, that nature testifies of God, and to
me, Evolution and the Big Bang don’t X God out of the picture,
and I hate it when Creationists swear that they do.

Exactly! Never understood why you can’t believe in God and science. I’m a Biologist (Ecologist) and I have no issues believing in evolution, big-bang theory, and the existence of God. The far fringe on both sides thinks one belief excludes the other but I never found this to be true.

 

[vz71]

Um. That quote is specifics. If you want more information on the subject, go to a museum or look up the proofs he just mentioned. He’s posted quite a few other links here. It is up to you to read them and go out and search for more information.

Read on. It does not appear your information is up to date.

I have since moved on.

 

[vz71]

I did that already, and it is quite dishonest for you to continue acting as though I have not.

Which post?

 

[lightbeamrider]

NONE of your ancestors were related grunting ape? HUMANS
are related grunting ape, chimpanzees sharing 98.8% genetic
commonalities. What are you then?

50% fruit fly? 75% dog?

askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=2240