One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Judas_Thaddeus said:
No, it’s non-canonical because the Holy Spirit did not count it as Scripture.
Not in the Bible, not Scripture, not valid, cannot be used by Catholics like
Scripture. Does it not have authentic Jewish Oral Tradition, wouldn’t deny
it, what in there is just plain fiction? It did not go into the Bible, so it can-
not be used as though it were to make a valid point about the scattering
of nations from Babel (seeing that was why Jubilees was used)
Click to expand...
I am only using it as additional support. That is why I stated I wish I could compare the earth image with the dimensions for validation.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Then why did you even bother trying to demonstrate to me that the Flood really
happened literally, with those images of geological formations, Chinese Charac-
ters, NOVA, Megafloods, 70 flood legends, etc?
Click to expand...
You took the fact Catholics do not believe it 100% literal to be an admission there was no flood? You shouldn’t have.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
First, when a mommy and a daddy “love each other very much,” they
produce a child. This child carries DNA from both parents, and a very
slight difference. That is a fact. Repeat this process long enough, you
will have a new species.

Now the Catholic Church that such a process cannot be observed for
millions of years and therefore prove conclusively what you are argu–
ing against, but at the same time the Church also says that evolution
can be disproved. You cannot say evolution, in your latter description,
is false.

What I would like you to try now is find valid support from a scientist
who is not an intelligent design advocate who has a literal interpreta-
tion of the Bible to defend. Give me an unbiased source.

I ask again:
Are you implying that I am an atheist because I believe in Evolution?
Click to expand...

MEN HAVEN’T CHANGED IN 270,000 YEARS
 
buffalo said:
I am only using it as additional support.
Click to expand...
Unless you are part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church or of Beta Israel, it makes
little sense to use the Book of Jubilees as additional support. It would be like me using the
Book of Giants as a support of “something.”
buffalo said:
That is why I stated I wish I could compare the earth image with the dimensions for validation.
Click to expand...
How’s that again? I fail to remember this, could you clarify?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
No, Creationism is a hypothesis.
Scientists SEE the mutations which are unique to the offspring which neither parent has.

All we need to do is see single celled organisms mutate, then we
can (if willing) understand how more complex organism evolve over
a long period of time.

Evolution is not a hypothesis, it’s a theory, VERY different, but not
different I guess in the ears of Creationists and whatever you are.
Click to expand...
Code: 
                       **[Past 5,000 years prolific for changes to human genome](http://www.nature.com/news/past-5-000-years-prolific-for-changes-to-human-genome-1.11912)**
and

**Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” **

** Below is additional support for IDvolution. **

** Some quotes from Dr John Sanford on genetic entropy. Very consistent with IDvolution and Scripture. To get the full effect take the time to view the videos. Listen carefully where he states it is “kind of a trade secret of population geneticists.” The design of the genome is astonishing and shows intelligence, design and purpose.
**

** “a vastly superior operating system”**

** “a galaxy of design and complexity”**

** “over 90% of the genome is actively transcribed”**

** “the genome has multiple overlapping messages”**

** “data compression on the most sophisticated level”**

** “more and more the genome looks like a super super set of programs”**

** “more and more it looks like top down design”**

** “the reality is everybody is mutant”**

** “the selection process really has nothing to grab hold of”**

** “so it’s kind of a trade secret amongst population geneticists,any well informed population geneticist understands man is degenerating”**

** “so in deep geological time we should have been extinct a long time ago”**

** “the human race is degenerating at 1-5% per generation”**

** “so personal and so immediate, because there is no circle of life where things where things stay the same, and it’s not an upward spiral of evolution, things keep getting better and better, it is a downward spiral exactly as described in Scripture”**

** “I realized it had major implications for evolution, but I had no… I couldn’t have guessed how profound the biblical implications are, how profoundly the evidence supports the biblical perspective of a dying universe and a dying world, we are dying because of the fall”**

** “and our only hope is Christ” **

** Dr. John Sanford "Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome"1/2**

** Dr. John Sanford “Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome” 2/2
**
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Creationists will often do it by mistake, though intent of dishonesty is possible at times.

It’s really not a matter of “IF” but “WHEN” Creationists will do it again and again and again.

And on that last point:
Scientists have peer review for a reason. It allows Science to be kept honest, be checked
and rechecked, and somehow I don’t feel that many of the “Creationist-Scientists” would
allow some of their papers to be scrutinized by real scientists. If such happens, and real
scientists do in fact approve, I’d be happy to hehttp://forums.catholic-questions.org/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=11566509ar about it.
Click to expand...
Peer review is failing.
**Who’s Afraid of Peer Review?

But, here is a list of peer reviewed ID papers.

**
 
buffalo said:
You took the fact Catholics do not believe it 100% literal to be an admission there was no flood? You shouldn’t have.
Click to expand...
No, I didn’t say that there was no flood. I don’t know if there even was a literal flood in which
the characters were Noah, Shem, Japheth, etc. All I know is that there is no global flood as
described in the Bible under the literal interpretation. The flood could have been figurative, it
could have been a literal but more local flood, but all those things that you were bringing to
the table suggested that it was in fact a 100% literal account.

What else am I supposed to think?
 
vz71 said:
As I said, interesting prejudice.

You have attributed lies and deceit to a group of individuals based solely upon a belief in creationism.

How exactly does it lend itself to an honest debate when one side already stands in accusation?
Click to expand...
Is he implying that atheists would have no bias? The same atheists who do not believe in objective truth?
 
meltzerboy said:
Firstly, random matrix theory is used by some mathematicians to predict patterns of randomness. Psychologists, on the other hand, believe we tend to see patterns in everything, including randomness, whereas there are none. Finally, one of the misconceptions about evolution is that it is based only on randomness.
Click to expand...
Right, patterns exist in nature. But, you will see no symbols or designs there.

Designs though are always based on symbols, codes and the like. Designs always contain patterns. They come from a mind.

Here you will see a design in a pattern

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

What are the odds of this being randomly produced?
 
buffalo said:
Is he implying that atheists would have no bias? The same atheists who do not believe in objective truth?
Click to expand...
What’s with this talk of atheists?

I don’t think atheists have a bias in this field, so to speak, as they simply acknowledge
what the evidence says. Creationists are biased when their view essentially says “Well
that may be what the evidence seems to say, but it’s wrong. GOD DID IT!”

It isn’t atheistic to take the side of the atheist who acknowledges what the physical evidence
suggests against the Creationist who truly does not have an objective thinking skill, but rath-
er already has his conclusions from the Bible and bases everything he/she knows about the
physical world on how the Bible is interpreted literally.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Unless you are part of the Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church or of Beta Israel, it makes
little sense to use the Book of Jubilees as additional support. It would be like me using the
Book of Giants as a support of “something.”

How’s that again? I fail to remember this, could you clarify?
Click to expand...
post 590

Wish I could measure it to see how it lines up with Jubilees dimensions.

 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
No, I didn’t say that there was no flood. I don’t know if there even was a literal flood in which
the characters were Noah, Shem, Japheth, etc. All I know is that there is no global flood as
described in the Bible under the literal interpretation. The flood could have been figurative, it
could have been a literal but more local flood, but all those things that you were bringing to
the table suggested that it was in fact a 100% literal account.

What else am I supposed to think?
Click to expand...
As far as the flood goes I believe it to be historical. If a local flood God should have told Noah to move.

In the Noah account we see chiastic structures. There is a lot more in scripture that meets the eye. In the garden, the tree of life is thought to be figurative. However, it refers to something that sustains. There is a point to it. Parables told by Jesus, didn’t happen, but they had a point to them. As I stated Catholics understand Scripture as to what the author intended to convey. In the Noah story, there was a big flood with survivors.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
What’s with this talk of atheists?

I don’t think atheists have a bias in this field, so to speak, as they simply acknowledge
what the evidence says. Creationists are biased when their view essentially says “Well
that may be what the evidence seems to say, but it’s wrong. GOD DID IT!”

It isn’t atheistic to take the side of the atheist who acknowledges what the physical evidence
suggests against the Creationist who truly does not have an objective thinking skill, but rath-
er already has his conclusions from the Bible and bases everything he/she knows about the
physical world on how the Bible is interpreted literally.
Click to expand...
What? They admit it. I have given you a quote from a top atheist biologist. I think to deny bias is foolhardy. We have to wade through bias all the time.

Catholics are really all creationists. We do believe God did it. The alternative is “everything came from nothing” - the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) I like the God. It is more intellectually satisfying.

Creationists do not have objective thinking skills? That is a broadbrush statement and betrays your own bias. Spend more time here and I believe you will change your view.
 
buffalo said:
Right, patterns exist in nature. But, you will see no symbols or designs there.
Designs though are always based on symbols, codes and the like. Designs always contain patterns. They come from a mind.
Here you will see a design in a pattern
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_A0G8x4YSZvw/Sh-65w9aMOI/AAAAAAAAKHA/w7ylnNLMGnI/s400/SOS03.jpg
What are the odds of this being randomly produced?
Click to expand...
I’d imagine the odds of an SOS forming in the sand by the natural laws set by God are very
rare, but not impossible. Besides, the observation of “design” is often suggestive, I believe,
and a case of pareidolia.

Ever hear of the “C Rock” which some wacka-doodles cite as proof of a moon landing hoax?

Clearly looks like a stage prop by DESIGN, doesn’t it?

Or what about the Indian Face in Colorado?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Indian_Face_Colorado.jpg

We can’t just use our subjective experiences of seeing “designs” to prove that it was designed.

There is a Great Designer, there is a God, no doubts there, Nature testifies to
that Truth (like Paul said), but at no point does it say that God did NOT make
it through means of Evolution.

DESIGN does not refute the PROCESS by which said-design came about.
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
I’d imagine the odds of an SOS forming in the sand by the natural laws set by God are very
rare, but not impossible. Besides, the observation of “design” is often suggestive, I believe,
and a case of pareidolia.

Ever hear of the “C Rock” which some wacka-doodles cite as proof of a moon landing hoax?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b1/Apollo16CRock.jpg
Clearly looks like a stage prop by DESIGN, doesn’t it?

Or what about the Indian Face in Colorado?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a3/Indian_Face_Colorado.jpg

We can’t just use our subjective experiences of seeing “designs” to prove that it was designed.

There is a Great Designer, there is a God, no doubts there, Nature testifies to
that Truth (like Paul said), but at no point does it say that God did NOT make
it through means of Evolution.

DESIGN does not refute the PROCESS by which said-design came about.
Click to expand...
The CSI is magnitudes higher in the SOS than your images.
 
Peter_Plato said:
This does not meet the burden of proof you promised. It extrapolates far beyond what the experiments show.

Yes, of course. But assuming there are exponentially more harmful mutations than beneficial ones the demise rather than survival of future generations would be a no brainer.

By hitching random mutations to survival, the theory begs the question because there is no way of experimentally proving that in the balance of time merely random mutations would suffice to continue future generations. The fact they have survived but we have no way of showing why they did, owing to the large time frame, makes the experimental extrapolation inconclusive at best. We can’t just assume the fact of survival demonstrates the efficacy of random mutation to spit out potentially successful variations - that is precisely what is in question.

Way beyond this :rolleyes:

How can evolution “predict certain changes” when the changes are supposed to be random?
Click to expand...
Most mutations are neutral - neither beneficial or harmful. The harmful ones die out; the beneficial ones propagate forward. This is what can be observed in the laboratory in species where many generations can be observed in a short time. It is a reasonable extrapolation in conjunction with other evidence that evolution occurs. I don’t think you accept evolution and I don’t think I will convince you otherwise, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.
 
buffalo said:
Catholics are really all creationists. We do believe God did it. The alternative is “everything came from nothing” - the god of BUC (blind unguided chance) I like the God. It is more intellectually satisfying.
Click to expand...
MARVELOUS!
Now what can the evidence say about HOW “God did it”? That is the issue.
Now you say that “Catholics are really all creationists,” meaning that we all
believe that there is a Creator or that we all take the Bible 100% literally?

I don’t refute the former, but I do refute the latter.

You are imposing the view of “BUC” on the God who drove evolution because your finite mind
cannot comprehend how God works. I don’t comprehend it, but I that doesn’t lead me to BUC.

And of course “God - End of Story” is more intellectually satisfying, you don’t have to do much thinking.

And what’s this “everything came from nothing” deal? Did God not create from Ex Nihilo? I do believe
that is a very essential doctrine to hold in Christianity, that in the beginning it was just God, then out
of nothing God spoke the worlds into existence. Why would you take the Mormon view that all is in
fact as eternal as God and that God simply organized matter?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top