One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[buffalo]

Funny thing they aren’t real bones anymore then, isn’t it? They are fossils. Sedimentar-
y material which has replaced all organic matter. How they got the Carbon-14, I am not
sure, but it is not coming from organic matter which is what the carbon dating requires
if we are to determine the age of the fossilized remains in question.

Your source is Creationist, forcing science to say something untrue, force results from
bad experiments. Shame on them especially for the “HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO
DINOSAURS” page, taking Scripture out of context to prove dinosaurs, use that glyph
from the temple in Cambodian and claiming it to be a stegosaurus EVEN THOUGH no
stegosauruses have EVEN existed IN or AROUND Cambodia 800-1200 years ago nor
at the time they actually lived and roamed.

Their very URL says “dinosaurc14ages,” which means they have an agenda, and
will exploit the ignorant by cloaking themselves in the respectability of science…

Try some REAL science now.

They are dating the bones not the rocks. If a bone has soft tissue in it then it is not entirely fossilized.

So if a blind squirrel finds a nut, but he is creationist you will discredit him.

 

[Farsight001]

The only one playing games on this thread is you.

YOU first mentioned this as yet unknown “refutation” of Behe’s arguments.

But YOU have yet to introduce to the class here the “refutation” that** YOU** first mentioned.

Tick, tock…

I mentioned a refutation. Again, I did not mention a study.

Aw, you poor baby…no one is suggesting you are lying. Quit trying to derail this thread.

You literally suggested I was being intellectually dishonest (i.e. lying) in your last post! Don’t give me this carp.

And yes, a couple of lines above in your own post you did suggest that there is something readily available on “google and yahoo” (your words) that “refutes” (your word) Behe. You then berated me for not being able to find this grand refutation and yet over numerous postings here you refuse to provide a link or citation to this refutation.

A refutation and a study are NOT the same thing. I said there is a refutation. I did NOT say there is a study.

You are fast losing all credibility and throwing tantrums is not going to help your purpose here.

Attempting to be clear and prevent you from misrepresenting my by equating refutation to “study” is not a tantrum.

And here’s a nice link with a refutation of pretty much every boneheaded thing Behe ever said: talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html And in case you can’t figure it out, “Irreducible complexity” is the idea borne from this “mechanical limit”. And here’s a nice one co-authored by evolutionary biologist and devout Catholic, Ken Miller - millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

And it was not hard to find, so don’t for one second try and suggest you looked but could not find it.

 

[buffalo]

The idea doesn’t work because 10^45 is pretty much pulled out of the air. There isn’t a bound if one of the numbers you use is boundless.

I would be interested to know what your number might be and how you would calculate it.

 

[Farsight001]

They are dating the bones not the rocks. If a bone has soft tissue in it then it is not entirely fossilized.

So if a blind squirrel finds a nut, but he is creationist you will discredit him.

But again, it was not soft tissue. Have you seen these fossils that the media and creationists emblazoned all over the place as having “soft tissue”? The tissue is not soft. It is quite fossilized.

No one in their right mind would let these guys run a carbon dating test on actual soft tissue in the first place. You have to destroy the sample to run the test, and considering how game-changing it would be to actually find some so well preserved, these guys would be tarred and feathered for trying to do this before every other possible experiment and test was done.

We don’t have to discredit them. They did it to themselves just fine when they thought it was actually soft tissue.

 

[Farsight001]

I would be interested to know what your number might be and how you would calculate it.

Don’t try and make this about him. THEY claimed they were being scientific, and yet they pulled these numbers completely out of thin air. That speaks very poorly of their standards.

 

[buffalo]

Prove it.

I don’t argue that.

Again: Prove it.

As far as science can tell, yes, but the position is not limited to that.

Again: Prove it.

Again: Prove it.

“They believe in and write that,” YOU SAY, “BUC is their God.”
Again: Prove it.

1.Leading scientists still reject God
3. Show me one evo formulation that shows God.
4. I have not seen it stated otherwise. You could show me.
5. I have seen so much literature that is forced fit in this way - Evolution happened so even against evidence they force fit it because “they know evo happened”.
6. They have faith in BUC.

 

[Peter_Plato]

Don’t give me this carp.

Would you accept this carp?
http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/slide_detail/magazine/asian%20carp%2025766077%20©%20Czanner%20-%20Fotolia.com_.jpg

 

[buffalo]

They wouldn’t, however, “substitute the word evolution for ID in their statements” be-
cause they are scientists, not FUNDAMENTAL Christians motivated to do anything
and everything to protect a literal interpretation of the Bible.

I’m sorry you didn’t accept that link, and you can manipulate sentences any way you’d like, but it doesn’t make any of your points valid.

Just because you can say “oh we can drop this word and put
this one here instead…”, it doesn’t make a great argument.

I get it:

Anything against evo is bad and labeled creationist, a very bad thing.

 

[HansTrappist]

You literally suggested I was being intellectually dishonest (i.e. lying) in your last post! Don’t give me this carp.

Nonsense. Quit trying to derail this thread with false accusations.

And here’s a nice link with a refutation of pretty much every boneheaded thing Behe ever said:

Boneheaded? Nah, you just can’t compete with Behe’s superior arguments so you resort to ad hominems.

talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html And in case you can’t figure it out, “Irreducible complexity” is the idea borne from this “mechanical limit”. And here’s a nice one co-authored by evolutionary biologist and devout Catholic, Ken Miller - millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design1/article.html

And it was not hard to find, so don’t for one second try and suggest you looked but could not find it.

THIS??? This is the grand refutation???

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! :tiphat::blushing:

Give me a break!

Your refutation has been refuted:

trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

youtube.com/watch?v=ZgsEtVe_Bis

youtube.com/watch?v=lxvPQICtPC4

youtube.com/watch?v=E_VrjJiU-gE

Seems you have some catching up to do.

 

[Farsight001]

1.Leading scientists still reject God

“leading scientists” is not “most scientists”

1. Show me one evo formulation that shows God.

Nope. He asked you to prove it. The obligation is on you to do so. Don’t try and throw it off on him.

1. I have not seen it stated otherwise. You could show me.

They wouldn’t state it otherwise. Its common science. It is random scientifically, meaning in every natural and observable, testable way, it is random. But supernaturally? Sure, that can have TONS of impact. We just can’t test it or study it or call it science.

1. I have seen so much literature that is forced fit in this way - Evolution happened so even against evidence they force fit it because “they know evo happened”.

You were asked to prove it, not for a personal anecdote.

1. They have faith in BUC.

This is not proof. This is you repeating your assertion like a broken record instead of providing evidence. Can you? Do you have evidence? Even a link? No? Then stop making stuff up.

 

[Farsight001]

Nonsense. Quit trying to derail this thread with false accusations.

I’m not derailing anything. Everyone can see your post and see exactly what you said for themselves. Who do you think you’re trying to fool?

Boneheaded? Nah, you just can’t compete with Behe’s superior arguments so you resort to ad hominems.

An ad hominem is when you say that someone’s argument is invalid based on a trait of theirs, such as “you are asian so you are wrong”. Calling a guy a name is not an adhominem.

THIS??? This is the grand refutation???

Did you read it? Since there are hours worth of reading there, clearly you did not. How about you read it and then act incredulous. You say there’s no refutation, but you refuse to look for it. You say that the refutation is ridiculous, yet you clearly did not read it. Anything else you want to not do for the cause of intellectual integrity?

Your refutation was refuted years ago:

trueorigin.org/behe08.asp

youtube.com/watch?v=ZgsEtVe_Bis

youtube.com/watch?v=lxvPQICtPC4

youtube.com/watch?v=E_VrjJiU-gE

Seems you have some catching up to do.

I hardly call those refutations. Amateur hour at the Apollo, maybe. Overly simplistic, lacking any important detail, and failing utterly to cover even half the arguments made.

 

[vz71]

When you boil it all down, what you’re really saying is “bacteria look too different”, but its not about appearances.

Do I really need to list all of the differences between bacteria and humans?
Believe me, none if it is looks.
Although were bacteria large enough to be seen with the naked eye, I am sure I would list looks as one of the differences.
When it boils down, bacteria are just too different.

There’s no definite divider, but old earth creationists believe that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old like scientists. Young earthers have a range from something like 30,000 to 6000, give or take a bit. There isn’t really a name for people in between, mostly because most people go their whole lives never even hearing of one.

I doubt the earth is younger than cave paintings.
However I have doubts about 4.5 billion.
I have not studied the science behind it all, and without a real understanding of the mechanism, my default position is to question it.

But they are here claiming that they do have science and that ID is a valid science. Are you suggesting that it is faith and not science?

Not completely. They are incorporating God into the process.
Evolution does not.

 

[Peter_Plato]

The idea doesn’t work because 10^45 is pretty much pulled out of the air. There isn’t a bound if one of the numbers you use is boundless.

I am not clear why you offer 10^45 as Dembski’s UPB, the number was actually 10^150 and it wasn’t pulled out of the air. He gave very specific calculation quantities and reasons for using them. If you disagree with any of them, fine, but, at least give reasons for your disagreement. To claim some vague definability issue does not suffice to make a case.

10^80, the number of elementary particles in the observable universe.
10^45, the maximum rate per second at which transitions in physical states can occur (i.e., the inverse of the Planck time).
10^25, a billion times longer than the typical estimated age of the universe in seconds.
Thus, 10^150 = 10^80 × 10^45 × 10^25. Hence, this value corresponds to an upper limit on the number of physical events that could possibly have occurred since the big bang.
Dembski has recently (as of 2005) refined his definition to be the inverse of the product of two different quantities:

• An upper bound on the computational resources of the universe in its entire history. This is estimated by Seth Lloyd as 10^120 elementary logic operations on a register of 10^90 bits.
• The (variable) rank complexity of the event under consideration.
  If the latter quantity equals 10^150, then the overall universal probability bound corresponds to the original value.
  Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_probability_bound

Don’t try and make this about him. THEY claimed they were being scientific, and yet they pulled these numbers completely out of thin air. That speaks very poorly of their standards.

Are you merely parroting Crossbones, or do you really understand what Dembski’s UPB represents?

We don’t need to stand for this carp

 

[vz71]

Would you accept this carp?
http://www.alternativesjournal.ca/sites/default/files/imagecache/slide_detail/magazine/asian%20carp%2025766077%20©%20Czanner%20-%20Fotolia.com_.jpg

 

[Farsight001]

Do I really need to list all of the differences between bacteria and humans?
Believe me, none if it is looks.
Although were bacteria large enough to be seen with the naked eye, I am sure I would list looks as one of the differences.
When it boils down, bacteria are just too different.

But they’re not! That’s what I’m saying. Just because they look or function too different doesn’t mean they are. Its all about the genetic code. And if you think they are too different anyway, can you perhaps provide a line where this “difference” is not too much?

I doubt the earth is younger than cave paintings.
However I have doubts about 4.5 billion.
I have not studied the science behind it all, and without a real understanding of the mechanism, my default position is to question it.

Question what? that its old or that its young? Both sides of the issue have a “mechanism” by which they believe the earth is the way it is. Why question just one side if you are not already on a side?

Not completely. They are incorporating God into the process.
Evolution does not.

Of course evolution doesn’t. Science is the study of the natural world. It CAN’T incorporate God if it wants to remain science. Biology and physics and chemistry don’t incorporate God either. That’s no reason to deny or doubt it.

 

[Farsight001]

Are you merely parroting Crossbones, or do you really understand what Dembski’s UPB represents?

He doesn’t provide a justification for any of it. Why use the number of elementary particles? Why that long? Why multiply it all together? What about other things which may factor into the equation like space? He really doesn’t provide much of a justification for any of it. No extensive experiment, no real formulas of substance - nothing. He really did pull it all out of thin air.

 

[HansTrappist]

Did you read it? Since there are hours worth of reading there, clearly you did not.

I am not a biochemist.

Michael Behe is and the link I provided is to Michael Behe’s refuation of your grand “refutation.”

Anything else you want to not do for the cause of intellectual integrity?

:coffeeread:

I hardly call those refutations. Amateur hour at the Apollo, maybe. Overly simplistic, lacking any important detail, and failing utterly to cover even half the arguments made.

You didn’t watch them so you could hardly know if they are refutations.

Try again.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

They are dating the bones not the rocks. If a bone has soft tissue in it then it is not entirely fossilized.

But that’s the thing, fossils **hardly ever **contain soft tissue or organic matter of sorts,
because it is almost always replaced over time by sedimentary material, and that is
what makes a fossil a FOSSIL and long enduring. I’ve revised my position there (see
bold), for it appears that there are a few examples of soft tissue found in fossils like
from a T-Rex, but being 68 to 70 million years old, Green River Formation 40 million
years and older, and others.

So if a blind squirrel finds a nut, but he is creationist you will discredit him.

No, if a squirrel has a snake, I discredit him. The fact that he
is a Creationists may just why he has a snake and not a nut.

I want to see someone who doesn’t have a reputation of be–
ing religiously driven in his/her scientific exploration to verify
what the creationist site is claiming.

If a Creationist claims it, that’s not the end of the story, but it
will be if the claim is not backed up by the scientific commu-
nity through peer review.

It’s much like when hearing of a new prophet in town. All are
pretty excited by the things he does and says. You, hopeful-
ly being a wise person, will be skeptical of his claims of be–
ing a prophet, a TRUE prophet of God, so where do you how
do you find out what is true?

You could just listen to the so-called prophet’s followers, hear
what they have to say. You can read the prophet’s writings to
see if they make sense to that warm place in your heart. OR
you could turn to an authority like the Bible. See if his words
line up with Scripture. Measure him by the Test of a Prophet
(Whatever prophecy he makes must come to pass lest he’s
a false prophet. Now let’s apply that principle to creationism.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are in fact new comers in
the world of science. They are making many claims, possib-
ly biased? How can we know for true? PEER REVIEW, that
is what keeps science an honest task. Intelligent scientists
will get together and give ear to whatever anyone may have
to say, but then the studies, experiments, etc are looked
over once, twice, maybe even thrice, then come back to-
gether and determine what the facts are.

 

[vz71]

But they’re not! That’s what I’m saying. Just because they look or function too different doesn’t mean they are. Its all about the genetic code. And if you think they are too different anyway, can you perhaps provide a line where this “difference” is not too much?

Well, I did mention that the more traits that are similar the more I would accept one being similar to the other and indicative of the other.
And while it is true that this is all about the genetic code, how this code is changed and passed from one generation to the next is perhaps more important.

Question what? that its old or that its young? Both sides of the issue have a “mechanism” by which they believe the earth is the way it is. Why question just one side if you are not already on a side?

True, I am more convinced the earth is billions of years old then I am thousands or even millions.
But I also can see flaws in the testing methodology that lead me to say not entirely convinced.

Of course evolution doesn’t. Science is the study of the natural world. It CAN’T incorporate God if it wants to remain science. Biology and physics and chemistry don’t incorporate God either. That’s no reason to deny or doubt it.

Why not?

 

[buffalo]

But that’s the thing, fossils **hardly ever **contain soft tissue or organic matter of sorts,
because it is almost always replaced over time by sedimentary material, and that is
what makes a fossil a FOSSIL and long enduring. I’ve revised my position there (see
bold), for it appears that there are a few examples of soft tissue found in fossils like
from a T-Rex, but being 68 to 70 million years old, Green River Formation 40 million
years and older, and others.

No, if a squirrel has a snake, I discredit him. The fact that he
is a Creationists may just why he has a snake and not a nut.

I want to see someone who doesn’t have a reputation of be–
ing religiously driven in his/her scientific exploration to verify
what the creationist site is claiming.

If a Creationist claims it, that’s not the end of the story, but it
will be if the claim is not backed up by the scientific commu-
nity through peer review.

It’s much like when hearing of a new prophet in town. All are
pretty excited by the things he does and says. You, hopeful-
ly being a wise person, will be skeptical of his claims of be–
ing a prophet, a TRUE prophet of God, so where do you how
do you find out what is true?

You could just listen to the so-called prophet’s followers, hear
what they have to say. You can read the prophet’s writings to
see if they make sense to that warm place in your heart. OR
you could turn to an authority like the Bible. See if his words
line up with Scripture. Measure him by the Test of a Prophet
(Whatever prophecy he makes must come to pass lest he’s
a false prophet. Now let’s apply that principle to creationism.

Creationism and Intelligent Design are in fact new comers in
the world of science. They are making many claims, possib-
ly biased? How can we know for true? PEER REVIEW, that
is what keeps science an honest task. Intelligent scientists
will get together and give ear to whatever anyone may have
to say, but then the studies, experiments, etc are looked
over once, twice, maybe even thrice, then come back to-
gether and determine what the facts are.

You are not getting it. By your own statements soft tissue cannot survive 65 million years. Are you aware of the number of finds? And now they are looking (becuase they were assuming the same thing you are) for soft tissue and guess what. More are coming.

You don’t know what came first, the science or the creationist in all cases do you?

The Catholic Church is the reason for modern science. Why? Because our Scripture and Tradition showed us the universe to be intelligible and worthy of study. I submit that science has been hijacked in a way. It is OK though if properly reasoned. All claims Creationist or not should be able to be backed up. Pope JPII - “Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.”
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Read more at brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/popejohnpa144236.html#VsXYw3a85TEHxDGg.99
Science can purify religion from error and superstition. Religion can purify science from idolatry and false absolutes.
Read more at brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/p/popejohnpa144236.html#VsXYw3a85TEHxDGg.99