One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[vz71]

https://imgur.com/yyHw8YY

 

[vz71]

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

And Evolution doesn’t leave God out at all, it just say “GOD”!
Isn’t it like Creationists to put words in Science’s mouth? http://i1267.photobucket.com/albums/jj557/Miss__Priss/emotions/RollingEyesSmiley5.gif

I am glad I was able to review.

The above illustrates one of my big issues with evolution.
‘What are you then?’ indeed.

If we are, as the above quote appears to imply, looking to evolution to tell us what we are, then we have no answer other than one that eliminates the greatest parts of ourselves.

 

[Gricken]

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/
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

Speculation with zero evidence carries as much weight as opinion.
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.
Point taken.
God spoke to Balaam through a donkey. Huffington post contains articles by experts. Not always wrong.

I find your dismissal of modern scholars to be fascinating.

I don’t see what the bible has to do with any of this. That person was correct by the way, the bible isn’t a science book. It was not written with the intent of giving people scientific knowledge. I don’t see how your quotes prove otherwise.

I could probably pull up some links that show the earliest writings. But I believe you will reject it because “modern scholars have been wrong before”

This isn’t even a question about evolution anymore, but of history and archeology. I suggest we open a new thread to discuss that. Because this is off topic.

By the way, most also dismissed the siege of Troy as a myth until we found its remains. Just thought I’d throw that one in

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

50% fruit fly? 75% dog?

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

I believe the percentages you brought up are only in certain areas
of our genes while the similarities between chimps and humans is
an overall similarity.

Kent Hovind forgot to bring that up in one of his debates.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I am glad I was able to review.

The above illustrates one of my big issues with evolution.
‘What are you then?’ indeed.

If we are, as the above quote appears to imply, looking to evolution to tell us what we are, then we have no answer other than one that eliminates the greatest parts of ourselves.

Well if you impose the false dichotomy that it’s either one or the other, the
Bible or Evolution, you are right, but you’re not right, because both can be
used together to explain humans.

If we are talking about the origin of us as a species, we look to Evolution.
If we are talking about the soul, we turn to God for answers.

You are simply making no logical sense.

 

[lightbeamrider]

I find your dismissal of modern scholars to be fascinating.

Only as far as hostility of written history as depicted in the accounts of Moses, many of whom dismiss as a myth figure. The account of the flood, for example is dismissed even though there are numerous sources attesting to the event. There is zero ancient precedent for macro evolution anywhere. It only comes into play in the 1800s ?]

I don’t see what the bible has to do with any of this.

Moses wrote history. Jesus validated Moses accounts.

That person was correct by the way, the bible isn’t a science book. It was not written with the intent of giving people scientific knowledge.

It has science implications. Healthy diets, healthy sex practices, hygiene. Their building projects. The moderns have not been able to figure out how they accomplished these feats. A rough understanding of Pi.

I could probably pull up some links that show the earliest writings. But I believe you will reject it because “modern scholars have been wrong before”

Yes they have. They want archeology to confirm but written accounts is actual evidence of what they believed. Do you think Moses believed he was writing fiction? Joshua? If so why did he include the account of Gibeonites who tricked Israel in chapter 9? In chapter 10 Israel rescues Gibeon from the five kings who sought to destroy Gibeon. Joshua could have just as well let the 5 kings destroy Gibeon and engaged them afterwards. But Joshua was duty bound to protect Gibeon who were basically non Hebrew slave class.

This isn’t even a question about evolution anymore, but of history and archeology. I suggest we open a new thread to discuss that. Because this is off topic.
By the way, most also dismissed the siege of Troy as a myth until we found its remains. Just thought I’d throw that one in

It is on topic, part of my point being the ancients had no record which validates any modern assumption man somehow evolved from ape like creatures. Your example of Troy only validates written records as sufficient evidence. Historians are able to glean information from ancient accounts. That is why Bart Ehrman can come out with a book attesting to the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion exclusively from written records in defiance of many of the modern assumptions Jesus was a myth figure. It gives weight to the ancients and discredits the moderns. The beginning of man is Adam and Eve. That was their understanding.

 

[Gricken]

Only as far as hostility of written history as depicted in the accounts of Moses, many of whom dismiss as a myth figure. The account of the flood, for example is dismissed even though there are numerous sources attesting to the event. There is zero ancient precedent for macro evolution anywhere. It only comes into play in the 1800s ?]

Moses wrote history. Jesus validated Moses accounts. It has science implications. Healthy diets, healthy sex practices, hygiene. Their building projects. The moderns have not been able to figure out how they accomplished these feats. A rough understanding of Pi.

Yes they have. They want archeology to confirm but written accounts is actual evidence of what they believed. Do you think Moses believed he was writing fiction? Joshua? If so why did he include the account of Gibeonites who tricked Israel in chapter 9? In chapter 10 Israel rescues Gibeon from the five kings who sought to destroy Gibeon. Joshua could have just as well let the 5 kings destroy Gibeon and engaged them afterwards. But Joshua was duty bound to protect Gibeon who were basically non Hebrew slave class.
It is on topic, part of my point being the ancients had no record which validates any modern assumption man somehow evolved from ape like creatures. Your example of Troy only validates written records as sufficient evidence. Historians are able to glean information from ancient accounts. That is why Bart Ehrman can come out with a book attesting to the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion exclusively from written records in defiance of many of the modern assumptions Jesus was a myth figure. It gives weight to the ancients and discredits the moderns. The beginning of man is Adam and Eve. That was their understanding.

Having facts that are scientifically true does not make the bible a science book. I read a fiction book that described crop rotation, that does not mean it was a book on farming tips. The intent of the bible is not scientific information. But a recording of God’s contact and intervention in humanity.

I’ll say it again: you do not need ancient precedent for something to be true. The ancients didn’t understand nuclear physics either.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Having facts that are scientifically true does not make the bible a science book.

I did not write that. You are creating and arguing to a phantom. I wrote it has science implications.

I’ll say it again: you do not need ancient precedent for something to be true. The ancients didn’t understand nuclear physics either.

They did understand history and they did know fact from fiction. Genealogy was a big deal to them. It ends at Adam. They understood what they needed to survive in their time. Doubtful modern man could have survived in their time even with their understanding of nuclear physics.

 

[epan]

Only as far as hostility of written history as depicted in the accounts of Moses, many of whom dismiss as a myth figure. The account of the flood, for example is dismissed even though there are numerous sources attesting to the event. There is zero ancient precedent for macro evolution anywhere. It only comes into play in the 1800s ?]

Moses wrote history. Jesus validated Moses accounts. It has science implications. Healthy diets, healthy sex practices, hygiene. Their building projects. The moderns have not been able to figure out how they accomplished these feats. A rough understanding of Pi.

Yes they have. They want archeology to confirm but written accounts is actual evidence of what they believed. Do you think Moses believed he was writing fiction? Joshua? If so why did he include the account of Gibeonites who tricked Israel in chapter 9? In chapter 10 Israel rescues Gibeon from the five kings who sought to destroy Gibeon. Joshua could have just as well let the 5 kings destroy Gibeon and engaged them afterwards. But Joshua was duty bound to protect Gibeon who were basically non Hebrew slave class.
It is on topic, part of my point being the ancients had no record which validates any modern assumption man somehow evolved from ape like creatures. Your example of Troy only validates written records as sufficient evidence. Historians are able to glean information from ancient accounts. That is why Bart Ehrman can come out with a book attesting to the existence of Jesus and His crucifixion exclusively from written records in defiance of many of the modern assumptions Jesus was a myth figure. It gives weight to the ancients and discredits the moderns. The beginning of man is Adam and Eve. That was their understanding.

Aren’t you garbling up biblical archaeology along with biological sciences and with biblical historical writings? I am not so sure that they are well used in the way that you are attempting.

One point that you make in particular, that of “macro evolution”. This idea is nonsensical, and made up by people who don’t understand biology. It is not a valid argument against the theories of evolution and of natural selection. Citing it as such only demonstrates a lack of sufficient knowledge of the subject even to attempt such an endeavor. So, you might try another tack, if you hope to convince any person who is well educated in biology.

 

[vz71]

If we are talking about the origin of us as a species, we look to Evolution.
If we are talking about the soul, we turn to God for answers.

You are simply making no logical sense.

And yet the quote that best illustrated my point said “WHAT are you”

not “WHERE are you from”.

People are looking to evolution to explain what we are, and it fails.

 

[lightbeamrider]

Aren’t you garbling up biblical archaeology along with biological sciences and with biblical historical writings? I am not so sure that they are well used in the way that you are attempting.

No.

One point that you make in particular, that of “macro evolution”. This idea is nonsensical, and made up by people who don’t understand biology. It is not a valid argument against the theories of evolution and of natural selection. Citing it as such only demonstrates a lack of sufficient knowledge of the subject even to attempt such an endeavor. So, you might try another tack, if you hope to convince any person who is well educated in biology.

The term is still in use as far as i know. Just google it. That is from Berkerly.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

It is an exercise in futility to try to convince those well educated in biology who have fixed ideas. Biologists are making whopper historical claims counter to actual history as recorded. Do you deny that?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

And yet the quote that best illustrated my point said “WHAT are you”

not “WHERE are you from”.

People are looking to evolution to explain what we are, and it fails.

In terms of what we are “as a species,” evolution doesn’t fail, what don’t you get?

 

[lightbeamrider]

I believe the percentages you brought up are only in certain areas
of our genes while the similarities between chimps and humans is
an overall similarity.

Kent Hovind forgot to bring that up in one of his debates.

Well you have the data and it may or it may not be accurate. The difference being is the interpretation of the data. Overall there is a huge difference between apes and humans. It could be God simply used the same material. It does not demonstrate both came from a common ancestor.

 

[epan]

Biologists are making whopper historical claims counter to actual history as recorded. Do you deny that?

Biologists are in the business of finding applying theories to evidence, and in finding evidence to support, refute or expand existing theories.

The most recent work in the area of evolution and natural selection has been genetic research. These theories were on solid ground prior to the most recent research. But the genetic evidence is as equally compelling as anything discovered in the previous 100 years.

So, yes I do deny your claim that biologists make whopper historical claims to counter actual history as recorded. Have you considered that modern biology is the result of centuries of research, by many thousands of people. Of the main principles, only a few oddballs disagree. They are the ones who come up with whoppers.

If by whopper, you mean something large, as in a revolutionary idea, Darwin’s theories were such a thing when he invented them. He was not the only person who came up with the theory, but he was the first, and he sat on if for a long time. It is speculated that he was worried about a colleague getting the credit, and so finally decided to publish his great work, and it was a whopper of a work. But it has been supported now by more than 100 years of various research in all corners of the world. It has been modified at the fringes, but still remains the best theory to explain the diversity of life on our planet, and how we got to be how we are.

It is core to our understanding of biological systems, and of many disease processes, and of epidemiology, genetics, and so on. It is the foundation of modern biology, and hence all of the disciplines of which biology is a core science.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Well you have the data and it may or it may not be accurate. The difference being is the interpretation of the data. Overall there is a huge difference between apes and humans. It could be God simply used the same material. It does not demonstrate both came from a common ancestor.

Well what is the interpretation of the scientific community which doesn’t have a biblical
bias to protect? So if the “fruit fly dog?” bit didn’t work, you turn to "personal interpreta-
ation, fascinating. The difference between apes and humans is in some ways vast yes,
but overall, in light of scientific observation and in terms of the genetic aspects, we are
much closer than you’re willing to admit.

 

[Monkey1976]

Still waiting for answers:

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]

No.

The term is still in use as far as i know. Just google it. That is from Berkerly.

evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIADefinition.shtml

It is an exercise in futility to try to convince those well educated in biology who have fixed ideas. Biologists are making whopper historical claims counter to actual history as recorded. Do you deny that?

Hehe… yes, well I am from Berkerly, too . I thought you were using the term to mean what the misinformed refer to as “species jump”, as in the formation of broad characteristics which differentiate a species. I have also seen the misinformed use the term to describe the creation of complex systems, such as the human eye, which is in fact very good morphological evidence for the theory of evolution.

If by macroevolution, you are referring to broad changes in habitats and the like, due to the effects of evolution on a cellular level, then yes. Is that how you meant to use it, as it is used in the definition which you have just provided?

 

[vz71]

In terms of what we are “as a species,” evolution doesn’t fail, what don’t you get?

Until this point, I have heard no one specify “as a species”

And I have gone through a great many evolution debates.

This alone tells me that this particular thought is rare and the exception.

Evolution is being used to tell people what they are.

I hardly believe everyone that asks what they are is winking and nodding knowingly that evolution is not telling them everything.

 

[Gricken]

I did not write that. You are creating and arguing to a phantom. I wrote it has science implications.

They did understand history and they did know fact from fiction. Genealogy was a big deal to them. It ends at Adam. They understood what they needed to survive in their time. Doubtful modern man could have survived in their time even with their understanding of nuclear physics.

I’m not going to continue trying to debate with somebody who has this idealized view of ancient peoples.You may know the bible well, but it’s clear you don’t know a thing about history.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Until this point, I have heard no one specify “as a species”

Any time I’ve talked about evolution talking about our
bodies, our physical nature, our biological part, and
the like, such should have been obvious.

This alone tells me that this particular thought is rare and the exception.

Smart people don’t always need to point that out, it’s always implied.

Evolution is being used to tell people what they are.

DUH!
We are homo-sapiens, the latest and last
of the hominids, from a long line of other
hominids species.

I hardly believe everyone that asks what they are is winking and nodding knowingly that evolution is not telling them everything.

Then you are LARGELY unaware of what you speak.
If we are talking about evolution, we have the context
and information necessary to make the correct infer-
ences, at least most rational people anyway.

You have simply been nothing but reluctant in this discussion.