One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Okay, take a moment then to clarify your position: Evolution - For or Against?
What is this, the Church of Theistic Evolution where one must declare their “faith?”

The Church - as in the Catholic Church - has no definitive requirement that any form of evolution must be assented to. Besides I am not clear what my beliefs have to do with the truth of the matter. The truth about evolution is “out there” somewhere. I don’t claim to have it and I doubt that you do either because - I reread the entire thread - every time you were asked to supply strong compelling evidence, your replies were rather feeble or accusatory regarding the motives of those inquiring.

Since I don’t claim to know the truth regarding evolution and it isn’t an article of faith - despite your efforts - I’ll take the fifth.
THEN, answer us all this: Is God a trickster?
Better to go to the source - ask God, no?

Whatever answer I can proffer will very likely be incorrect since I don’t know God that intimately. He could be a prankster - the platypus seems a humorous compilation of animal accessories - and some “tricks” seem to have been played on me personally - premature baldness, for example - but those might have been mere coincidences or not intended as pranks.

Since this is not an article of faith, either, I’ll go with nolo contendere.
 
I did not realize the KKK part, can this be verified?
I do realize that they are anti-Catholic, that’s why I would not
look to them if I wanted to find Catholic Doctrine and so forth.
Can you find from a Catholic source giving something alterna-
tive to what Carm said about 1 Kings 22?

Well when one asks “Is God a trickster,” and your response is:

What else am I supposed to think?

Can this be demonstrated?
The parallel to 1 Kings 22 is 2 Chr. 18. 2 Chr. 18:22. NAB ‘‘So now the Lord has put a lying spirit in the mouth of these prophets of yours; but the Lord Himself has decreed evil against you.’’ The verse itself along with the context is straight from the hip. They are not writing in figurative language.

Take a good hard look at Romans 1. Start with verse 18. There are phrases which include they become vain in their reasoning and their senseless minds are darkened. The so called wise are actually fools. They are handed over to impurity, degrading passions and undiscerning [depraved] minds. I have no control over what you think or wrongly perceive things. Words mean things.

In the Genesis account you have birds on the fifth day and cattle on the sixth. You mentioned earlier cattle was first and birds later? I will go along with Moses as opposed to the moderns revisionist history. You did not realize the KKK was anti Catholic? Perhaps you should do your own homework. I am not really interested in anything Matt Slick has to say.
 
…You did not realize the KKK was anti Catholic? Perhaps you should do your own homework.
II take a look at the rest later, bet let me address this ASAP:
I said that I did NOT realize the connection between Carm and the KKK.
I DID realize that they were probably against the Catholic Church, but I
do NOT rule out Everything they comment on the Bible. Just needed to
get that out of the way.

I can trust Carm in handling 1 Kings 22, but I would NOT trust them when it comes to Matthew 16.
 
…In the Genesis account you have birds on the fifth day and cattle on the sixth. You mentioned earlier cattle was first and birds later? I will go along with Moses as opposed to the moderns revisionist history…
Maybe that was a bad way to say it. I used “cattle walked” to summarize “EVERYTHING
that creepeth upon the earth,” if you got confused there. Otherwise, you argue that Birds
flew before any land animal ever existed, against all REAL evidence revealing the contrary?
 
II take a look at the rest later, bet let me address this ASAP:
I said that I did NOT realize the connection between Carm and the KKK.
I DID realize that they were probably against the Catholic Church, but I
do NOT rule out Everything they comment on the Bible. Just needed to
get that out of the way.

I can trust Carm in handling 1 Kings 22, but I would NOT trust them when it comes to Matthew 16.
Doubtful they are connected. I printed they both share common ground in that they are both are anti Catholic. There are those who insist the Bible endorses slavery. God approves according to them. In that sense they share common ground with southern racists who quoted Scripture to justify slavery. There are those who insist the Bible endorse rape. In that sense they share common ground with rapists. The Bible can be misused to justify anything and it has.

Sure CARM can be right and they probably are about a lot of things. I have experience with CARM. Posted around 570 in the atheist section. The moment i started defending Catholics in a civil way, against the outright distortions printed by rabid protestants i got a warning followed by a three day suspension. Never went back. They censer honest debate and are not subject to correction. Its not like Slick is going to meet a Catholic apologist in a neutral setting in a debate with rules. Whenever Slick debates it is according to his agenda, on his show. So back to the topic. I don’t like to give Slick free rent in my head.
 
Maybe that was a bad way to say it. I used “cattle walked” to summarize “EVERYTHING
that creepeth upon the earth,” if you got confused there. Otherwise, you argue that Birds
flew before any land animal ever existed, against all REAL evidence revealing the contrary?
Its not my argument. My trust is in Moses as it relates to the subject at hand. Moses spent 40 days ?] with God. He was a scholar for his time. Educated by the best in Egypt. If all that is true, and i believe it is, then his credentials and his Source is impeccable.
 
Doubtful they are connected. I printed they both share common ground in that they are both are anti Catholic.
OOPS AGAIN! :blushing:
There are those who insist the Bible endorses slavery. God approves according to them. In that sense they share common ground with southern racists who quoted Scripture to justify slavery. There are those who insist the Bible endorse rape. In that sense they share common ground with rapists. The Bible can be misused to justify anything and it has.
I just ran a brief search on this, I don’t think Carm endorses slavery, but it does talk
about the biblical form of slavery, that there were rules for the master to follow so as
to not mistreat the slave, it surely was not like in the first hundred years of America,
I don’t find what you describe. (Didn’t look over the rape part)
For something this critical, I would be very pleased if I could be shown what Carm
has said concerning these matters. Again though, How are they wrong in 1 Kings
22 which you cited earlier? We were talking about evolution, you used 1 Kings 22
in response to the question “Is God a Trickster”…
 
OOPS AGAIN! :blushing:

I just ran a brief search on this, I don’t think Carm endorses slavery, but it does talk
about the biblical form of slavery, that there were rules for the master to follow so as
to not mistreat the slave, it surely was not like in the first hundred years of America,
I don’t find what you describe. (Didn’t look over the rape part)
For something this critical, I would be very pleased if I could be shown what Carm
has said concerning these matters. Again though, How are they wrong in 1 Kings
22 which you cited earlier?
I was references non Believers, not CARM as it relates to the slavery, and rape part. Those who let Dawkins et all do their thinking for them.
 
OOPS AGAIN! :blushing:

For something this critical, I would be very pleased if I could be shown what Carm
has said concerning these matters. Again though, How are they wrong in 1 Kings
22 which you cited earlier?
i did not print they were wrong.
We were talking about evolution, you used 1 Kings 22 in response to the question “Is God a Trickster”…
Well then read it. Look at Pharaoh in Exodus. These are under judgement from God and the precedent was set by those who insisted on abusing their authority by abusing others. Knowingly doing wrong again and again. David does the adultery thing and then murder and the infant conceived is killed. I didn’t write it and some of it is hard to take but there it is. Study the sections i referenced and come to your own conclusions. As for me i will take the fifth.
 
i did not print they were wrong.
What you did type in response to my citing Carm’s commentary on 1 Kings 22 was in the first place:
Carm is virulently anti Catholic. In that manner CARM finds common ground with the KKK.
So what point were you making if not that they were wrong?
Was that one of them “Guilt By Association” Logical Fallacy then?
Look at Pharaoh in Exodus. These are under judgement from God and the precedent was set by those who insisted on abusing their authority by abusing others. Knowingly doing wrong again and again. David does the adultery thing and then murder and the infant conceived is killed. I didn’t write it and some of it is hard to take but there it is. Study the sections i referenced and come to your own conclusions. As for me i will take the fifth.
This was in response to my Evolution-Kings-Trickster sentence, I don’t see what your \references are saying in response.

You’re talking about Scripture here, so please be more specific in your references so that I may study them please.
 
I was references non Believers, not CARM as it relates to the slavery, and rape part. Those who let Dawkins et all do their thinking for them.
Okay then that bit on slavery/rape was irrelevant to the discussion?

And “let Dawkins et all” what? Please rephrase the sentence and the point being made.
 
Do apes think, compose music, write books, study science, create new types of homes, build elaborate technology, program computers, invent, read, listen to lectures, engage in philosophical discussions, act morally, wear clothing, compile dictionaries and encyclopedias, produce movies and documentaries, play sports, play board games, turn resources into goods, mine, drill, farm, keep statistics, believe in God, take cruises, etc. etc?
No. which is why chimps and gorillas are not humans. But humans are still apes. kind of a “all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares” kind of thing.
I am not a quadruped. Last time I counted, I only had two (count 'em) TWO feet.
quad·ru·ped
ˈkwädrəˌped/
noun
  1. an animal that has four feet, esp. an ungulate mammal.
Case closed.
We both know that the point is that we have four limbs, not necessarily four feet. I hardly call the case closed simply because you choose to jump on my poor choice of words as though it were an argument.
 
Non sequitur. Denying evolution does not imply “God did it directly”. Besides you’re incredibly wrong because early scientists were all people who were duh, Christians, and probably believed in a 6000 year old earth and “God did it” and yet somehow Newton, Pasteur, Copernicus, Brahe, Bacon etc. all came up with the knowledge we have. Saying God did it, in Catholicism, is to say God is the First or Ultimate cause. It’s not to say HOW God does things. But that their ultimate cause lies in God, in that existence is at this very moment sustained by the First Cause or Unmoved Mover. In a universe with God we have reason to believe there is order which can be known and not utter chaos. We believe that what happens today with bacteria and with the laws of physics happened 13 billion years ago and yesterday and will happen tomorrow. Why? Well either it’s a brute fact or it’s a fact with an underlying nature lying in God. (In Catholicism we use the 4 causes. You can see that whether evolution is true or not, these would not be affected, and the belief in God does not equate inability to do empirical science.)

This is important because this is a the real point of contention between “Creationists” and Evolutionists.

I think most Young Earth Creationists have no problem with natural selection and selection of positive traits inside a particular species, often called microevolution. Most people who have strong feelings for or against evolution do have a problem with what happened before and the whole man-is-just-a-glorified-ape, which does not actually follow from evolution, but many New Atheists, science fetishists and some “Creationists” believe.
But this depends also on metaphysical/philosophical import, and is not science. That conditions at the time of the Big Bang and throughout history are just right that Carbon, Nitrogen, Phosphorus, Water etc can form and can form stable DNA/RNA/protein compounds which can form complex structures which can lead to metabolically active life which can become more complex and lead to abstract thought and grasp of universal truths is just uncanny and proof of God sustaining and creative function, right here and right now.

Is there empirical research to show that man evolved from early apes? Or is it just a clever bit of detective work based on correlating fossils and genetic similarities between animals? I don’t follow it but Behe and some of his colleagues have published some papers in peer review too.

As most, as in 99.9% of scientific knowledge is not related to evolution I would disagree.

It would not for example destroy our understanding of antibiotic resistance. We see antibiotic resistance in practice. We would study it and understand it, why and how it happens in today’s populations while we may not have been able to conclude - oh duh, man came from some ape at some stage. Now we may reject some irrelevant stuff but nothing which would prevent us from studying resistance and developing new strategies to combat it, including novel antibiotics or drugs which block bacterial enzymes or antibiotic pumps. We don’t need evolution to understand how a penicillinase enzyme works, where it comes from and how we can block it. It would however probably divert funds away from useless paleontology research and more into genetics, molecular biology and so on so that we could cure some of these diseases and ills people have to suffer from each day. Millions of people die from malaria, yellow fever, viral hepatitis, cancer, AIDS, etc.

I think you need to think longer about this topic and the light bulb will go on and you’ll see that yes denial of evolution does not imply denial of all science nor the ability to not be able to use the scientific method. Nor does it imply that one would deny all knowledge.

There are YECs who have done terrific research in genetics. I heard the inventor of the “Gene Gun”, John C. Sanford is a YEC. He is one example of how EMPIRICALLY you are wrong. As mentioned guys like Copernicus, Galileo, Da Vinci etc were all YECs. It didn’t stop them from being ahead of their time and ahead of the typical GNU atheist-science fetishist or millions of mediocre and useless PhDs we have around the world.

Have a nice day. 🙂
Please go back and read the previous posts. Everything you said has been covered. I don’t feel like we should have to repeat ourselves. Clearly, since we already had an answer to all your objections, we have thought about this longer. And how does a denial of evolution not equate to a denial of science? Evolution IS science. If you deny evolution, then you deny science. Basic logic.
 
The presence of similar genes in different species, according to ID folks could be attributed to a reuse of the same design.
And what mechanism do they postulate by which this reuse occurs? And what tests and experiments have they attempted to do to support the claim that they are reused?
 
We understand this by repeatedly sampling pathogen DNA/RNA. We know that mutations occur. We know that pathogens exchange DNA/RNA. We don’t need evolution in the sense of “man is descended from animals”. YECs accept this and so this is a defeater to those fundamentalist atheists and science fetishists who want to use evolution as some sort of rule of thumb to determine if someone can do good science or not.

It’s like using porcine (pig) valves in humans. We don’t need to understand how at some stage in the past man’s ancestor and the pig’s ancestor were one and the same. We need to understand pig and human physiology, anatomy and histology today and now and we then can employ the grafts or valves in human beings with some success. We have no way of knowing if such an ancestor existed or not, but we suspect it did, yet it has no bearing at all on whether a porcine graft will hold in such and such a patient.

Note that the knowledge of pig and man’s anatomy does not come from study of evolution. Rather we studied man and have been eating pork for 1000s of years and one day scientists started studying pigs.
DNA changes in the pathogens themselves IS evolution.

And it is precisely due to studying evolution that we discovered that humans and pigs were similar enough to use pig valves. It did have a lot to do with physiology and anatomy, but genetic similarities are also necessary. Too different and the body rejects it. Hence the study of the human body and pigs in the context of evolution was quite crucial.
 
There are examples from Scripture where God sends deceiving spirits. 1 Kings 22:20-22. There is confusion and madness as curses in Dt.28. Some are turned over to a depraved mind in Romans. Believe lies. (1:25)
Its a yes or no question. Not a "provide a scripture quote’ question. Yes. Or No.
 
Nope. That is not correct.

Peace,
Ed
It most certainly is and I would challenge you to actually contribute to the conversation by trying to support what you say instead of making drive-by baseless claims.
 
Gregor Mendel found that “… certain traits in pea plants follows particular patterns, now referred to as the laws of Mendelian inheritance. The profound significance of Mendel’s work was not recognized until the turn of the 20th century, when the independent rediscovery of these laws initiated the modern science of genetics.” A google search would find the story.
And that change in pea plants was…evolution!
Modern drug discovery is based on trial and error. It is not predictive.
Drugs do not evolve. How silly.
Since a virus like HIV/AIDS has the built-in ability to change its outer protein coat, scientists are having a hard time dealing with it.
So it evolves?
 
Please go back and read the previous posts. Everything you said has been covered. I don’t feel like we should have to repeat ourselves. Clearly, since we already had an answer to all your objections, we have thought about this longer. And how does a denial of evolution not equate to a denial of science? Evolution IS science. If you deny evolution, then you deny science. Basic logic.
You haven’t answered the objections. So I can’t go back to your previous posts.

Evolution is a scientific theory. However as you know even scientists have disagreements over what they accept. Take for example Quantum Theory. There are many different interpretations of that. By your faulty logic those scientists who deny one of the different interpretations of QM are “denying science”. Since no physicist accepts all of the interpretations of QM, it follows all physicists are anti-science. I’m looking forward to your post where you bash all physicists for being anti-science. 🙂 I don’t think I’ll see it though because I don’t think you are really too worried about “science” ™.

In terms of evolution, even Dawkins and E Wilson as well as others have had and still have disagreements. Ergo these people are anti-science.

Also you can’t equate denial of one scientific theory with denial of all science. This is another example of faulty and irrational logic you’re using.

You’re incredibly wrong about this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top