One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

  • Thread starter Thread starter gilliam
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Crossbones said:
There are rules that govern the interaction of subatomic particles and that is what physicists study. These rules can be experimentally tested. By understanding these rules, the mechanism from which the sun creates energy can be understood.

Physicists don’t make any proposal to where those rules came from since it cannot be experimentally tested.

This is now the realm of the philosopher and the theologian.

Intelligent Design is philosophy. It’s not experimentally testable and it makes no predictions, hence it is not a science.
Click to expand...
Is that a no?

When I was programming, I designed all kinds of things by carefully writing the rules the computer worked within.
Could the same not be said for God and his creation?
 
buffalo said:
So you won’t answer. I believe you actually do believe there is a chance to design threshold.
Click to expand...
Well, I said I didn’t believe it. You then want to make an argument that life is unlikely to occur based on what I just said I didn’t believe. Now, you are telling me what I actually believe.

So, to be incredibly clear, Universal Probability Bound is wrong. Hence, any argument you make depending on that is not one I’m going to believe because I said that it is wrong.

We all clear now on what I believe.
 
SuperLuigi said:
That doesn’t verify evolution by a long-shot.
Click to expand...
The nylon proof is not valid. Nylon is a carbon chain that the bacteria adapted to consume.
*
*
Nylon and proteins are polyamides made from amino acids. Nylon is derived from adipic acid which comes from oat hulls or corncobs. It should be no surprise bacteria digest it.

Manmade products synthesize what nature already has done. Polymers existed right from the beginning of life.

Emergence of nylon oligomer degradation enzymes in Pseudomonas aeruginosa PAO through experimental evolution.

…In the present study, it was shown that microorganisms can
acquire an entirely new ability to metabolize xenobiotic compounds
such as a by-product of nylon manufacture through the
process of adaptation. The artificial expansion of the metabolic
diversity of microorganisms toward various unnatural compounds
would be important in terms of biodegradation of
environmental pollutants.
 
vz71 said:
Is that a no?

When I was programming, I designed all kinds of things by carefully writing the rules the computer worked within.
Could the same not be said for God and his creation?
Click to expand...
Sure, it can be said. But it’s not science since it’s not testable. It’s philosophy.
 
Crossbones said:
Well, I said I didn’t believe it. You then want to make an argument that life is unlikely to occur based on what I just said I didn’t believe. Now, you are telling me what I actually believe.

So, to be incredibly clear, Universal Probability Bound is wrong. Hence, any argument you make depending on that is not one I’m going to believe because I said that it is wrong.

We all clear now on what I believe.
Click to expand...
Is your claim the idea is wrong or the value?
 
buffalo said:
And evo is not testable nor predictable and we haven’t even observed it. That makes it ugghh philosophy.
Click to expand...
Not according to the biologists that post to this forum.

By the way, I really appreciate the sarcasm. That’s twice tonight. So much for Mr. Bay’s post of charity.
 
buffalo said:
And evo is not testable nor predictable and we haven’t even observed it. That makes it ugghh philosophy.
Click to expand...
That appears to be the case. Evolution is not predictive regarding bacteria and viruses, so it has no practical value there. Instead, it appears to be purely philosophical in nature since the beginning assumption excludes an important component. Or to put it another way: you can’t get something from undirected, random bits.

Peace,
Ed
 
Crossbones said:
Sure, it can be said. But it’s not science since it’s not testable. It’s philosophy.
Click to expand...
You do understand that macro evolution is also not testable.

Darwin relied on inference to the best explanation as his method, which means any claims concerning evolution beyond adaptive change are philosophical and not experimental according to your own criteria.
 
vz71 said:
Then you agree that what you accuse Creationists of is actually a trait shared by all sides of the argument.
Click to expand...
Not universally or 24 / 7, but unfortunately it is near impossible for a Creationist
(at least a Young Earth Creationist) to argue without making at least One of the
many Logical Fallacies.

Just look above in Post #595.
 
Peter_Plato said:
You do understand that macro evolution is also not testable.

Darwin relied on inference to the best explanation as his method, which means any claims concerning evolution beyond adaptive change are philosophical and not experimental according to your own criteria.
Click to expand...
There is no difference to macro and micro evolution. I don’t intend on repeating the arguments that others have already made.
 
buffalo said:
Catholics do not believe it to be 100% literal.
Click to expand...
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?
 
Judas_Thaddeus said:
Not universally or 24 / 7, but unfortunately it is near impossible for a Creationist
(at least a Young Earth Creationist) to argue without making at least One of the
many Logical Fallacies.

Just look above in Post #595.
Click to expand...
An interesting prejudice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top