One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I skim-read the passage you gave, but it’s irrelevant, because it’s not Scripture.

The tower is also in the Book of Jubilees

The Tower of Babel and the Confusion of Tongues (x. 18-27; cf. Gen. xi. 1-9).

1. And in the three and thirtieth jubilee, in the first year in the second week, Peleg took to himself a wife, whose name was Lômnâ the daughter of Sînâ’ar, and she bare him a son in the fourth year of this week, and he called his name Reu; 2 for he said: “Behold the children of men have become evil 3 through the wicked purpose of building for themselves a city and a tower in the land of Shinar.” 19. For they departed from the land of Ararat eastward to Shinar; for in his days they built the city and the tower, saying, “Go to, let us ascend thereby into heaven.” 4 20. And they began to build, and in the fourth week they made brick with fire, and the bricks served them for stone, and the clay 5 with which they cemented them together was asphalt which cometh out of the sea, and out of the fountains of water in the land of Shinar. 21. And they built it: forty and three years were they building it; its
   1645-1688 A.M.

p. 82
breadth was 203 bricks, and the height (of a brick) was the third of one; its height amounted to 5433 cubits and 2 palms, and (the extent of one wall was) thirteen stades (and of the other thirty stades). 22. And the Lord our God said unto us: “Behold, they are one people, and (this) they begin to do, and now nothing will be withholden from them. Go to, let us go down and confound their language, that they may not understand one another’s speech, 1 and they may be dispersed into cities and nations, and one purpose will no longer abide with them till the day of judgment.” 23. And the Lord descended, and we descended with Him to see the city and the tower which the children of men had built. 24. And He confounded their language, and they no longer understood one another’s speech, and they ceased then to build the city and the tower. 25. For this reason the whole land of Shinar is called Babel, because the Lord did there confound all the language of the children of men, and from thence they were dispersed 2 into their cities, each according to his language and his nation. 3 26. And the Lord sent a mighty wind 4 against the tower and overthrew it upon the earth, and behold it was between Asshur and Babylon in the land of Shinar, and they called its name
1688 A.M. “Overthrow.” 5 27. In the fourth week in the first year in the beginning thereof in the four and thirtieth jubilee, were they dispersed from the land of Shinar.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

If ambiguous means carefully weighing the merits of all sides, yes.

The I’m not calling you anything or defining “your category.”
K?!

 

[vz71]

There is no difference to macro and micro evolution. I don’t intend on repeating the arguments that others have already made.

Last I heard, there was.
So the current thinking is that there is no difference between bacteria taking on different traits and a dog giving birth to something other than a dog?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

An interesting prejudice.

How So?

 

[edwest2]

Every day more comes out but evo just keeps on ticking.(now that is faith) It just causes more storytelling.

I think such research is great, but in this case, just tell everyone there’s no need to wait for more data, just declare a win without knowing how far - or close - the finish line is.

Best,
Ed

 

[vz71]

How So?

You are describing bad behavior of a group based solely upon a belief they hold that has nothing to do with the behavior.

 

[buffalo]

There is no difference to macro and micro evolution. I don’t intend on repeating the arguments that others have already made.

That is what they would have you believe. There is a huge difference between micro and macro. One happens, the other is make believe.

 

[buffalo]

I skim-read the passage you gave, but it’s irrelevant, because it’s not Scripture.

It is non-canonical because it was discovered after the Age of the Apostles.

 

[meltzerboy]

You’re apparently devoted to the cause of Intelligent Design even though it is not AFAIK a theory the Church either supports or does not support. But it’s good to have passion concerning a cause, however misguided others may think it is.

 

[buffalo]

You’re apparently devoted to the cause of Intelligent Design even though it is not AFAIK a theory the Church either supports or does not support. But it’s good to have passion concerning a cause, however misguided others may think it is.

Given the choice, the church has always understood God to be a designer. The idea that God is a tinkerer though is an issue. That is why IDvolution is so satisfying. The design is there at the beginning with the word, the logos.

**Pe Benedict’s Easter Homily - Creative Reason - “The creation account tells us, then,that the world is a product of creative Reason.” - perhaps the pope would like IDvolution. Pope Benedict: Easter brings us to the side of reason, freedom and love “It is not the case that in the expanding universe, at a late stage, in some tiny corner of the cosmos, there evolved randomly some species of living being capable of reasoning and of trying to find rationality within creation, or to bring rationality into it. If man were merely a random product of evolution in some place on the margins of the universe, then his life would make no sense or might even be a chance of nature. But no, Reason is there at the beginning: creative, divine Reason.” **

 

[Peter_Plato]

Originally Posted by Peter Plato
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.

Well no, it’s not the same “kind of thing” at all. Squares are a subset of rectangles precisely because there is nothing about squares that cannot be found in rectangles. What makes squares unique is a peculiar iteration of a rectangular property, not an entire plethora of novel properties such as the ones I partially listed above. It would be like saying all squares are rectangles but they also can sing opera, do the jitterbug, drive cars, play the banjo, etc. etc. Which is to say they aren’t really “only rectangles” after all.

Originally Posted by Peter Plato

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.

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.

The problem is with your idiosyncratically imprecise but erratic application of labels to ideas that haven’t been fully articulated in that brain of yours. It is mildly interesting that you are willing to run fast and loose with the meaning of the word “quadruped,” but are retentively picky about the word “creationist.”

I suggest you allow the definition of “creationist” to include anyone who thinks the universe was “created.” From there we can further subdivide the class to include various forms of creationist ideas. You have demonstrated you can do this by distinguishing squares as subsets of rectangles (see above.)

If “creationists” include everyone who thinks the universe was created, then we could subdivide this large class of thinkers into…

1. theistic evolution creationists - those who, like you, subscribe to the idea that God created and tuned the cosmos at the front end to bring about evolution as a natural process that no further required his guiding hand.
2. old earth creationists - those who think God created and continues to guide (by direct intervention) the processes of creation and evolution in large time scales (billions of years.)
3. young earth creationists - those who think God created the universe in a short time scale (tens of thousands of years) and directly intervened to “hand” form unique species of plants and animals - generally in line with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

I understand that you are resistant to the idea of being “lumped in” with those other “creationists” because of the connotations that go with the word, but perhaps you could see it as a kind of penitential self-emptying - a call to eat and drink with tax collectors, sinners and assorted other untouchables, academically speaking.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You are describing bad behavior of a group based solely upon a belief they hold that has nothing to do with the behavior.

I don’t quite base it on their beliefs, it’s just that particular group that wants
argue against evolution is commonly making such fallacies. They really do
it, and I’m not being prejudice by simply pointing it out.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It is non-canonical because it was discovered after the Age of the Apostles.

No, it’s non-canonical because it isn’t Scripture.

 

[Crossbones]

That is what they would have you believe. There is a huge difference between micro and macro. One happens, the other is make believe.

Those sneaky guys…

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

It is non-canonical because it was discovered after the Age of the Apostles.

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)

 

[HansTrappist]

Michael Behe has demonstrated that there is a mathematical limit to what Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution can achieve in Nature. Anything beyond that mathematical limit requires Non-Random Evolution (aka Design). Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Even Richard Dawkins admits that Nature appears to be Designed, but he will not admit that this appearance is real. Dawkins thinks that Darwinian (aka Random) Mutation can give rise to this “appearance” of design. The only problem, as Michael Behe has demonstrated in his book The Edge of Evolution, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Random Mutation gave rise to complex, intelligent biological life that we see around us. In fact, Behe demonstrates that it is a mathematical impossibility and that in fact Random Mutation is much better at Devolution than Evolution.

It is really quite satisfying to know that all these smug militant atheists are actually anti-scientific hypocrites who cling to an irrational belief system with an almost religious fervor.

 

[Peter_Plato]

There is no difference to macro and micro evolution. I don’t intend on repeating the arguments that others have already made.

Humor me

How can it be demonstrated experimentally that natural selection acting on genetic mutation has sufficient efficacy to generate all the variations of animal and plant life on Earth from an initial, perhaps relatively simple, DNA configuration?

Again, I have a problem seeing this because a common sense take on “coding” is that random changes to coded information will almost always degrade, NOT improve, functionality. The party line regarding evo is that random alterations consistently brought forth millions upon millions of gradual improvements to the code which allow for diversity, survival and increasing complexity in life forms.

How can that claim regarding continual diversity, complexity and improvement in life forms ever plausibly be “tested” experimentally? You say it can be. How?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Michael Behe has demonstrated that there is a mathematical limit to what Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution can achieve in Nature. Anything beyond that mathematical limit requires Non-Random Evolution (aka Design). Design is the purposeful arrangement of parts. Even Richard Dawkins admits that Nature appears to be Designed, but he will not admit that this appearance is real. Dawkins thinks that Darwinian (aka Random) Mutation can give rise to this “appearance” of design. The only problem, as Michael Behe has demonstrated in his book The Edge of Evolution, is that there is no empirical evidence to suggest that Random Mutation gave rise to complex, intelligent biological life that we see around us. In fact, Behe demonstrates that it is a mathematical impossibility and that in fact Random Mutation is much better at Devolution than Evolution.

It is really quite satisfying to know that all these smug militant atheists are actually anti-scientific hypocrites who cling to an irrational belief system with an almost religious fervor.

I hope that you’re not implying that I’m an atheist because I believe in Evolution.

I don’t like the term “Intelligent Design” so much, but I do believe in a Designer, God, who
can most certainly beat whatever sort of mathematical conundrum that a Creationist may
want to bring up.

Another Logical Fallacy, by the way: Creative Math , which
is really nothing more than a glorified Straw Man Argument.

 

[HansTrappist]

I hope that you’re not implying that I’m an atheist because I believe in Evolution.

Define “Evolution” for the class, please.

I don’t like the term “Intelligent Design” so much, but I do believe in a Designer, God, who
can most certainly beat whatever sort of mathematical conundrum that a Creationist may
want to bring up.

Another Logical Fallacy, by the way: Creative Math , which
is really nothing more than a glorified Straw Man Argument.

Wow, you really are all over the place, aren’t you?

You don’t “like” Intelligent Design yet you believe in a Designer? Right…talk about fallacies…as if your ad hominem against Behe wasn’t enough.

 

[vz71]

I don’t quite base it on their beliefs, it’s just that particular group that wants
argue against evolution is commonly making such fallacies. They really do
it, and I’m not being prejudice by simply pointing it out.

If Creationists are not defined by their beliefs, what are they defined by?

And how is it not a pre judgment to attribute bad behavior on a group of people, many of whom you know nothing of other then a belief they hold in common?