One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Judas_Thaddeus]

As far as the flood goes I believe it to be historical. If a local flood God should have told Noah to move.

In the Noah account we see chiastic structures. There is a lot more in scripture that meets the eye. In the garden, the tree of life is thought to be figurative. However, it refers to something that sustains. There is a point to it. Parables told by Jesus, didn’t happen, but they had a point to them. As I stated Catholics understand Scripture as to what the author intended to convey. In the Noah story, there was a big flood with survivors.

Have you read Humani Generis were the Catholic Church is in fact open to the notion that
the flood account is metaphorical? You also don’t seem to get that the point of the Flood
account isn’t that “In the Noah story, there was a big flood with survivors.” The point of the
story is to say that God in the end will protect those faithful and righteous and that all the
wicked will perish away. COMPLETELY MISSED IT!

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

post 590

Wish I could measure it to see how it lines up with Jubilees dimensions.

http://www.foundationsforfreedom.ne...rofBabel/_resGen10-11/Babel_Mound_Babylon.jpg

Well you could probably find out with Google Earth or
Map, they have those measurement tools, don’t they?

But in any case, I think there’d be a lot more evidence of a literal Tower of Babel,
EVEN \a destroyed Tower, clearly seen that was working its way into the sky.

 

[Farsight001]

Cats ARE dogs. If you deny cats are dogs, you deny basic logic because cats are dogs.

How does that show cats are dogs?

Evolution is science. If you deny evolution is science you deny basic logic because evolution is science.

How does that show evolution is science? Or that denying evolution is denying science?

You haven’t demonstrated that evolution IS science, you assume it is in order to claim that denying one is the same as denying the other.

It’s not basic logic, at all. It is engaging in begging the question of whether evolution is science by merely stipulating that it is.

Lol.
So first of all, even if you were right, that still isn’t question begging. That’s simply you choosing to reject one of my premises. Question begging would be assuming the conclusion is true to prove that the conclusion is true. The conclusion in this case is “those that deny evolution deny science”, and it is THAT statement that would have to be pre-assumed for it to be question begging. You’re looking for an indirect way when it is extremely straightforward.

And second of all - you don’t think evolution is science? Lol. There’s no reasoning with you.

 

[Farsight001]

I find it interesting that we are supposed to know and understand what is actually meant behind inaccurate word use. But it would appear opposition using inaccurate terms is considered uneducated.

I misspoke on terminology once. Even the best and most knowledgeable do that from time to time. They have multiple terminology errors in EACH POST. The difference is in the degree to which bad terminology is used and after 20 pages talking about it, they still haven’t noticed their error. One guy called me on it an I immediately acknolwedged that I misspoke. The ID/Creationists have been "misspeaking’ for dozens of posts now, and have been called on it several times and still bull on ahead with the wrong words. That’s a surefire sign of not being educated on the subject.

 

[Farsight001]

At what point did a theory become the whole of science?

I never said “Evolution is ALL OF science”. I went through this clarification once already (even though I should not have had to do that the first time)

 

[Farsight001]

Dinosaurs - are you the many recent soft tissue finds? Dinosaur bones have been carbon dated between 28000 -32000ya.

First of all, they are not "soft tissue’ finds. They are so well preserved that they can see individual parts and they move around and are not fused all together. They’re still fossilized.

Second of all, you can’t carbon date a fossil. Fossils are mineralized organic material. since they are mineralized, there is no carbon left in them to carbon date, and any results you get back from attempting to carbon date them will be gibberish.

 

[Farsight001]

Yes, I believe there was a flood. Catastrophism is now accepted by geologists. There are over 70 flood legends around the world. Ancient Chinese Characters tell the story of the flood.

Yes, but scientists mean something COMPLETELY different by the term catastrophism than you and the Creationists do.

 

[Farsight001]

Yes, evolutionism denies God.

Where does it say that? Where is that in the official definition of evolution?

 

[HansTrappist]

And second of all - you don’t think evolution is science? Lol. There’s no reasoning with you.

What do you mean by “evolution?”

If by “evolution is science” you mean common descent and natural selection then, yes, “evolution” is a fact in that sense.

But if by “evolution” is science" you are implying that natural selection acting on random mutation gave rise to the complex, intelligent life that we see around us then, no, “evolution” is not a fact but rather a fairy tale - in fact a very old fairy tale going all the way back to Epicurus. Charles Darwin reintroduced the fairy tale to modern audiences and Richard Dawkins has done a wonderful job marketing it. But it is not supported by modern science at all. In fact, as Michael Behe has demonstrated, there is a mathematical limit to what Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution can achieve in Nature.

It is a nice fairy tale though, one that really serves only one purpose: to achieve what Epicurus dubbed “ataraxia”: freedom from the “disturbing” thought of a God, and Sin, and worst of all, the “disturbing” thought of an afterlife. LOL!

 

[Farsight001]

Here is how.

Evolution is not empirical science as it is trying to reconstruct past events. Empirical science is observable, testable and predictable. Evolution does not meet the test. It is therefore philosophy and some take it as religion.

Evolution is very observable, testable, and predictable and has been observed, tested, and predicted hundreds of thousands of times over and so many different ways. Even if it weren’t, nothing about this suggests that Evolution denies God.

 

[Farsight001]

They are motivated by the evidence.

For 50 or so years J Harlen Bretz was trying to convince uniformatarians. He was ostracized until - Mystery of the Megaflood

This “pothole” was drilled out of solid rock by water in just a few hours.

https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/...yAUAoGRrnWyo7EupDWmLdv53X4iiy3xOpHb6YpDMqE0Gg

This too:

http://hugefloods.com/Drumheller_Channels.jpg

I can tell just by looking at those things that they took far more than a few hours. Let me run some tests on the rocks and I can even get a good minimum range, which will be several months, bare minimum.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Dinosaurs - are you the many recent soft tissue finds? Dinosaur bones have been carbon dated between 28000 -32000ya.

Going with Farsight001’s answer to that. And where did you get “28000 -32000ya” thing?

 

[Peter_Plato]

Most mutations are neutral - neither beneficial or harmful. The harmful ones die out; the beneficial ones propagate forward. This is what can be observed in the laboratory in species where many generations can be observed in a short time. It is a reasonable extrapolation in conjunction with other evidence that evolution occurs. I don’t think you accept evolution and I don’t think I will convince you otherwise, so I guess we’ll have to agree to disagree.

It isn’t that I don’t accept evolution, it IS that …

1. I need to be clear what it us that I am accepting. Unfortunately, the term “evolution” has so many layers and subtle inferences attached to it that when anyone says “evolution” they probably have quite a different configuration of those layers and inferences, so distinct from anyone else who uses the term that, very likely, the same “entity” is not being discussed.
2. I take a philosophical approach to this issue. That means I do not accept evolution a priori and then attempt to jerrymander the evidence to fit the explanation. What I do do is take the evidence at face value and only then determine what it entails. It is not clear to me that, on the whole, the preponderance of evidence leads to a conclusion that evolution must be occurring and can be the only possible or plausible explanation. It is a plausible inference, but it has, by no means, been conclusively demonstrated. So from a philosophical perspective, I see no problem questioning those inferences that require justification because they are not as compelling as they have been portrayed to be by “proponents” of the theory.

My confidence in “evolution” has not been bolstered by posters in this thread. My general impression is that the case for evolution isn’t being made very cogently because there is not a strong case to be made. That is clear from the lack of compelling argument over the hundreds of posts so far written.

The most virulently proposed “argument” has been that evolution is correct because, well, it is opposed by “creationists” who are incompetent baboons but can’t see that fact because they refuse to believe they actually descended from apes and the genetic evidence obviously shows they did.

Neither am I convinced by a claim that all “creationists” (a catch-all equivocation if there ever was one) are guilty of a myriad of fallacies when that claim, itself, is a severe but oblivious application of kettle logic.

I would oppose such thinking on the grounds that it is nonsense even if I were a rabid evolutionist. It portrays evolutionists as sloppy logicians and incompetent thinkers. I am sure a better case can be made, it just hasn’t been. Which leaves me wondering why.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

The most virulently proposed “argument” has been that evolution is correct because, well, it is opposed by “creationists” who are incompetent baboons but can’t see that fact because they refuse to believe they actually descended from apes and the genetic evidence obviously shows they did.

No, I don’t think so.
Maybe there has been a lot of discrediting Creationists, saying they’re views are wrong be**-**
cause it doesn’t fit the evidence, also been a talks on logical fallacies and so forth, but I do
not believe there’s been anything like “Evolution is True because Creationists are so dumb”
points ever brought up.

 

[Crossbones]

It isn’t that I don’t accept evolution, it IS that …

1. I need to be clear what it us that I am accepting. Unfortunately, the term “evolution” has so many layers and subtle inferences attached to it that when anyone says “evolution” they probably have quite a different configuration of those layers and inferences, so distinct from anyone else who uses the term that, very likely, the same “entity” is not being discussed.
2. I take a philosophical approach to this issue. That means I do not accept evolution a priori and then attempt to jerrymander the evidence to fit the explanation. What I do do is take the evidence at face value and only then determine what it entails. It is not clear to me that, on the whole, the preponderance of evidence leads to a conclusion that evolution must be occurring and can be the only possible or plausible explanation. It is a plausible inference, but it has, by no means, been conclusively demonstrated. So from a philosophical perspective, I see no problem questioning those inferences that require justification because they are not as compelling as they have been portrayed to be by “proponents” of the theory.

My confidence in “evolution” has not been bolstered by posters in this thread. My general impression is that the case for evolution isn’t being made very cogently because there is not a strong case to be made. That is clear from the lack of compelling argument over the hundreds of posts so far written.

The most virulently proposed “argument” has been that evolution is correct because, well, it is opposed by “creationists” who are incompetent baboons but can’t see that fact because they refuse to believe they actually descended from apes and the genetic evidence obviously shows they did.

Neither am I convinced by a claim that all “creationists” (a catch-all equivocation if there ever was one) are guilty of a myriad of fallacies when that claim, itself, is a severe but oblivious application of kettle logic.

I would oppose such thinking on the grounds that it is nonsense even if I were a rabid evolutionist. It portrays evolutionists as sloppy logicians and incompetent thinkers. I am sure a better case can be made, it just hasn’t been. Which leaves me wondering why.

If you are sincere, then go to a college or university and take an course of evolution and learn about it in detail. You are only going to get tidbits of information here because a forum is a poor way of learning about a topic such as this and the debate on this topic always revolves around small gaps in evolution being exploited by creationists or IDers to say it’s all bunk. The fact is, I shouldn’t have ‘humored you’ because I am not an expert on the field. I know what science is and I know ID is not science and that was my point in posting.

EDIT: Example of the type of debate you get on the field is directly below my post

 

[PRmerger]

Even if it weren’t, nothing about this suggests that Evolution denies God.

 

[Peter_Plato]

No, I don’t think so.
Maybe there has been a lot of discrediting Creationists, saying they’re views are wrong be**-**
cause it doesn’t fit the evidence, also been a talks on logical fallacies and so forth, but I do
not believe there’s been anything like “Evolution is True because Creationists are so dumb”
points ever brought up.

Yes, I understand that you don’t think so.

So

1. Creationists are wrong because their views (strict literal interpretation of Genesis) don’t fit the evidence.
2. Meyer is wrong because he is a creationist despite the fact that both his books (Signature in the Cell and Darwin’s Doubt) address, precisely, the evidence. He can’t be right - not on the grounds of his arguments - but BECAUSE he is a creationist and we all know creationists are wrong because their views don’t fit the evidence.
3. Meyer is a creationist - even though he does not accept a strict literal interpretation of Genesis - because creationists think “God did it.”
4. You, yourself, ultimately believe “God did it” but you are not a “creationist,” although Meyer still is because he does not fully accept evolution.
5. You are not a “creationist” because you secretively believe God “hides” his design behind random mutations and natural selection, whereas Meyer is a creationist because he attempts to build a strong case that design is the most plausible explanation for genetic coding.
6. To fully accept all the implications of “evolution” as espoused by material evolutionists entails that God did NOT do it, so how we reconcile evolution with “God did it” is to keep our “God did it” views secretive and undercover so that we won’t be thought to be “creationists.”
   Apparently stealth in this business of evolution is everything and playing your cards is anathema.
7. You CAN be a creationist and still be an evolutionist so long as you clearly “state” your views on evolution but keep you views on creation to yourself. That is how the “game” is played, you see. Much like in Roman times. You could be a Christian so long as you didn’t publicly proclaim that you were. It would have been possible for Christians to have survived the “natural selection” process in play at the time (aka persecution) if they had only known about this rule #7. By keeping their views to themselves (a survival trait if there ever was one) they would have been able to survive the persecutions and Christianity would have flourished. But alas…

…wait a minute

 

[Peter_Plato]

I know what science is and I know ID is not science and that was my point in posting.

I have enough of an idea about “what science is” to know that good science is based on logical implications from evidence, thus on “good philosophy.”

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

What do you mean by “evolution?”

If by “evolution is science” you mean common descent and natural selection then, yes, “evolution” is a fact in that sense.

But if by “evolution” is science" you are implying that natural selection acting on random mutation gave rise to the complex, intelligent life that we see around us then, no, “evolution” is not a fact but rather a fairy tale - in fact a very old fairy tale going all the way back to Epicurus. Charles Darwin reintroduced the fairy tale to modern audiences and Richard Dawkins has done a wonderful job marketing it. But it is not supported by modern science at all. In fact, as Michael Behe has demonstrated, there is a mathematical limit to what Darwinian (aka Random) Evolution can achieve in Nature.

It is a nice fairy tale though, one that really serves only one purpose: to achieve what Epicurus dubbed “ataraxia”: freedom from the “disturbing” thought of a God, and Sin, and worst of all, the “disturbing” thought of an afterlife. LOL!

You haven’t yet answered my question yet.
I ask again:
Are you implying that I am an atheist because I believe in Evolution?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Yes, I understand that you don’t think so.

So

[Not omitting the list, just shortening this seply]

…wait a minute

Ah! So no one said that Evolution is true because Creationists are incompetent,
you are just inferring that. I notice also that you use the “material evolutionists”
and say that it can’t be reconciled with “God did it,” well it’s called “theistic ev-
olution,” look it up.