One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[buffalo]

Then what was the point of trying to prove to me earlier? No, Lack of 100% Literal
does not negate the Flood, but when we try desperately trying to grab at anything
we can to protect the story, that’s a problem.

Then don’t say, “We do believe God did it. The alternative is ‘every-
thing came from nothing’ - the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).”

But you’re the one saying that Evolution is “blind unguided chance,” ultimately, irrefutably,
without any possible exception, PERIOD. I don’t say that. People who believe in evolution
AND “God did it” don’t say that. What you are doing is FORCING evolution to say it, lock
the door, and swallow the key, and bind all who buy into evolution to that BUC principle.

We can agree on this, “complexity of the universe is a testament to God,” Paul said it him-
self, Nature testifies of God, etc, and that we can always learn more and more about God’s
Creation, and it will take a lot of thinking. You can take the position of “BUC is a less satis-
fying solution,” I’m not going to dispute that, because I don’t force BUC upon evolution like
you keep doing.

Revisiting the Flood portion of our discussion:

1. 
   *]I listed a a while back a few things that Creationists take seriously
   and verifiable by their fake science called Intelligent Design, World
   Flood was part of that list,
   *]You said that you believe the Flood and offered at least three differ-
   ent ideas as supporting evidence for the Flood, which were KINDA
   weak, sorry, but they don’t prove the Flood as literal,
   *]About thirty posts later, however, you were saying that, “Catholics
   do not believe it to be 100% literal,” which is fine, either way, Fine,
   but with that in mind, why would do you take the Creation account
   as 100% literal and/or attack evolution in favor of Creationism?

1. 
   Methinks we have a failure to communicate.
   
   I stated most biologists are atheists.
   Atheists do not believe in God.
   Their evolution formulations exclude God.
   Their evolution formulations posit blind unguided chance.
   They have as much faith in this BUC as you and I have in God.
   Therefore their god is BUC.
   
   That is what they believe and write.

 

[samiam1611]

Now here is the thing about creationism.
The nuances of the positions contained within the broad category of creationism can really be quite different!

Wikipedia:
Creationism is the religious belief that life, the Earth, and the universe are the creation of a supernatural being

Conservapedia:
Creationism is the belief that the earth and universe and the various kinds of animals and plants were created by God or some other supreme being.

Emphasis added by me

The following admittedly contains a bit more personal opinion opinion than my previous post.
For our purposes, Conservapedia’s definition is preferable in that it is more specific in distinguishing it from theistic evolution although technically theistic evolution does, in a sense, fall under the category of creationism as defined by Wikipedia. Based on our goal of clarifying the meanings and implications of the words creationism, intelligent design, and evolution, I think we should define or elaborate on the definition of the definition of creationism, in particular Wikipedia’s definition. Of course if you read the whole article it explains it all but I am trying to be a bit more succinct than an entire encyclopedia entry.

To me, a creationist is a Christian (usually) who takes the biblical account of creation to a far degree of literalness to the extent that it is incompatible with evolution, in particular, common descent and speciation.

To me, creationism is distinct from theistic evolution in a very important way - the rejection or extreme skepticism just short of rejection, of the scientific consensus of evolution. Even though believers in theistic evolution do not deny that God created the universe etc, I think the connotation of creationism is the rejection of evolution, therefore believers in theistic evolution should feel free to reject the label of creationist that some assign to them. I mean it’s up to you what you want to call yourself, I’m just saying that’s what the word means to me and I think if you asked a random person on the street they would agree that creationists do not believe in evolution so a person who believes in God AND evolution is not a creationist.

That’s my take on it. I did not get into the types of creationism.

Further reading:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creationism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design_movement
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introduction_to_evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation-evolution_controversy
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_misconceptions#Evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objections_to_evolution
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

 

[buffalo]

Then what was the point of trying to prove to me earlier? No, Lack of 100% Literal
does not negate the Flood, but when we try desperately trying to grab at anything
we can to protect the story, that’s a problem.

Then don’t say, “We do believe God did it. The alternative is ‘every-
thing came from nothing’ - the god of BUC (blind unguided chance).”

But you’re the one saying that Evolution is “blind unguided chance,” ultimately, irrefutably,
without any possible exception, PERIOD. I don’t say that. People who believe in evolution
AND “God did it” don’t say that. What you are doing is FORCING evolution to say it, lock
the door, and swallow the key, and bind all who buy into evolution to that BUC principle.

We can agree on this, “complexity of the universe is a testament to God,” Paul said it him-
self, Nature testifies of God, etc, and that we can always learn more and more about God’s
Creation, and it will take a lot of thinking. You can take the position of “BUC is a less satis-
fying solution,” I’m not going to dispute that, because I don’t force BUC upon evolution like
you keep doing.

Revisiting the Flood portion of our discussion:

1. 
   *]I listed a a while back a few things that Creationists take seriously
   and verifiable by their fake science called Intelligent Design, World
   Flood was part of that list,
   *]You said that you believe the Flood and offered at least three differ-
   ent ideas as supporting evidence for the Flood, which were KINDA
   weak, sorry, but they don’t prove the Flood as literal,
   *]About thirty posts later, however, you were saying that, “Catholics
   do not believe it to be 100% literal,” which is fine, either way, Fine,
   but with that in mind, why would do you take the Creation account
   as 100% literal and/or attack evolution in favor of Creationism?

1. 
   You have yet to prove your case ID is fake science.
   
   My first steps were to show that catastrophism happened. Uniformatarians rejected it and so did you by asking me how many geologists agree. So having reviewed my evidence your position has changed.
   
   Having studying the evidence for evo and the current trends I cannot support it. As a Catholic I would at least have to take a theistic evo stance. But even atheists understand that middle ground is faulty. They know it is either evo or design.
   
   Having studied the Catholic history and understanding as well as current science has led me to the IDvolution idea. Faith and reason cannot be opposed for they both flow from the very same God.
   
   I asked a question many posts before. Did God know what Adam would look like? It has not been answered.

 

[HansTrappist]

:clapping:
I have read this entire mind-numbingly repetitive thread and concluded that your questions are of much importance and a lot of posts have been a waste because the answers to these questions were not established from the beginning…

I think Michael Behe sums it up pretty nicely in The Edge of Evolution:

"Somewhere between the level of vertebrate species and class lies the organismal edge of Darwinian (aka Random) evolution.

…the major architectural features of life— molecular machinery, cells, genetic circuitry, and probably more— are purposely designed. But the architectural constraints leave spandrels that can be filled with Darwinian adaptations. Of course, Darwinian processes would not produce anything so coherent as the paintings of the four evangelists. Random mutation and natural selection ornament biological spandrels more in the drip-painting style of the abstract American artist Jackson Pollock. The myriad gorgeous color patterns of animals— butterfly wings, tiger stripes, bright tropical fish— are some examples of Darwin among the spandrels.

Darwin decorates the spandrels. The cathedral is designed."

 

[vz71]

So are we all in agreement now that the flood was not impossible?

I’m not the one that is in disagreement.

I have little doubt about a flood.

And I feel it likely that one was used towards God’s designs in the bible.

I also feel it likely that the bible does not provide a completely accurate account, but the main theme is truth. There was a flood, it covered what at the time was considered the world, God saved Noah.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Dinosaur bones have been dated by radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dates generally range from 22,000 to 39,000 Carbon-14 years before present
The dates themselves are not as important as the fact that there is measurable Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one atom of Carbon-14 left in their bones!
First, the data (from dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm, a page of the Paleochronology Group, with Hugh Miller, Josef Holzschuh, and Jean de Pontcharra)

http://4.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS940x940~forums/50713079/2dadd8b7e62d4940b3099d0d3c56e650

Funny thing they aren’t real bones anymore then, isn’t it? They are fossils. Sedimentar-
y material which has replaced all organic matter. How they got the Carbon-14, I am not
sure, but it is not coming from organic matter which is what the carbon dating requires
if we are to determine the age of the fossilized remains in question.

Your source is Creationist, forcing science to say something untrue, force results from
bad experiments. Shame on them especially for the “HISTORICAL REFERENCES TO
DINOSAURS” page, taking Scripture out of context to prove dinosaurs, use that glyph
from the temple in Cambodian and claiming it to be a stegosaurus EVEN THOUGH no
stegosauruses have EVEN existed IN or AROUND Cambodia 800-1200 years ago nor
at the time they actually lived and roamed.

Their very URL says “dinosaurc14ages,” which means they have an agenda, and
will exploit the ignorant by cloaking themselves in the respectability of science…

Try some REAL science now.

 

[Farsight001]

Do you know what inductive reasoning actually is?

Quite. And your insult masked as a question is not appreciated.

You also should realize that the idea of “species” is a label we humans put unto different types of creatures according to certain traits. In effect, it is an arbitrary term.

In a way.

The difference between nylon eating bacteria and non-nylon eating bacteria is marginal. The difference between bacteria and human beings is vast.

How about you do us all a HUGE favor and actually READ the study before you say things you know nothing about. The difference is anything BUT marginal, but thank you for illustrating the problem with creationists - thinking they know and understand better than they really do, so they don’t take the time to carefully read the evidence presented to them.

To infer that bacteria can change from non-nylon consuming to nylon consuming means, inductively speaking, that you have made a case that bacteria can change into human beings is far from being established, especially since you are relying on induction to do so.

You guys asked for proof of evolution. You were given proof of evolution. Demanding that we know prove bacteria to human change is called moving the goal posts. You were given EXACTLY what you were asked for and are refusing to accept it, so you’re making excuses.

It is a start, certainly, but it is not case closed. Continue seeing red, then, perhaps we can witness the evolution of a new species. But don’t start chowing down on nylon, that trait has been taken by the bacteria.

We have already witnessed the evolution of thousands of new species. I gave you an example of one. That you deny it is a new species only reflects poorly on you.

 

[buffalo]

I’m not the one that is in disagreement.

I have little doubt about a flood.

And I feel it likely that one was used towards God’s designs in the bible.

I also feel it likely that the bible does not provide a completely accurate account, but the main theme is truth. There was a flood, it covered what at the time was considered the world, God saved Noah.

Yeah, I probably should not have replied to you. Judas Thaddeus? Are we in agreement?

 

[HansTrappist]

Now here is the thing about creationism.
The nuances of the positions contained within the broad category of creationism can really be quite different!

I also think Behe does a great job of defining just what he means by “Intelligent Design”:

|"Just as nineteenth-century physics presumed light to be carried by the ether, so modern Darwinian biology postulates random mutation and natural selection constructed the sophisticated, coherent machinery of the cell. Unfortunately, the inability to test the theory has hampered its critical appraisal and led to rampant speculation. Nonetheless, although we would certainly have wished otherwise, in just the past fifty years nature herself has ruthlessly conducted the biological equivalent of the Michelson-Morley experiment. Call it the M-H (malaria-HIV) experiment. With a billion times the firepower of the puny labs that humans run, the M-H experiment has scoured the planet looking for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to build coherent biological machinery and has found absolutely nothing.

Why no trace of the fabled blind watchmaker? The simplest explanation is that, like the ether, the blind watchmaker does not exist.

All unintelligent processes give very limited benefit. It’s at this point, then, that we must plunge across the boundary of Darwinian evolution to ponder what lies beyond. On this side of the edge of evolution lie random mutation and natural selection. On the other side— what?

The big question, however, is not, “Who will survive, the more fit or the less fit?” The big question is, “How do organisms become more fit?” Or (now that we know much more about the molecular foundations of life) the question is, “Where did complex, coherent molecular machinery come from?” Even for that big question, the answer almost certainly will involve natural selection (at least after something has been supplied for natural selection to favor). But just as certainly the answer will not involve random mutation at the center. From our best relevant data— parasitic diseases of humanity— we see that random mutation wreaks havoc on a genome. Even when it “helps,” it breaks things much more easily than it makes things and acts incoherently rather than focusing on building integrated molecular systems. Random mutation does not account for the “mind-boggling” systems discovered in the cell.

So what does? If random mutation is inadequate, then (since common descent with modification strongly appears to be true) of course the answer must be non random mutation. That is, alterations to DNA over the course of the history of life on earth must have included many changes that we have no statistical right to expect, ones that were beneficial beyond the wildest reach of probability. Over and over again in the past several billion years, the DNA of living creatures changed in salutary ways that defied chance.

What caused DNA to change in nonrandom, helpful ways? One can envision several possibilities. The first is bare chance— earth was just spectacularly lucky. Although we have no right to expect all the many beneficial mutations that led to intelligent life here, they happened anyway, for no particular reason. Life on earth bought Powerball lottery ticket after lottery ticket, and all the tickets simply happened to be grand prize winners. The next possibility is that some unknown law or laws exist that made the cellular outcomes much more likely than we now have reason to suppose. If we eventually determine those laws, however, we’ll see that the particular machinery of life we have discovered was in a sense written into the laws. A third possibility is that, although mutation is indeed random, at many critical historical junctures the environment somehow favored certain explicit mutations that channeled separate molecular parts together into coherent systems. In this view the credit for the elegant machinery of the cell should go not so much to Darwin’s mechanism as to the outside world, the environment at large.

Each reader must make his own judgments about the adequacy of these possible explanations. I myself, however, find them all unpersuasive. Although much more could be said, briefly my reasons are these. The first possibility— sheer chance— is deeply unsatisfying when invoked on such a massive scale. Science— and human rationality in general— strives to explain features of the world with reasons. Although serendipity certainly plays its part in nature, advancing sheer chance as an explanation for profoundly functional features of life strikes me as akin to abandoning reason altogether. The second and third possibilities both seem inadequate on other grounds. They both seem in a sense to be merely sweeping the problem of the complexity of life under the rug. The second possibility replaces the astounding complexity of life with some unknown law that itself must be ultracomplex. The third possibility simply projects the functional complexity of life onto the environment. But, even in theory, neither the second nor third possibilities actually reduce complexity to simplicity, as Darwin’s failed explanation once promised to do…(cont)"

 

[HansTrappist]

“(cont.)…Instead, I conclude that another possibility is more likely: The elegant, coherent, functional systems upon which life depends are the result of deliberate intelligent design. Now, I am keenly aware that in the past few years many people in the country have come to regard the phrase “intelligent design” as fighting words, because to them, the word “design” is synonymous with “creationism,” and thus opens the door to treating the Bible as some sort of scientific textbook (which would be silly). That is an unfortunate misimpression. The idea of intelligent design, although congenial to some religious views of the universe, is independent of them. For example, the possibility of intelligent design is quite compatible with common descent, which some religious people disdain. What’s more, although some religious thinkers envision active, continuing intervention in nature, intelligent design is quite compatible with the view that the universe operates by unbroken natural law, with the design of life perhaps packed into its initial set-up. (In fact, possibilities two and three listed above— where nonrandomness was assigned either to complex laws or to the environment— can be viewed as particular examples of this. I think it makes for greater clarity of discussion, however, just to acknowledge explicitly in those cases that the laws or special conditions were purposely designed to produce life)…”

In other words, Michael Behe’s version of Intelligent Design is fully compatible with the teaching of the Catholic Church.

Every Catholic MUST believe that the Universe was Designed. Darwinian (Random) Evolution as taught by Richard Dawkins and as taught by the secular educational system is in no way compatible with the Teaching of the Catholic Church.

 

[Farsight001]

No, you simply implied it very heavily.

Are you kidding?! I didn’t imply it AT ALL. Quit making stuff up. Its childish.

You did NOT claim that someone who rejects evolution rejects only part of science.

Nor should I have to. Making baseless assumptions about my meaning is your problem, not mine. I did nothing wrong. You guys jumped to conclusions and are now made at me over your own error. Get over yourselves.

Look at my analogy.
Mary is the mother of Jesus
Jesus is God
Mary is the mother of God.

Did I say Jesus is “all” God - i.e. the Father and the Holy spirit too? Nope. But by your line of reasoning, you would have me believe that my statement “implied very heavily” that I meant that Mary is the mother of the Father and the Holy Spirit too. Sorry, but I’m not buying it.

 

[Farsight001]

This reminds me of the Guinness Book of Records fellow who has consumed a train locomotive and various other metallic contraptions. If some genetic component is found to correlate with his propensity for iron does that imply we have a whole new species of human beings?

Again, read the study. It does NOT say that “bacteria mutated to eat nylon”. It says “bacteria became an entirely new species that now prefers nylon”. You act like the nylon eating is the only thing that changed. It is not. It is merely the most notable. Had you cared about understanding more than arguing, you would have read the study as suggested and known that.

 

[Farsight001]

An interesting question.
As it does seem many here are operating off of different definitions.

Perhaps clarity is in order.

What exactly is the definition of evolution?
What exactly is the definition of creationist?
What exactly is intelligent design?

We already clarified that in the earlier posts in this thread. The problem, however, is that some people still insist on making up their own definitions.

 

[Farsight001]

When and where? By a Dover, Pennsylvania judge?

nope. It was determined before Judge Jones came along

 

[Farsight001]

Read the whole post, bacteria do not fit the hypothesis.

Sure it does. One species became another species. That’s the ID advocate definition of macro-evolution. You think because it doesn’t reproduce sexually like humans that that matters? I certainly hope not.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

You have yet to prove your case ID is fake science.

Alrighty then, let’s try the Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/what_you_can_do/why-intelligent-design-is-not.html

My first steps were to show that catastrophism happened. Uniformatarians rejected it and so did you by asking me how many geologists agree. So having reviewed my evidence your position has changed.

How has my position changed?

I asked a question many posts before. Did God know what Adam would look like? It has not been answered.

I don’t think you did ask, but let’s answer: God knew, God knows everything, God may
have even guided evolution (not that you accept that) to make man the way he wanted.

 

[Farsight001]

Dinosaur bones have been dated by radiocarbon (Carbon-14) Dates generally range from 22,000 to 39,000 Carbon-14 years before present
The dates themselves are not as important as the fact that there is measurable Carbon-14 in dinosaur bones. If dinosaurs have been extinct for 65 million years, there should not be one atom of Carbon-14 left in their bones!
First, the data (from dinosaurc14ages.com/carbondating.htm, a page of the Paleochronology Group, with Hugh Miller, Josef Holzschuh, and Jean de Pontcharra)

Again, dinosaur bones CANNOT be radiocarbon dated. You need carbon left over to do a C-14 test. Being mineralized, dinosaur bones have no remaining carbon to test. If you try to, you will get a result, but it will be a gibberish result - testing whatever imperfection was on the surface of the bone. I know one guy who tried with a bone already sealed in polyurethane, so it naturally dated the sealant. If someone really tried to C-14 date a dino bone, that person is a complete and utter moron or at least trying to illustrate why it doesn’t work.

You think if the method doesn’t work, it should come back with a zero result? That only proves you don’t know how it works. It measures a ratio and presents that ratio. It is going to give a result EVERY TIME, even if there is no carbon. It will be gibberish, as I said, but it will produce a result.

 

[Farsight001]

Was never refuted “decades before he even finished school” because the studies on HIV, E.Coli and Malaria were not done until relatively recently. It is obvious you have not read Behe’s book nor really delved into his superior arguments.

Who here mentioned HIV and Malaria? I was talking about the mathematical limit. You guys just love jumping to conclusions about what I’m talking about, don’t you?

Also, your irrational and uncharitable hostility towards Behe and Intelligent Design is oh so revealing. :blushing:

That I have disdain for those who are dishonest and connive and plot and are too proud to admit they are wrong or even that they don’t know the answer? Yep. I’ll admit it. I have disdain. That doesn’t make them right, though.

 

[Farsight001]

So are we all in agreement now that the flood was not impossible?

No. Large floods are possible. A global flood, without direct intervention from God is not possible and in fact is proven false based on geological evidence. (every flood leaves a marker in the earth)

 

[HansTrappist]

Who here mentioned HIV and Malaria? I was talking about the mathematical limit. You guys just love jumping to conclusions about what I’m talking about, don’t you?

Behe mentioned HIV and Malaria and it was from the studies of HIV, Malaria, and E.Coli that Behe reached the conclusion that there is a mathematical limit to what Random Mutation can achieve in Nature - where it counts.

But you would know all that, wouldn’t you, because you are so convinced that you are right and Behe is wrong.

That I have disdain for those who are dishonest and connive and plot and are too proud to admit they are wrong or even that they don’t know the answer? Yep. I’ll admit it. I have disdain. That doesn’t make them right, though.

Who is “conniving and plotting” here?

That is such an uncharitable thing to imply.