One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows

[Farsight001]

I answered…

You answered none of those questions. Did he use quarks? how did he calculate the number of quarks? You didn’t even try to answer that question. And again, what about gravity and weak and strong nuclear forces? What about bosons? And light waves? And why multiply instead of divide by “moments”?

So, to spell it out, he included Quarks, gluons and photons. The numbers are from current and available knowledge.

And by the way, getting data from a website like that is just plain amateur. Especially that website that has so many immediately obvious errors - such as, again, the idea that 10^80 is an accurate number for the most fundamental particles when it is the amount of atoms in the universe.

You can’t play the game of “Dembski is wrong” because I don’t answer every conceivable question you come up with that may or may not even be relevant. Much of his work is available online or through Amazon. You can’t dismiss the entirety of his work just because you have unanswered questions that YOU refuse to find answers for.

No, but we can point out that Dembski is wrong because he’s so ridiculously wrong its obvious to a blind man.

Take it up with him. But your ignorance (as in lack of answers to your peculiar questions) is not an argument against Dembski, it merely shows that you haven’t sought for yourself what Dembski would say. Don’t assume HE hasn’t answered them just because I refuse to be your research assistant. If you really propose questions for the sole purpose of remaining in denial, you are free to do so, but don’t blame Dembski for that (and I refuse to partake in your enterprise.)

You misunderstand. A professional scientist is supposed to cover these questions. The very fact that he didn’t do so in the process of formulating his calculation shows his disinterest in honest inquiry.

Persistence raising questions that you wrongly believe are unanswered might give you the assurance of being “right” in your thinking, but you know as well as I that you will not have done your own “due” diligence in the matter. Off-loading is not a viable method in good scholarship, nor in science.

So he did address all these questions? Where?

 

[buffalo]

Yes, I know what Planck time is, as Plato has already done a Google search and provided links. So, why is it reasonable to apply here? Why are there only 10^45 states a second?

Are you willing to say that you can’t explain why this number makes sense to apply to this calculation? After all, you are suggest 10^100. Why 10^100? Because the results you get later are still to your liking. That’s not good enough. You have to have a reason for this number that makes sense. Can you do that?

Demski did not define this number. He is going with what physics has concluded. I will bet that even subbing 10^100 (picked out of thin air) won’t make a diff because the numbers for design are so much higher. I was just trying to help you out. (really really help you out)

 

[edwest2]

Again, how Catholics interpret scripture.

It is raining cats and dogs.

The literal - what the author is intending to convey - it is raining hard
The literalistic - cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

I have yet to hear an at length of how evolution includes God from any scientist. The closest is theistic evolution is God started it and let her go.

The question again. - Did God know what Adam would look like? Yes
Did Adam look as God planned? If yes, then God guided evolution. If so, eliminate blind unguided chance. This I submit would be design. If Adam did not look as God planned, then God made a mistake ?

All claims need to be backed form every side. Absent proof (empirical) then we look at the evidence and come to the best conclusion. Evolutionists claim theirs is the best conclusion without invoking God. (because science cannot address the supernatural by definition). I object when they try to claim they have eliminated God because of scientific conclusions. They have no authority to do this as it is outside their scope by their own definition. This is where evolutionism comes into play. They make religious claims. ID the science is bound by the same issues. It searches for evidence of design then makes a reasoned conclusion whether or not it happened by chance or was designed. If design is concluded as the best explanation, then philosophers/theologians try to posit who the designer is. A design conclusion by ID the science does not automatically conclude God. Suppose we were designed by aliens?

Well said.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Crossbones]

I answered…

So, to spell it out, he included Quarks, gluons and photons. The numbers are from current and available knowledge.

You can’t play the game of “Dembski is wrong” because I don’t answer every conceivable question you come up with that may or may not even be relevant. Much of his work is available online or through Amazon. You can’t dismiss the entirety of his work just because you have unanswered questions that YOU refuse to find answers for.

Take it up with him. But your ignorance (as in lack of answers to your peculiar questions) is not an argument against Dembski, it merely shows that you haven’t sought for yourself what Dembski would say. Don’t assume HE hasn’t answered them just because I refuse to be your research assistant. If you really propose questions for the sole purpose of remaining in denial, you are free to do so, but don’t blame Dembski for that (and I refuse to partake in your enterprise.)

Persistence raising questions that you wrongly believe are unanswered might give you the assurance of being “right” in your thinking, but you know as well as I that you will not have done your own “due” diligence in the matter. Off-loading is not a viable method in good scholarship, nor in science.

I’m simply applying the same standard to Dembski’s model that many others are applying to evolution. Unless you can explain every single facet of it, then,according to the IDer, it’s wrong. Persistence is raising questions is another technique of the IDer. How many times has Farsight answered the same questions over and over? And yet, the IDers keep putting the same questions out there. Offloading research, again, another technique of the IDer. Farsight has had to answer every half-baked and quarter-baked argument against evolution because the IDer won’t do his/her own research. If he doesn’t answer every single question perfectly without errors in terminology, then evolution is wrong. So, all the things you are accusing me of, which I’m sure is fun for you to deal with, are the same methods used by the IDer to argue against evolution. And since you just said that it’s not good scholarship or good science, I guess you can now see how that is true in the arguments made here against evolution.

Now, I’m not saying that you have to accept evolution, but you are ignorant of it, just as you are ignorant of what the Planck time constant really means. You can’t expect to learn about it on a Forum, you need to make a concentrated effort to learn about it, and I would suggest college courses on evolution, statistics and quantum mechanics are in order.

 

[edwest2]

As the level of complexity increases, the possibility that there was enough time decreases.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

Peace,
Ed

 

[Peter_Plato]

You answered none of those questions. Did he use quarks? how did he calculate the number of quarks? You didn’t even try to answer that question. And again, what about gravity and weak and strong nuclear forces? What about bosons? And light waves? And why multiply instead of divide by “moments”?

These questions merely show you don’t have the capacity to comprehend what the numbers mean. If I had the time or inclination I might start at the beginning, but I have neither, so carry on.

And by the way, getting data from a website like that is just plain amateur. Especially that website that has so many immediately obvious errors - such as, again, the idea that 10^80 is an accurate number for the most fundamental particles when it is the amount of atoms in the universe.

And you discovered 10^80 as the number of atoms by looking where, exactly? Amateur websites?

No, but we can point out that Dembski is wrong because he’s so ridiculously wrong its obvious to a blind man.

Yes, he is wrong BECAUSE he is ridiculously wrong. Good argument.

You misunderstand. A professional scientist is supposed to cover these questions. The very fact that he didn’t do so in the process of formulating his calculation shows his disinterest in honest inquiry.

So he did address all these questions? Where?

Your modus operandi to let anyone besides the source “tell” you what the source said in order to - wrongly - conclude that the source didn’t answer your concerns. Speaking of dishonest inquiry…

…why don’t you honestly seek the answers instead of offloading the task?

How would you know what “he didn’t do” without consulting his work?

To paraphrase, “The very fact that YOU aren’t doing so in the process of formulating YOUR conclusions shows YOUR disinterest in honest inquiry.”

Why do you insist on addressing the parrot when the pirate is standing next to you? If you really want to know what the pirate thinks, go to the source, Chicken Little. If you have such a sharp sword of truth at the end of your strong arm, take on the pirate, otherwise stop with the blustering.

 

[Crossbones]

Demski did not define this number. He is going with what physics has concluded. I will bet that even subbing 10^100 (picked out of thin air) won’t make a diff because the numbers for design are so much higher. I was just trying to help you out. (really really help you out)

There are three numbers that Dembski uses in a product to determine what can and can’t happen in the universe. If one of the numbers can’t be explained, then all conclusions about what can or can’t happen are invalid. You cannot explain one of the numbers except to say physics picked it for him. In fact, you are willing to sub 10^100 (as you say, pulled out of thin air), but if you are willing to sub 10^100, why not 10^10000000?

I don’t need help to see that you don’t have any idea where this number came from and why it should be applied here? I’m holding you to a much lower standard then you are holding evolutionary biologists and you are failing. Do you want another chance or are you just going to admit your ignorance of this subject and that you really shouldn’t be trying to apply it in this discussion?

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

I already gave you ID peer reviewed papers list. Here it is again.

Peer-Reviewed & Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design (Annotated)

Some Problems Here: First, I need something NOT FROM Creationist
Oganizations such as Discovery Institute.

I am also seeing already “by design”
manipulation being employed upon
the readers:

“Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience – his Origin of Species – not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves – and is receiving – serious consideration by the scientific community.
Any reason in particular why the above was brought up the way it was?
Also, were there any global or international scientific conferences at the
time of Darwin? The reason in particular is answered hereespite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit.”
IS THAT SO??? Let’s move on . . . “The purpose of ID’s research program is not to convince the unconvincible – critics who repeat over and over in the media that there is no such thing as ID research, that ID has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper. Rather, ID research seeks to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design.”
Why do they need to say that? Are they trying to gain the readers’ sympathy?

I did not read the entire page, though I will go through some of the
sources (some apparently by Creationists), but I can already see
that Discovery Institute is possibly attempting quote mining: Dr. Kuhn cites Behe and reveals the true notion of Intelligent
Design, that it is difficult to believe how the origin of life/DNA
could happen, that humans are so complex, the idea of evolu-
tion cannot be believed, therefore there is the Designer. Notice
how Kuhn and Behe express their opinion, but nothing substan-
tial, simply that their disbelief is evidence.

Kuhn then cites Wells, throwing out numbers, percents, etc,
as though the improbability is evidence that Darwinian evol-
ution is wrong simply on that premise. He continues with all
the numerical issues which interestingly only Creationists
seem to have a problem with.

Crtiticism on Cambrian explosion, simply an expressed disbelief,
no real proof, just a "it’s too explosive for ME to believe.

David Abel is yet another person who just expressed his disbelief
in the idea that life could arise by unguided change, therefore evol-
ution cannot be true, because his opinion somehow counts as proof.
There was mentioning of Chinese Characters, being compared to
proteins, in terms of complexity, in a computer simulation, which
in the end, sorry, appears to be more of a *Red-Herring *combined
with Argument From Personal Incredulity. Just read Behe again, expressing his mere doubts in the complexity
of mutations, “ones with multiple zeros,” showing the unlikeliness,
as though it were reasonable PROOF. It is not.
Why is it that we keep seeing Argument From Personal Incredulity?
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless
of evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a prop-
osition as evidence.

​

Try Again, this time from a Non-Creationists site. It’s a repeating theme, I ask for scientific sources,
you keep sharing links which are directly or indirectly straight from the Creationist community. How
about from something more universal, with a definite scientific seal of approval, not from sites like:

• discovery.org,
• creation.com,
• creationism.org,
• creationtoday.org,
• intelligentdesign.org,
• creationresearch.org,
• intelligentdesignnetwork.org,
• etc, etc, etc. . . .

Such a reasonable request.

 

[buffalo]

Some Problems Here: First, I need something NOT FROM Creationist
Oganizations such as Discovery Institute.

I am also seeing already “by design”
manipulation being employed upon
the readers:

“Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience – his Origin of Species – not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves – and is receiving – serious consideration by the scientific community.
Any reason in particular why the above was brought up the way it was?
Also, were there any global or international scientific conferences at the
time of Darwin? The reason in particular is answered hereespite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit.”
IS THAT SO??? Let’s move on . . . “The purpose of ID’s research program is not to convince the unconvincible – critics who repeat over and over in the media that there is no such thing as ID research, that ID has not produced a single peer-reviewed paper. Rather, ID research seeks to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design.”
Why do they need to say that? Are they trying to gain the readers’ sympathy?

I did not read the entire page, though I will go through some of the
sources (some apparently by Creationists), but I can already see
that Discovery Institute is possibly attempting quote mining: Dr. Kuhn cites Behe and reveals the true notion of Intelligent
Design, that it is difficult to believe how the origin of life/DNA
could happen, that humans are so complex, the idea of evolu-
tion cannot be believed, therefore there is the Designer. Notice
how Kuhn and Behe express their opinion, but nothing substan-
tial, simply that their disbelief is evidence.

Kuhn then cites Wells, throwing out numbers, percents, etc,
as though the improbability is evidence that Darwinian evol-
ution is wrong simply on that premise. He continues with all
the numerical issues which interestingly only Creationists
seem to have a problem with.

Crtiticism on Cambrian explosion, simply an expressed disbelief,
no real proof, just a "it’s too explosive for ME to believe.

David Abel is yet another person who just expressed his disbelief
in the idea that life could arise by unguided change, therefore evol-
ution cannot be true, because his opinion somehow counts as proof.
There was mentioning of Chinese Characters, being compared to
proteins, in terms of complexity, in a computer simulation, which
in the end, sorry, appears to be more of a *Red-Herring *combined
with Argument From Personal Incredulity. Just read Behe again, expressing his mere doubts in the complexity
of mutations, “ones with multiple zeros,” showing the unlikeliness,
as though it were reasonable PROOF. It is not.
Why is it that we keep seeing Argument From Personal Incredulity?
In this fallacy, one argues that because they do not personally find
a premise to be likely or believable, it cannot be true, regardless
of evidence. The fallacy lies in presenting one’s beliefs about a prop-
osition as evidence.

​

Try Again, this time from a Non-Creationists site. It’s a repeating theme, I ask for scientific sources,
you keep sharing links which are directly or indirectly straight from the Creationist community. How
about from something more universal, with a definite scientific seal of approval, not from sites like:

• discovery.org,
• creation.com,
• creationism.org,
• creationtoday.org,
• intelligentdesign.org,
• creationresearch.org,
• intelligentdesignnetwork.org,
• etc, etc, etc. . . .

Such a reasonable request.

Now this is getting absurd. You reject an organization for listing its own peer reviewed research? You really think an evo site is going to list them. Get real.

Moving the goal posts - you asked for peer reviewed ID papers - I gave you them.

 

[buffalo]

There are three numbers that Dembski uses in a product to determine what can and can’t happen in the universe. If one of the numbers can’t be explained, then all conclusions about what can or can’t happen are invalid. You cannot explain one of the numbers except to say physics picked it for him. In fact, you are willing to sub 10^100 (as you say, pulled out of thin air), but if you are willing to sub 10^100, why not 10^10000000?

I don’t need help to see that you don’t have any idea where this number came from and why it should be applied here? I’m holding you to a much lower standard then you are holding evolutionary biologists and you are failing. Do you want another chance or are you just going to admit your ignorance of this subject and that you really shouldn’t be trying to apply it in this discussion?

We have a failure to communicate. You asked where it came from I replied.

The calculation sequence has already been shown to you. You are picking on the 10^45. Do you accept the others and have an issue with just this one?

 

[meltzerboy]

Uh…most of those aren’t peer reviewed journals, and for those that are, they seem to mostly be in irrelevant fields. The first one is a medical journal. Bio-complexity is open source, not peer reviewed, and is not run or operated by experts, but rather by the ID advocates themselves.

And what is so sacred about peer-reviewed journals anyway? The peers who review the journals often have the same biases as the author. Even in the most prestigious journals, there are always inaccuracies concerning theory and method.

 

[Crossbones]

We have a failure to communicate. You asked where it came from I replied.

The calculation sequence has already been shown to you. You are picking on the 10^45. Do you accept the others and have an issue with just this one?

There is a failure to communicate, since you gave me a link saying what Planck time is, but you have not answered why it should be applied here. And that’s my question, has been my question for about 5 posts now and you won’t answer. Why should that number be applied here?

 

[Farsight001]

Demski did not define this number. He is going with what physics has concluded.

Going with a number that physics uses does not mean that its the right number. Again, WHY that number?

 

[Peter_Plato]

I’m simply applying the same standard to Dembski’s model that many others are applying to evolution. Unless you can explain every single facet of it, then,according to the IDer, it’s wrong. Persistence is raising questions is another technique of the IDer. How many times has Farsight answered the same questions over and over? And yet, the IDers keep putting the same questions out there. Offloading research, again, another technique of the IDer. Farsight has had to answer every half-baked and quarter-baked argument against evolution because the IDer won’t do his/her own research. If he doesn’t answer every single question perfectly without errors in terminology, then evolution is wrong. So, all the things you are accusing me of, which I’m sure is fun for you to deal with, are the same methods used by the IDer to argue against evolution. And since you just said that it’s not good scholarship or good science, I guess you can now see how that is true in the arguments made here against evolution.

Now, I’m not saying that you have to accept evolution, but you are ignorant of it, just as you are ignorant of what the Planck time constant really means. You can’t expect to learn about it on a Forum, you need to make a concentrated effort to learn about it, and I would suggest college courses on evolution, statistics and quantum mechanics are in order.

Thanks for the lesson, however, as to…

I’m simply applying the same standard to Dembski’s model that many others are applying to evolution. Unless you can explain every single facet of it, then,according to the IDer, it’s wrong.

The IDer is not claiming “it’s wrong,” the IDer is merely asking for the opportunity to make a case BECAUSE evo hasn’t sufficiently done so. It isn’t so much a question of “it’s wrong” as “it isn’t definitively right.”

Farsight keeps insisting Dembski “is wrong,” in fact, “ridiculously wrong” when he hasn’t shown just cause for thinking that. The IDer claims evo doesn’t currently offer a completely “right” explanation and is proposing one that he suggests better explains the entire picture.
Individuals on this thread have pointed to gaps in evo theory that don’t make it wrong, just not completely right. Farsight goes far, far beyond that by claiming “ridiculously” wrong as the descriptor for ID.

That, in my eyes, reduces his credibility since he can’t bring himself to admit that he might be the one making possible errors somewhere. Unfortunately, some of your posts have come pretty close to his brand of inerrancy. He’s right merely BECAUSE others are, in his eyes, ridiculously wrong.

Skepticism is one thing. Dogmatic skepticism with regard to everything except one’s own perspective is another.

 

[edwest2]

And what is so sacred about peer-reviewed journals anyway? The peers who review the journals often have the same biases as the author. Even in the most prestigious journals, there are always inaccuracies concerning theory and method.

Apparently only a “universal” constant is desired. Both sides must be looked at, for Christians, at least. Bias can exist on both sides but questioning the data from both sides, not just one, is a better approach. “Peer-reviewd journals” are all that the science side has to work with. The problem here regarding the past is that experimental replication is not possible, as opposed to studying the living in order to determine the function(s) of what is alive today. Especially in the areas of preventing and hopefully, curing diseases. By definition, when an author submits a paper, one or more of his peers must review it for accurate presentation and sound methodology. I would not want to be the publisher of a peer-reviewed journal that is consistently called out for publishing rubbish. Such journals are expensive. If I were a scientist, I would find another.

Peace,
Ed

 

[Farsight001]

As the level of complexity increases, the possibility that there was enough time decreases.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/12/131212142151.htm

The article is completely irrelevant to your statement. I would also point out that with the increase of time, the possibility that there was enough of it to arrive at current complexity increases.

 

[Farsight001]

These questions merely show you don’t have the capacity to comprehend what the numbers mean. If I had the time or inclination I might start at the beginning, but I have neither, so carry on.

That’s kind of the point - no one really knows what the numbers mean, as they are arbitrary and no arrived at by any professional scientific methodology.

And you discovered 10^80 as the number of atoms by looking where, exactly? Amateur websites?

Textbooks of course.

Yes, he is wrong BECAUSE he is ridiculously wrong. Good argument.

Quite telling that you completely ignored my explanation as to why he was so obviously wrong.

Your modus operandi to let anyone besides the source “tell” you what the source said in order to - wrongly - conclude that the source didn’t answer your concerns. Speaking of dishonest inquiry…

…why don’t you honestly seek the answers instead of offloading the task?

I am honestly seeking the answers. They do not exist, which is what I have been trying to point out as a serious problem with Dembski’s methodology.

How would you know what “he didn’t do” without consulting his work?

Who said I haven’t consulted his work? I don’t ask these questions because I don’t know the answer. I ask these questions because I have consulted his work and I know he hasn’t provided an answer. They’re to get you to think critically about his “data”, or at the very least to get you to approach his “data” with the same level of scrutiny and skepticism you approach evidence for evolution.

 

[Judas_Thaddeus]

Again, how Catholics interpret scripture.

It is raining cats and dogs.

The literal - what the author is intending to convey - it is raining hard
The literalistic - cats and dogs are falling from the sky.

I have yet to hear an at length of how evolution includes God from any scientist. The closest is theistic evolution is God started it and let her go.

Come on, what you insist that I do is find a definition for a scientific idea that in-
cludes a NONSCIENTIFIC ELEMENT such as God (no, I am not calling God an
“element”). Science does NOT discuss God, nor is it meant to do so. Evolution
does not make a comment on God, simple as that. You can highlight that BUC
factor all you’d like, but the mentioning of “By Chance” etc is merely the conse-
quence of being limited to the physical world.

The question again. - Did God know what Adam would look like? Yes
Did Adam look as God planned? If yes, then God guided evolution. If so, eliminate blind unguided chance. This I submit would be design. If Adam did not look as God planned, then God made a mistake ?

I never made such a statement which contradicts what you just submitted.
Scientists can only, in honesty, say things like unguided, by change, and
so forth because that is the physical evidence alone says, and that is the
boundary which science is limited. Creationists will take that and FORCE
it to mean that God had absolutely nothing to do with all this. Such, I sub-
mit, is not the case, but merely a Creationist construct.

All claims need to be backed form every side. Absent proof (empirical) then we look at the evidence and come to the best conclusion. Evolutionists claim theirs is the best conclusion without invoking God. (because science cannot address the supernatural by definition). I object when they try to claim they have eliminated God because of scientific conclusions. They have no authority to do this as it is outside their scope by their own definition. This is where evolutionism comes into play. They make religious claims. ID the science is bound by the same issues. It searches for evidence of design then makes a reasoned conclusion whether or not it happened by chance or was designed. If design is concluded as the best explanation, then philosophers/theologians try to posit who the designer is. A design conclusion by ID the science does not automatically conclude God. Suppose we were designed by aliens?

I couldn’t agree with you more that scientists have no right or authority to eliminate God, but that is not a real issue. It’s
an issue raised by Creationists, because Evolution does not tickle their personal fancies by explicitly saying “GOD.” In
response, guided by the preconceived notion that “there is a designer, therefore Evolution cannot be true, because Evol-
ution says there’s no God, and anyone who believes it is an atheist…,” embark on highjacking the scientific community
using the very technical-sounding name of “Intelligent Design,” working towards the goal of eliminating the Theory of Ev-
olution on the false premise that it denies God.

 

[Farsight001]

Now this is getting absurd. You reject an organization for listing its own peer reviewed research? You really think an evo site is going to list them. Get real.

But the list doesn’t actually contain real peer reviewed research. They call it that, but they made the journals and they do the “peer review”, which is to publish anything that comes their way regardless. That’s why, if you go to the websites of half the journals listed there, they describe themselves as “open source”,not as 'peer reviewed". So you did not give us peer reviewed papers.

And even if you had, that is 50 from among literally millions that provide evidence that the 50 is wrong. Why should we believe the 50 over the millions?

 

[Farsight001]

We have a failure to communicate. You asked where it came from I replied.

When asked where it came from, you answered basically “from physics”. That’s not an actual answer. That’s like someone asking you where you heard a quote and you say “from a book.” Well which book? Where did you get this book? who wrote it? Why did you select this book over all the other available books?