Gallup: 53% think man evolved and, er, 66% think he was created
posted at 4:39 pm on June 8, 2007 by Allahpundit
I understand that creationism and evolution aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive, that it’s possible to believe God created the world in some form and let it evolve from there, i.e., deism. I also realize that some people can believe mutually contradictory things, and that that might occasionally wash out in an opinion survey.
But how do you get clear majorities answering in the affirmative to both of these questions when the second one specifically says, “in their present form”?
Does the qualifier (“pretty much”) leave enough wiggle room? We’ve got some fairly diverse views among our readership; help me out, creationist Darwinians. As a token of my appreciation, I offer you the atheist attack on Christopher Hitchens. What Hitch doesn’t grasp, writes Karl Reitz, is that the benighted human animal is better off believing its utopian dream is unattainable in this life but possible in the next. After all, those who try to build heaven on earth have a nasty habit of leaving giant body counts in their wake. Exit question: Wouldn’t Hitch’s obvious answer to Reitz be that paradise doesn’t exist in any form and the sooner we accept that, the better?
Update: More strange bedfellows.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Allah, you’re asking us to actually think on a Friday afternoon with the Paris party going on down the hall?
KelliD on June 8, 2007 at 4:43 PM
Pols = crap.
unamused on June 8, 2007 at 4:45 PM
hitchens debate: http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/121-52.0.html
jp on June 8, 2007 at 4:45 PM
Question bias. This American Life had a good 15-minute piece on the problems with polls that arise out of how they’re asked here. (Warning: the first 40-some minutes of the show has a strong anti-administration bias which may or may not align with your own, so you may want to skip to those stories.)
calbear on June 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Wouldn’t Hitch’s obvious answer to Reitz be that paradise doesn’t exist in any form and the sooner we accept that, the better?
Planet Earth is a paradise.
Mankind mucks it up.
fogw on June 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
That’s me. I guess I’m a Deist. Cool, the Founding fathers were too. Wonder how that meshes with Catholicism. I’m not very good at being religious…
Bad Candy on June 8, 2007 at 4:47 PM
Give it up, AP. I’ll bet you a string of rosary beads that even the usual angels vs. atheists thread won’t be able to compete with the Paris Hilton gabble.
Which is pretty funny – considering the whole thread (including yours truly) is a condemnation of the fact that we’re paying so much attention to the twit.
As for your questions re: this poll … I see it as kind of a good thing. I think it suggests that most people – unlike your average internet demagogues – are smart enough to know they don’t know everything. I think most people, deep down, recognize that there’s some truth to evolution … but also that it doesn’t explain everything; or conversely, that they have faith, but still have questions about their faith.
As funny as the poll seems, I think I’d be more bothered if there were clear segments of society that believed they were 100% right in their view. The answers seem like a shrug of sorts. Which in my opinion is a pretty good answer.
People who are absolutely certain of metaphysical things do some scary stuff.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 4:48 PM
Though I would say sparked existence more than snapped his fingers and put earth at the proper place to sustain life.
Bad Candy on June 8, 2007 at 4:49 PM
My wife sez I’m living proof that man has not evolved very much at all.
Buzzy on June 8, 2007 at 4:50 PM
I think they coincided. I believe God created evolution.
amerpundit on June 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Unfortunately many people think Evolution and Common Descent are the same thing.
thebrokenchair on June 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Heh.
amerpundit on June 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM
You ask the question of people who just aren’t paying attention.
Actually, I’d guess that they didn’t give enough possible responses. People can really only see yes to two degrees, no to two degrees, or I don’t care.
If they’d had a “I don’t know” or “it’s possible (not probable)” then maybe the numbers would be different.
Esthier on June 8, 2007 at 4:51 PM
Math question: what percent believe in intelligent design?
BillLalor on June 8, 2007 at 4:59 PM
And the obvious rebuttal would be questioning whether humanity is able or capable of accepting that a utopian world does not exist and never will. I don’t think its possible, as the drive to search for utopia is likely hardwired in most people.
Bad Candy on June 8, 2007 at 5:01 PM
In case no one wants to follow my links, I think this may boil down to people wanting to give positive answers. Pollsters strongly discourage “I don’t know,” so lots of people without opinions just give what they think the pollsters want to hear, e.g., “Yes.”
calbear on June 8, 2007 at 5:07 PM
It looks to me like a lot of people were looking for a “possibly true” option, and when they didn’t find it they answered “probably true” to both questions.
RightOFLeft on June 8, 2007 at 5:11 PM
Behold the power of self-deception. When you grow up believing that the existence of an invisible creator is CENTRAL to your life, you’ll do anything you can to stick to that belief, regardless of any evidence to the contrary. It’s why people who never pray and live their lives as if there is no God will suddenly say “Yes, there is a God” when someone asks him/her point-blank. We think that it’s what we’re supposed to say, because we’ve been brainwashed by the myth that religion and belief in a higher power is the sole source of ethics and morality.
Which is a load of crap of course, but it’s better than believing God wants us to slice up women’s private parts, I suppose.
Enrique on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I guess you can agree with both if you think that lower primates didn’t evolve into human until sometime in the past 10,000 years.
I wonder how much the common man (or even the common scientist) knows of the gritty details of the theory of evolution, though?
frankj on June 8, 2007 at 5:13 PM
I think this proves that we really dont know how the world was created. Its arrogance to assume anything without definitive proof.
William Amos on June 8, 2007 at 5:14 PM
And just for fun, some irony:
Behold the power of self-deception. When you grow up believing that the NON-existence of an invisible creator is CENTRAL to your life, you’ll do anything you can to stick to that belief, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
I love irony. It tastes like chicken. Atheist chicken. Best kind.
Professor Blather on June 8, 2007 at 5:16 PM
It’s not just diests, AP. The evolution/creation meld is termed the “day/age” theory in evangelical circles, and holds that the creation story in Genesis is poetical, not literal, and with an extraordinary bit of mashing of the text tries to fit the sequence laid down there to the current sequence of events proposed by evolutionsists.
Those who hold to this view are not necesarily in the “clockmaker” camp. I used to subscribe to the “day/age” theory, and I’m a Christian, not a deist.
TexasDan on June 8, 2007 at 5:20 PM
Any serious research of the founding fathers statements and writings disproves this nonsense about them being Deists. While there were some, there are a clear majority who were actual Christians and believed in the orthodox views of Christianity.
I stand in the camp that God literally created all there is, not by evolution but by His Word.
Centurion68 on June 8, 2007 at 5:25 PM
And the evidence for this is….?
Let me guess: “’cause the bible tells me so!”
liberrocky on June 8, 2007 at 5:42 PM
53% said “true” or “probably true” to a statement of evolution that included the notion of Man having evolved over millions of years? That’s surprising. And gratifying.
Maybe there’s hope for America yet.
Also check out the responses to the question “If a presidential candidate stated that he or she DID not believe in the theory of evolution, would that make you [more or less] likely to vote for that candidate?”.
Only 15% said it would make them more likely to vote for them, as opposed to 29% who said they would be LESS likely to vote for them.
JennyP on June 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
…but not all the way. Life is still paradisiacal because you’re in it fogw, and you AP, and all HA commenters, and Hitchens too,…and Paris H. And we’re free to think and talk about these heady subjects, without having our cabezas chopped off, like they sometimes were, and might be again. In the end we still don’t know, but we can keep on searching. Maybe some day there will be enlightenment.
Entelechy on June 8, 2007 at 5:50 PM
What if they just ask in the poll “Is there a God?”. Then see what you get.
There’s a lot of people that believe in divine evolution. Personally I think evolution (to quote St. Ann C.) is the stupidest religion in the history of the planet; but that’s just me.
Mojave Mark on June 8, 2007 at 5:59 PM
Look around at creation. The Maker is evident in what has been made.
infidel4life on June 8, 2007 at 6:01 PM
I would have answered A too, and I believe God created man. Just not in a “poof” there’s a man sense.
Dash on June 8, 2007 at 6:08 PM
We’ve just come off a rough century for atheists to act superior about such things.
Stephen M on June 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM
That a PERSON of some kind being behind it all does not follow at all.
JennyP on June 8, 2007 at 6:13 PM
Yes, but we seem to have entered a century where a bunch of theists want very badly to even the score…
JennyP on June 8, 2007 at 6:17 PM
This poll clearly supports my particular beliefs. Specifically, the belief that it’s fun to mess around with people taking polls.
Splunge on June 8, 2007 at 6:33 PM
I still don’t understand why atheist think they are smarter than everyone else. Not that I’m a beliver in god, per se…but I do think the possibility of some higher power is there. I just don’t go around worrying about it one way or the other.
SouthernGent on June 8, 2007 at 6:34 PM
I won’t stop commenting on this thread so long as there are people who believe in the myth that evolution didn’t occur. And that isn’t even the most outlandish claim from those types of people (the world is only 10,000 years old, life on Earth was destroyed in a flood 4,400 years ago, man used to live to be older than 400, et cetera).
Anyone willing to learn something about evolution should take a look at the evolution of horses.
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 6:35 PM
You’re going to be commenting for a long time, Nonfactor. All your “evolution of horses” proves is that there were different species of horses in the past that were different sizes. There’s absolutely no evidence that one species evolved into the next larger and that one into the next larger, etc.
JinxMcHue on June 8, 2007 at 7:02 PM
My standard answer is:
I don’t know and I don’t care.
My belief or lack of belief in either evolution or ID won’t change a darned thing and really makes no difference to my core beliefs.
Besides, I figure I’ll just ask the Man Himself how He did it when I get to heaven. ; )
Fatal on June 8, 2007 at 7:13 PM
I skimmed it. It’s more of the typical inch-deep handwaving that accompanies the evolutionary argument.
Unless and until they can dig into the actual DNA and show, stepwise, that beneficial genetic mutations occurred, there’s no proof, per se. Are there changes? You bet. But the argument for evolution lives and dies by chromosomal changes. Explanation of physical features and timelines does nothing to address this.
Sure the fossil record is intriguing. But the thrust of the article you linked seems to me summed up in this line:
Really? Disproving one theory necessarily requires the proof of an opposing one? I hardly think so.
For those who are interested in a very well reasoned treatise on the underlying flaws of evolution viewed from the cellular biology level, see Michael Behe’s book “Darwin’s Black Box.” Spoiler alert: the black box is the cell.
TexasDan on June 8, 2007 at 7:21 PM
Oh, and as to the non-stop posting of Nonfactor’s “horse evolution”, I am still waiting to see the proof that shows what other species that horse evolved into.
Because . . . . .
wait for it . .
.
.
.
.
.
.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And no one can talk to a horse of course
That is, of course, unless the horse is the famous Mr. Ed.
Go right to the source and ask the horse
He’ll give you the answer that you’ll endorse.
He’s always on a steady course.
Talk to Mr. Ed.
People yakkity yak a streak and waste your time of day
But Mister Ed will never speak unless he has something to say.
A horse is a horse, of course, of course,
And this one’ll talk ’til his voice is hoarse.
You never heard of a talking horse?
Well listen to this. I am Mister Ed.
Fatal on June 8, 2007 at 7:28 PM
The funny thing about this poll is how alike it is to global warming polls. The bottom line is, who cares? It’s either scientifically established or it isn’t. Period. Dot. End of story. Nobody has polls showing that 26% of those surveyed don’t believe in heliocentrism or gravity. Why? Because the scientific community has done a pretty good job proving these.
In the case of global warming and evolution they have not. Galileo was eventually, although posthumously, vindicated by Kepler. Then Newton, just a few decades later took their work to further extremes. In all of these cases, though, they backed their theories with proof. This is the problem with evolution and global warming. They rely on faith rather than proof. Ironically, todays “scientists” want to excommunicate and censure those who have contrary theories.
Evolution, in the way it is taught, is metaphysics (and so is Intelligent Design). Until evolutionists begin making verifiable and unique predictions based upon their hypothesis, evolution will still be a philosophy. This may change in the future and their theory be vindicated.
But their lack of scholastic and scientific method should not be.
And Nonfactor, the web site you give (which I read) in no way contradicts Intelligent Design. What’s more, it also doesn’t prove evolution. It is descriptive. Evolution supporters openly lament the lack of predictiveness with their so-called theory, which means that it is by definition not a scientific theory.
BTW, I am neither for or against evolution (or Intelligent Design). I figure the truth will eventually come out. I am for responsible science and philosophy.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 7:28 PM
That may be but that is not the point.
The quote was:
“I stand in the camp that God literally created all there is, not by evolution but by His Word.”
This is a denial that evolution exists.
I bet that guy believes in witchcraft.
liberrocky on June 8, 2007 at 7:37 PM
Here’s an examination of 29 separate lines of evidence that macroevolution happened.
There’s just too many lines of evidence, all converging on the same conclusion, to wave it away.
JennyP on June 8, 2007 at 7:39 PM
You have to include a link to YouTube. :)
JennyP on June 8, 2007 at 7:41 PM
It also shows a gradual change among horses over time–notice fingers changing into hooves–and that’s just the fossil evidence.
It’s like you’re ignoring the fact of time. It’s just like me saying, while look at a skeleton of a perosn, “you can’t tell that they broke their arm after they were 10 years old.” You can tell, just as you can tell through fossils and genetic information that one type of horse died out and gave way to another type of horse; there is no logical answer as to how the other horse appeared on Earth unless the previous types of horses changed into the new one–this can be seen today in bacteria and on a cellular level.
Typical inch-deep handwaving? The person who wrote the information on that link has obviously done a ton of information. Did you manage to see the references at the bottom when you were “skimming”? And least give the person credit for a well-researched document.
No proof per se? What the hell does that mean? You know very well that we can’t get genetic information out of a 30 million year old fossil and the only reason you’re using that standard to “prove” evolution is so you can hold on (ever so tightly) to your belief in the myth that it just didn’t happen. Just as fossils prove something existed, fossil patterns and transitional fossils prove an evolution.
The thing is you (or any other creationists) haven’t disproved the theory at all, let alone proven your own. The author isn’t asking the question because he’s not sure, but rather to inspire thought into the creationists: “if you deny the evidence before you what logical thing do you fall back on?” The only answer creationists have is an illogical one: because God did it (don’t ask them to prove God, they can’t).
Evolution is an observable science and due to it’s randomness of course it is hard to predict. We’ve witnessed evolution on a micro scale when you take a glance at the cellular level, and we’ve seen it on a micro scale when witnessing the gradual changes in horses, fish, and humans through the use of fossils.
You want to stimulate your brain or do you want to be fed information from either side of the debate? If you lust for information how about you search the internet yourself; there are millions of other resources out there not only on the subject of horse evolution but of evolution on all levels.
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
No one is waving it away. It’s just that evolution is only believable from the view at 30,000 feet. You can throw any number of coincindences in the pile and call it conclusive, but “too many” of something is hardly the kind of rational proof of something I imagine you’d call an acceptable argument.
TexasDan on June 8, 2007 at 7:53 PM
FYI, for some that are confused, the Catholic Church officially recognizes evolution, and teaches it in its schools.
This is a faith insurance policy ‘just in case’. I have always found it amusing that most people who believe in God clearly fall in this category. I’m sure people deny it but unless you are running out to become a priest right away, what you say is outweighed by actions by like 1000:1. Even many protestant ministers find ways to live a totally secular life and then give lip service once a week.
Your reversal is silly because it assumes the (rejection) of christian God is the basis of atheism. Actually it is the rejection of a whole class of philosophical theories. That you are stuck in the idea of defineing atheist specifically as rejecting yours shows you don’t really grasp the total concept.
example: Ayan Hirsi Ali = atheist without learning christianity.
I think what this poll is mostly evidence of is people don’t really think about these philosophical and intellectual issues in thier daily lives at all. When specifically asked to come up with something on the spot, it may not be a logically consistent philosophy.
Resolute on June 8, 2007 at 7:55 PM
On the head.
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 8:01 PM
If it is right or not, at least can I be proud I posted in this thread instead of on the Paris story?
Resolute on June 8, 2007 at 8:06 PM
Huh? All any scientific theory can do is compile a pile of circumstantial evidence. A theory cannot “prove” anything. It can only be disproved. That’s what makes it scientific: its exposure to the possibility of disproof. If a scientific theory tried to claim that it had proved something, then it’d merely be a philosophical claim.
IOW, the most a scientific theory can accomplish is to amass such a big pile of evidence in its favor that it becomes impossible to deny it with a straight face.
JennyP on June 8, 2007 at 8:07 PM
Well, having read both the theist and atheist arguments in this thread and the creationist and evolutionist arguments in this thread I find myself persuaded. I didn’t think it could ever happen, but so it has. The whole “Is there a God or isn’t there and did he or did he not create the universe in 6 days or 15 billion years” question has finally been resolved for me. Well done you champions of reason, you defenders of the faith!
The Apologist on June 8, 2007 at 8:11 PM
Yet it clearly is predictive. For instance, when it was posited that bears and whales shared a known common ancestor, it was predicted that an animal (or animals) exhibiting a combination of traits of both that bear-like ancestor and early whales must have existed. And indeed, fossils of just such a creature were found. And the same thing has happened repeatedly with predictions that fossils should be found bridging dinosaurs and birds.
Also, most theories in evolutionary paleontology cannot be tested at will, as can theories in chemistry or physics or even psychology, as there’s no controllable laboratory. Paleontologists are subject to a high degree of luck in terms of which fossils are discovered, and this certainly renders the field of research less “hard” than some others. But to say that evolutionary theory entirely lacks predictive value is explicitly and unqualifiably false.
This might not be the kind of prediction of what will happen to existing species in the future that I suspect you want, but it is nevertheless prediction about observable phenomenon in the physical world, and is inherently scientific.
Blacklake on June 8, 2007 at 8:12 PM
Right. Riiiiiight.
This is the saddest tenet of the evolutionists. First, we co-opt species variation as “micro-evolution,” even thought the mechanism for species variation is understood and does not involve the creation of new genetic material, the basis of the evolutionary argument. Then we state, since this mechanism is “evolution” and observable, that evolution is “observable science.”
Evolution is history, by and definition unobservable. And of course unrepeatable by experiment. That moves it outside the bounds of pure science and into another category. And every origin discussion, whether ID or evolutionary, is conjectural. The necessity to move evolution beyond the status of theory and nominate it as having been “proved” is simply evidence that evolution has gained religious status among its adherents. By that I mean that it has been used to form the basis of the big questions–why are we here, how do we get here–that religions also answer. As such it has become unquestionable.
I know we’re not going to get genetic material out of most fossils (we have out of a few) but I’m not tweaking your nose with that. It’s just that without an explanation of mechanics at the cellular level, evolution is, really and truly, just handwaving. It’s why the article that JennyP links to starts with the argument that evolution can be proved without such a solution in place. Because those who have studied it closely know that it breaks down irrepairably at that level.
Not illogical. Just true or untrue, and not to be proven either way. Some things are untestable by logical proofs, but that just means they are metaphysical, not wrong.
TexasDan on June 8, 2007 at 8:18 PM
That’s an intriguing claim. When you look around you, you see physical things. From what I can ascertain, “The Maker” is supposedly non-physical.
By what method do you bridge the disconnect between the direct experience of things of one ontological class (physical things) and the conclusion that a thing of a completely different ontological class (non-physical things like The Maker) must exist? In other words, what exactly is the nature of the relationship between physical and non-physical things, such that you can say the former ever constitutes evidence for the latter?
Blacklake on June 8, 2007 at 8:19 PM
All any scientific theory can do is compile a pile of circumstantial evidence
TexasDan on June 8, 2007 at 8:23 PM
dadgum quotes.
TexasDan on June 8, 2007 at 8:24 PM
Sorry, kids, but it’s more believable that God created is “as is” than to believe that we are related to slime molds. I just cannot see how there is enough time for the diversity of life that we see today and the diversity of life in the past to have evolved from some simplistic organization of chemicals. The changes would have to be so frequent that we could easily see evolution happening today. Yet despite evolutionists numerous experiments, fruit flies remain fruit flies whether they breed with each other or not.
JinxMcHue on June 8, 2007 at 8:25 PM
That’s Karl Popper’s falsification criteria for differentiating science from what he liked to call pseudo-science. It’s a good rule of thumb, as it is true that, as a psychological phenomenon, people irrationally dedicated to belief in a false theory will tend to ignore the evidence that it is false. But, strictly speaking, Popper’s criteria is insufficient. The veracity of scientific propositions is actually determined by a far more complicated process of weighing evidence both seemingly for and seemingly against them.
I suppose this is hair splitting, as in most cases Popper’s principle works fairly well. But it does so in the way that Newton’s theories of gravity still work fairly well, despite knowledge that Einstein’s explanation is better, if horribly more complex (and, by Einstein’s own admission, not even correct itself). In most cases it’s good enough, but strictly speaking, it isn’t true.
Blacklake on June 8, 2007 at 8:30 PM
Observable but unobserved I suppose. There is a marked difference between microevolution and the evolution you are talking about. Nonetheless, you have failed to address the point I made (that it is not predictive). Your point that it is “hard to predict” can be used with Astrology and Phrenology, too. When it becomes predictive, get back to me and I will gladly admit that it has finally achieved the status of scientific theory (I have no dog in this fight other than being digusted by bad science).
Ironic that someone who has made up their mind (that would be you) is accusing someone who hasn’t (that would be me) of being fed information from only one side of the debate. Might I remind you that I said:
Apparently you are willing to forego science so long as you can believe the “science” you have been taught.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 8:35 PM
What is happening today is money and politics are tainting science in a way that doesn’t seem to have happened before in history. This is bad news. But be careful lumping global warming and evolution together. Global warming is only a decades old idea. To transform society because of it is risky.
The evidence for evolution on the other hand has been building for centuries (before the current money and politcs came into effect). It is the basis for much of modern medicine and farming. It is on par with capitalism or internal combustion. There is a chance it could be wrong but it will take a “smoking gun” to disprove it at this point. You can’t just point to incompleteness as a reason to deny it like critics always do. That is absoutly no different then denying the theory of gravity, which we understand even less then evolution, and there is a good chance it is wrong.
If you can’t accept and use scientific theories until they are 100% proven then we would still be living in the stone age and probably unable to start a campfire, since it was only in modern times that fire is actually well understood in principle as being a reaction in progress, not a substance itself.
Resolute on June 8, 2007 at 8:39 PM
I still think it’s worth considering whether, after four billion years of evolution, any soul that doesn’t worship God is long-since dead.
Kralizec on June 8, 2007 at 8:42 PM
Actually, Genetics, which predates Evolution, is the basis for medicine and farming. They are not the same discipline. And unlike evolution, genetics is highly (although not perfectly) predictable.
Actually, it is up to the scientist to prove it’s theory (proof is not considered 100% infallible evidence). What you have described is certainly not science.
Did you mean to prove my point that you are relying on faith rather than science. With those two anti-scientific statements you made, you are the perfect demonstration of that. Thanks!
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 8:46 PM
Four billion years not enough for you? Is it that you think it could happen (over a longer amount of time, say 20 billion years) or do you think evolution isn’t possible at all?
When did I claim evolution to be predictive? It wouldn’t be impossible to predict (if given millions of years) it would be hard. Plate Tectonics is a theory as well. We cannot predict when an earthquake will occur. But guess what, it’s still a scientific theory. I guess you could take the answer to a whole other philosophical level if you started claiming God is hammering down on the ground to cause earthquakes rather than tectonic plates rubbing up against each other.
I’ve made up my mind because I’ve done the research from both sides of the isle. I was encouraging others to do the same instead of being fed information (by people like me or creationists, and especially those who haven’t done research on both sides).
You’re also assuming that I was taught this evolutionary science and thus I suddenly believed in it. I like most other people was raised religious, as I got older I made informed choices on my own and did my own research. Because of this I was able to come to the conclusion that I’ve chosen. I’m aware that creationists can do the same, but quite frankly their view doesn’t follow the physical evidence available (they’re free to ignore it, but that’s the definition of illogical).
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 9:55 PM
You didn’t understand my point at all. By your logic that I am not personally conducting lab experiments as evidence of evolution means I obviously just rely on faith. Absurd
Scientific theories are built apon each other like blocks of masonry. The burden of proof for new theories at the top is on whoever is promoting them. If you wish to exchange a stone that was somewhere below that then the burden of proof is on whoever wants to replace it to find a stone that fits even better then the one that is already there. There is no burden on proponets of the status quo stone to defend it indefinately. The burden is either come up with something better or leave it as is. You can’t just a say theory is wrong and leave nothing in it’s place.
Thats the difference between global warming and evolution. Global warming is a big fat brick that was just laid. We can easily question the skill or motivations of the masons that just laid it. Evolution, on the other hand, is a centuries old corner stone that many other bricks are on top of now. You better have one super duper brick that fits perfectly if you want to excavate and replace it. The proponents of intelligent design don’t even attempt to do so. They lay it flimsily on the top of the stucture just like the global warming alarmists. You can never lay a contradictory brick on top of the wall without modifying the foundation.
It is amazing to me that you think you can just chop away genetics from evolution. You can’t just throw a useful theory out the window and be intellectually done with it. The burden of proof is on you then to come up with a whole new theory that fits like a puzzle piece with genetics, paleontology, geology among other things. Unless you believe a plethora of scientifc fields are all wrong?
Resolute on June 8, 2007 at 10:02 PM
For a hypothesis to be considered a scientific theory, it must be (among other things) predictive and produce verifiable results. The “theory” of evolution has not (at least, not yet).
Actually, we can. And plate tectonics makes many more predictions than just earthquakes. It is used to predict where faults and rifts occur, where volcanic activity is likely to occur or have occurred, and the magnitude, likelihood and timing of seismic events. My Dad, who was a geologist before he retired taught me this as I worked as a sampler in the Summer months in jr high and high school. My two brothers and both of their wives, who are all geologists, tell me how they use theories like plate tectonics in everyday work. Good example of what a valid theory is, although you thought quite the opposite.
You seem to make the assumption that those who have been presented the same evidence and rejected it as non-scientific (because it is non-scientific) are wrong. What’s particularly funny about your argument is that you seem oblivious to what constitutes a scientific theory. You claim that Creationism doesn’t follow the evidence (which is unobserved), but Evolution actually doesn’t. Those who adhere to evolution theory make excuses for why this evidence doesn’t exist (e.g., only a small percentage of fossils are preserved or have been uncovered). But their excuses for lack of evidence isn’t proof that it exists. It certainly isn’t proof for their theory. As such, evolution is still metaphysics.
As for acting like there are two diametrically opposed camps (evolution vs. creationism), there aren’t. There’s a whole lot in between, including, but not limited to Intelligent Design. Sadly, the question we have before us is not one of science, but one of philosophy. Evolution may become a scientifically validated theory or even law someday. The missing link may be found. I’m not opposed to the truth. You, on the other hand, are dedicated to evolution not for its scientific merit (heck, you don’t even know what a scientific theory is) but for its beauty. That, my friend, is not science.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 10:22 PM
I’m aware that creationists can do the same, but quite frankly their view doesn’t follow the physical evidence available (they’re free to ignore it, but that’s the definition of illogical).
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 9:55 PM
Nonfactor, I have a couple questions. It’s obvious there is an evolution process that has taken place within species and such, but what is the empirical evidence the trail can be traced to beginning of all LIVING things? Second isn’t there a seperation between inanimate and living things that presents an enormous chasm to cross. Where does the spark of life come from? If your theories are true shouldn’t scientists be able to put the chemicals equevelent to the human body in a blender and just whip one up? Where do we get LIFE?
sonnyspats1 on June 8, 2007 at 10:24 PM
equivalent (sp)
sonnyspats1 on June 8, 2007 at 10:26 PM
Seriously, not argumentative or anything, we can’t.
Not assumption. They are scientifically (by your own words) wrong.
We’ve actually found many transitional fossils, simply “stimulate your brain” and google it. Even recently (about a year ago) there was news about a discovery of a fish with bones resembling the start of feet.
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 10:31 PM
That may be your criteria, but it is not one supported by the scientific community. Case in point, a lot of scientists don’t believe in String Theory. They point out inconsistencies with it. Do they have to come up with their own unified theory of physics? You’re placing the burden of proof on the wrong side. And that is anti-scientific. Science is not afraid of uncertainty; it welcomes it. Superstition is afraid of uncertainty. Superstition, not science, demands the new, better-fitting brick you desire.
Actually, you made the asinine statement that modern medicine and farming rely on evolution. I’m merely pointing out that they rely on genetics. I didn’t throw anything away. You, however, don’t seem to know the difference between the two. Let me ask you, what miraculous medical procedure or pharmaceutical was designed using evolution? This was your claim.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 10:34 PM
The contradiction definitely doesn’t make any sense, but the second answer, showing a clear majority believing in creation is consistent with every other poll I’ve seen on this issue. They usually ask the question differently though… outside of the “don’t know” crowd, folks are usually forced to choose Darwinian Evolution, Creation, or Evolution was God’s method. The numbers usually come out as a steady 30% for evolution, 50-60% for Creation, and 10-20% for Evolution by the hand of God.
Opinion polls don’t really matter when the issue is a scientific one, not an “opinion” one (like the polls that consistently show that a majority of the country either thinks we’re in a recession or doesn’t know, when it’s not really an opinion if we are or aren’t. We simply aren’t. And it’s hilarious as you see that the vast majority of the public are happy with their personal finances, making the media bias in economy coverage extremely obvious)… But the one thing that is important to recognize when reading these polls is that it’s not some whacked out fundamentalist fringe group who are “creationists”, despite what our Darwinist friends here might try to tell people. I informed one of them in another thread, who at least acknowledge it, but then went on to complain that those numbers disturbed him. Part of the reason people think it’s a fringe group is because those that believe it primarily don’t identify themselves with the “creationist” label, and I imagine quite a few don’t even know what it means or that they are creationists. They just see themselves as Christians.
Anyway, again, this poll doesn’t really matter because as we try to tell global warmists and darwinists alike, “consensus” isn’t science. So polling of the public really doesn’t matter, other than to make people recognize that you likely know many more creationists than you do evolutionists and see that it’s not some fringe group or cult or something.
And to whoever it was talking about the BOGUS story, claiming that Ken Ham and the Creation Museum teach that T-Rex ate coconuts… I don’t mean this as flame bait, but I do have to point out that we continue to learn things about T-Rex, and evolution language doesn’t contribute to the finding that T-Rex wasn’t quite the predator we’ve always been lead to believe. Did you check out the article on slowpoke T-Rex? (thanks to the new HA headlines)
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/06/070607-trex-dinosaur.html
Again, this isn’t flame bait or in any way intended to be some sort of undermining of evolutionary theory (though I suppose I could point out that assumptions cloud thinking, etc. but that’s not the point), just interesting what we’re finding out from T-Rex lately. First we had the soft tissue, now this. Of course the soft tissue isn’t about T-Rex itself, but it was interesting none the less, and this definitely is as well.
RightWinged on June 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Scientists believe life on Earth was started in the sulfur beds in the ocean. I don’t know much more about it than that. I’ll look it up later, but I’m hungry right now and am gonna get some food, and I’ll try and respond in more depth.
Same answer as the first, but you’re correct, there is a huge chasm to cross which is why life in the universe seems so rare, but with enough time and entropy it’s not a surprise.
The thing that is amazing, however, is that the exact same elements that make up every single living thing on Earth (and every single thing in the universe for that matter) are created in stars! Humans wouldn’t exist if it weren’t for stars going supernovae and spreading the carbon they create throughout the universe. There wouldn’t be gold on Earth if some giant star billions of years ago didn’t go through a type 2 supernovae. Anything not made up of hydrogen and helium comes from stars.
So yes, I do believe that chemicals or elements can mix and form life, the Earth is evidence of that (although even to me that sounds a bit circular). But everything we see is in existence because the elements they are made of come from stars exploding. I think that’s one of the most amazing thing about our universe, evolution just comes as an aftereffect.
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM
I think most people believe in some combination of creationism and evolution; and that’s O.K. because despite the die-hard Darwinians in control of the scientific community, we are in the process of reformulating basic scientific theory.
What helps is to define terms. “Evolution” should be defined to mean the micro-process of intraspecies adaptation and change. “Darwinian evolution” or “macro-evolution” should be defined as the overall process of evolutionary change explaining going from one cell organisms to complex creatures such as man. “Micro-evolution” — that a bird may adapt and become speckled to assist survival — is science, but it does not establish what is a theory in “Darwinian evolution.” Proponents of intelligent design assert that from one cell organisms, you can’t get to the incredibly complex organisms we now know. Michael Behe is a biochemist who is one of the founders of the intelligent design theory; his “Darwin’s Black Box” argued that the problem with Darwin’s theory is that it was formulated in the nineteenth century when knowledge of the cell was non-existent — it was Darwin’s black box. Now with the benefit of late twentieth century electron microscopes, we know the incredible complexity of cells; and if there is irreducible complexity, Darwin’s theory does not work.
There are Darwinists such as Kenneth Miller who are trying to disprove Behe, but I do recommend reading Michael Behe’s new book “The Edge of Evolution.” Behe offers a different view of how “evolution” interacted with what we call intelligent design.
Finally, to the poster who said that the Founding Fathers were Deists — no, they weren’t. I acknowledge that is said by some historians, but I think modern prejudices are being read into the Founding Fathers. I recommend Michael Novak’s “Washington’s God,” which based on what Washington actually said and wrote, shows that Washington’s God was very much like the Abraham Lincoln’s God.
Phil Byler on June 8, 2007 at 10:40 PM
Follow the link. It was written for 6th graders so yo u might understand it. It explains plate tectonics and goes into some of the predictions that come from it.
This is the Holy Grail, but nobody is pushing it except you? Strange. The transitional fossils you are talking about are inconclusive or lead to dead lines. But let me once again state: I am not opposed to evolution, just bad science.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 10:43 PM
Wrong. Hydrogen is consumed by stars. It pre-exists stars.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 10:45 PM
Every single geology class I’ve taken, and just by doing a quick google search of “Predicting Earthquakes,” tells me that Earthquakes cannot be predicted; we can know where they occur and we can know why they occur, but if you ask “when will another big earthquake hit San Francisco?” no geologist worth their salt will give you a definite date.
Transitional fossils are very well known, and you’d think they’d be the “Holy Grail” in disproving the creationists, but they don’t accept them as valid evidence. Scientists mostly don’t care anymore about whether or not creationists believe them as they are viewed as a fringe group who ignore science.
Which is why I said “Anything not made up of hydrogen and helium comes from stars.“
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 10:55 PM
They will give a range of dates and a confidence interval, which is predictive. Nonetheless, you admitted that they can predict the place. That also is known as predictive.
So you admit that it is predictive. Great! BTW, plate tectonics is used to predict more than just earthquakes. It’s used in oil exploration, mining, etc. Good stuff from a great scientific theory.
Again you mischaracterize what critics cite (not all of whom are creationists). They are, at best, inconclusive since there are so many gaps.
Gaps remain in the fossil record, however; and while some argue that this is a problem for evolutionary theory, most scientists accept that the rarity of fossils means that many extinct animals will always remain unknown.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 11:10 PM
I specifically addressed this claim of yours in a post prior to the one from which the above was quoted. The claim is false.
Blacklake on June 8, 2007 at 11:16 PM
Well, some call it Adam & Evolution. The idea that evolutionary processes serve the purpose and ultimate goal of God is not out of question – but reducing all life to the action of one principle – natural selection – which does not inherently generate new systems (you need some kind of bifurcating principle of a sort) – it moves towards the average for whatever conditions exist. If it hits average and nothing moves to ‘select’ it, it remains unchanged and does not ‘evolve’ at all. Evolution must by its nature include a lot wider variety of forces and principles to actually be able to describe the origin of life.
The description Christianity gives of the origin of man, for instance, is seemly concrete, ‘Formed out of the dust’ but yet, to one who knows biology it is disturbingly abstract and possibly figurative. Besides, the actual process is not discussed. In fact it couldn’t have been described because man did not have the words to describe it even had it been told to him.
The creation story is evolutionary – sounds odd, but the whole of the work in the canon is quite evolutionary, though some things, such as God and the deeper nature of mankind remain unchanged.
I would have been one of those people who believed in both, although evolution as is currently described to me seems lacking.
RiverCocytus on June 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM
The above was for Blacklake.
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 11:18 PM
I think Deism implies that God abandoned the universe after creating it. I guess God could essentially be the Big Bang. I don’t see how God is at all relevant to Deists.
A third interpretation of Genesis 1/2 is that it is the story of Creation as told to Adam. Each day, Adam would learn something new. This explains how days passed before enough was created to constitute a “day”, and suggests that God’s resting on the 7th day was for Adam’s sake.
There’s a range of views on the interplay between Evolution and God. My guess is that the poll is a reflection of the uncertainty of that interplay due to its general irrelevance to their daily lives, and attempting to match their vague opinion to the options given to them.
Kevin on June 8, 2007 at 11:51 PM
Yes, but I miss your point. Please refer back to my 8:12pm post on the predictive ability of evolutionary theory with regards to paleontology (in which I discussed how observing features of discovered fossils A and B can–and has–led to the prediction of characteristics actually observed in later-discovered fossil C. Which fits even the rather simplified Wikipedia overview page’s criteria).
Also, when dealing with philosophy of science, you’d be well served by better references than general topic Wikipedia pages. If you really want to go the route of understanding what’s going on, you at the very least need to look into these folks (beyond simply browsing the Wikipedia entries, that is):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rudolf_Carnap
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willard_Quine
Alternatively, just accept that you don’t really know much about philosophy of science. There’s certainly no shame in that; I know virtually nothing about electrical engineering, Russian literature, or countless other topics (and when it comes to philosophy of science, I claim to be merely a layman at best). I’m certainly none the worse for never having pretended otherwise.
Blacklake on June 8, 2007 at 11:53 PM
That might very well be Hitch’s answer, since he tends to overgeneralize, but there’s nothing innately immoral in striving to create paradise. Striving for some greater ideal seems fundamental to any progress. However, the specifics of “paradise” and the means used to pursue it can certainly be immoral.
Kevin on June 9, 2007 at 12:25 AM
Sorry, missed your 8:12 pm post. But what you are trying to do there is still covered in the discussion about transitional fossils. At best, they are inconclusive. I am unfamiliar withe the “common ancestor” of bears and whales that was predicted and discovered. Please provide a link. Once again, I am not averse to evolution, just bad science. Nothing you said was backed up with support material.
I am not dealing with the philosophy of science. I am stating that there is a difference between philosophy and science. I understand that science is actually dependent on philosophy: we have to start somewhere and realizing that there are discoverable truths is the basis of science; but nonetheless this realization is still philosophy. So your snide comment of me not knowing about the “philosophy of science” is misplaced (and wrong) since that was never a basis for my argument (BTW, there are other philosophies not based entirely on the Vienna Circle, but that’s not what this post is about). There’s no shame in you apologizing for an overreach like the one you just attempted.
cmay on June 9, 2007 at 12:33 AM
I want Tara Conner’s opinion on this. I will listen to no other.
Halley on June 9, 2007 at 1:36 AM
As a historical science, evolution makes retrodictions: predictions about what we should discover happened in the past. Specifically, which species are related & when (& sometimes where) the common ancestor lived. It’s like forensics. A forensic scientist (usually) doesn’t try to predict what the killer will do next, they build stories about what steps the killer took. These tell the investigators where they should look for clues to verify the stories’ truth.
Actually, we can. And plate tectonics makes many more predictions than just earthquakes. It is used to predict where faults and rifts occur, where volcanic activity is likely to occur or have occurred, and the magnitude, likelihood and timing of seismic events. My Dad, who was a geologist before he retired taught me this as I worked as a sampler in the Summer months in jr high and high school. My two brothers and both of their wives, who are all geologists, tell me how they use theories like plate tectonics in everyday work. Good example of what a valid theory is, although you thought quite the opposite.
…
cmay on June 8, 2007 at 10:22 PM
Like Nonfactork I’m flabbergasted that you’d say that geologists can predict when earthquakes will occur! Actually, plate tectonics does let them build maps of where the faults are, and make (very general) educated guesses about how many earthquakes to expect to come out of those places in the future. But that, in fact, is very much like the kinds of predictions about the future that evolution can make.
Here’s a prediction for you: Humans will never develop into a new species. We’ve colonized all the areas of the planet, and even the most isolated ethnic groups have some genetic mixing with their neighbors, enough that there’s no way that an isolated group could get totally reproductively isolated from the rest of humanity. Not when one generation is 20 years, and speciation takes hundreds of generations of absolutely no mixed marriages occurring for enough genetic differences to build up to prevent a viable hybrid offspring.
The only way humans could speciate (aside from genetic engineering) would be if a Mars colony got established and then Earth got hit by a comet, throwing us back 1000 years technologically. And even then we’d regain the ability for space travel within, say, 500 years (25 generations). Even 1000 years is a mere 50 generations. I don’t think that would be long enough.
I say that the kinds of earthquake “predictions” you’re describing are no more specific than what I predicted here.
JennyP on June 9, 2007 at 1:49 AM
BTW, for those of you who were invoking Behe, the arguments in his Black Box book have been in tatters for some time now.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/sep06.html
And his new book, The Edge of Evolution, is already taking quite a beating. Please read this review & the analysis therein. It really does look embarrassing for Behe.
See also these reviews:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/not_for_the_fai.html
JennyP on June 9, 2007 at 2:50 AM
For those of you who invoke Behe, the arguments in his Black Box book have been thoroughly discredited by now. And his Edge of Evolution book is already in tatters.
Please read this review of his new book, and the mathematical analysis therein. And then, if you’re game, check out these reviews:
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/not_for_the_fai.html
Behe’s arguments really are embarrassingly bad.
JennyP on June 9, 2007 at 2:55 AM
Let me reiterate why I think conservatives can get so passionate about this issue on both sides: The crevo debate reveals a fundamental philosophical divide in the movement.
Creationists are afraid that the postmodernists are correct. They agree with the pomos’ lie that there is no objective truth in this world. Therefore, there is no objective standard by which to judge behaviors or moral systems. IOW, we cannot learn from history – because everyone will always take away their own, idiosyncratic lessons from that history. But unlike traditional, leftist postmodernists, the postmodernists of the right are stuck in Stage 3 of the grieving process, bargaining with God. They think, “if only we can get everybody to believe in our favorite particular flavor of a supreme supernatural Authority Figure who decides for us what is meant by ‘right’ and ‘wrong’, then everybody will be on the same page again, and all these messy moral battles will melt away.”
Creationists have capitulated to postmodernism. They’re simply mourning this fact. This is why they lie to themselves and others about the science. They’re desperately trying to save society from the inevitable collapse caused by the lack of objective truth that they believe doesn’t exist.
I expect the Founding Fathers would call these people “royalists”.
See:
Darwinian Conservatism
Darwin Central (conservatives who don’t fear science)
The Objectivist Center (conservatives who don’t fear reality)
JennyP on June 9, 2007 at 3:09 AM
Retrodictions would still be considered predictions, at least for scientific theory.
Actually, it is not. Due to the time scale of evolution, no verifiable predictions have been made. In the case of earthquakes, the fact that you can predict where they occur alone makes the theory of plate tectonics predictable and thus scientific. You admit this so the rest of your point is moot.
However, you have this false notion that geologists must give an exact time (not just a location). That is false again because geologists can give a date range and confidence interval, which also makes the theory predictive. Furthermore, as I pointed out above, plate tectonics is also predictive in other ways than just earthquakes (like oil exploration and mining).
Your analogy is predictive but not falsifiable nor subject to scrutiny, at least not in our lifetimes. It would be rejected out of hand by any and all scientists. So would your notion that earthquakes are not predictable.
cmay on June 9, 2007 at 7:46 AM
The second time I quoted you above should have read
cmay on June 9, 2007 at 8:31 AM
Ann Coulter deals with this very thing in her book “Godless.” If you haven’t read it I would recommend it for, not only her debunking the old horsey evolution chart we all grew up with, but for a plethora of reasons.
Mojave Mark on June 9, 2007 at 10:24 AM
Evolution must by its nature include a lot wider variety of forces and principles to actually be able to describe the origin of life.
RiverCocytus on June 8, 2007 at 11:17 PM
Withstanding all the hypothisis and theories scientists have thrown against the wall over the last six or seven decades, tne spark of life is the emphirical evidence of the existence of God. The fact that not one single atom has ever been created by man bares witness to this fact. All science is only the observation and manipulation of Gods creation. Philosophy is what has evolved. It has evolved from the ideas of individuals to to satisfy their need to define themselves as being nonconforming to the social norms of the day starting in Greece. The convoluted hybrid that exists today has attached itself the physical science like a blood sucking parasite. It uses valid science (observations) as a schill for its actual purpose. Part of that purpose is to allow individuals perceive themselves as not having any limits in self expression, and like a black hole is ever absorbing the world around them in their inner being. It has no basis in moralistic values and therefor any person who has built their lives on the insanity of philosophy can never cross the great chasm between themselves and God without the help of Jesus Christ!
sonnyspats1 on June 9, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Whether you know it or not, you are indeed dealing with issues central to the philosophy of science–which is, rather specifically, the study of the distinction between statements that are considered scientific and those that are not.
I wasn’t attempting to be snide, but to provide you with some basic references with which you might begin to broaden your horizons. (Incidentally, neither Popper nor Quine were Logical Positivists.)
Blacklake on June 9, 2007 at 11:16 AM
Regardless of whether you think I need to rely on falsification or positivism, modern scientists demand that theories be predictive. That was decided by scientific philosophers and the community at large. I agree with them on this. I’m not challenging the philosophy of science. I am challenging evolution to adhere to the philosophy of science. That is, it must predict some future occurrence or observation. So far, it hasn’t. It might one day. But to claim that it has so far is naive or dishonest.
Let me remind you once again, I don’t believe or disbelieve in evolution. What I do know is, for one reason or another, there are a lot of folks willing to bypass scientific method and just declare it true. That’s not science.
cmay on June 9, 2007 at 12:43 PM
Would that be: But animal sequences do not prove that the Darwinian mechanism of natural selection caused the similarities. It is just as likely that the similarities are proof of intelligent design, creationism, or the Giant Raccoon’s Flatulence theory. The animal-sequence drawings allegedly demonstrating evolution by showing, for example, a little runt horse gradually becoming a grand stallion, are just that: drawings.
Did you even read the link I or other people linked for you? They alone rebuke Ms. Coulter. The series of horse evolution aren’t simply a series of “drawings,” to define them as such is ignorant.
Simply because man has not created an atom does not mean that God exists. Stars create trillions and trillions of atoms over their lifetime, if anything is responsible for life it is them.
You can psychoanalyze the philosophers all you want, but by their own writings they don’t study knowledge and wisdom simply to “define themselves as being nonconforming.”
People are perfectly capable of making their own morals, they don’t need to rely on a book to tell them what is or isn’t “good.”
Nonfactor on June 9, 2007 at 12:47 PM
That’s a very dangerous notion. Most of the world lives in utter poverty and are doomed to die in poverty by folks who make up their own morals. This is true throughout history. It also argues against the Constitution and the entire legal system.
Although this may be true, it must be stated that stars create atoms from preexistent matter. The real question is what is the prime cause? What caused everything to come into existence?
This is a tough question for scientists to answer. They are delving deeper and deeper into the past. Bust most scientists believe that they will hit a point where they can make no direct or indirect observations.
Black holes are a good example. We know with a degree of certainty that they exist and some mechanisms for their genesis. We can observe their effects on the surrounding environment and we make make certain assumptions about what happens inside the event horizon. But we don’t really know. Physics inside the black hole and at the beginning of the universe is different than the physics outside of it. And we have no way of telling just how different it is. But we do know it is different.
None of this argues for the “god of the gaps” or even the existence of a single personal Creator. Even if evolution turns out to be proven (scientifically speaking) that doesn’t disprove the existence of God. At some point Nonfactor, you’ve taken the leap of faith into whatever you believe. Speaking as someone influenced by Catholic philosophy, no one can compel you to believe in God, much less the Christian God. You have freewill.
However, you need to realize that you are making leaps beyond reason to come up with what you believe; just like Christians do.
cmay on June 9, 2007 at 1:24 PM
Nonfactor on June 8, 2007 at 10:39 PM
Scientists believe life on Earth was started in the sulfur beds in the ocean. .Correct me if I am wrong , but shouldn’t this statement at least be examined in detail for it’s credibility. After all this is the fulcrum the scientific community is using leveverage out the faith based religions of the world? Also it transposes all the information you have put forth in earnest into a faith based religion.
sonnyspats1 on June 9, 2007 at 1:55 PM
Can someone help me cut and paste here I am a carpenter not a keyboard jockey?
sonnyspats1 on June 9, 2007 at 1:56 PM
has no basis in moralistic values and therefor any person who has built their lives on the insanity of philosophy can never cross the great chasm of understanding between themselves and God without the help of Jesus Christ!
sonnyspats1 on June 9, 2007 at 11:08 AM
Fixed it!
sonnyspats1 on June 9, 2007 at 2:03 PM
You can psychoanalyze the philosophers all you want, but by their own writings they don’t study knowledge and wisdom simply to “define themselves as being nonconforming.”
Nonfactor on June 9, 2007 at 12:47 PM
I am not psychoanalizing them I am calling them a bunch of lazy beatniks. The equevelent of rock star wanna be’s only lacking instruments, and using their mind as that instrument. their like the lazy teenager who sleeps till noon and argues for his allowance. Answer me this, do you know the difference between needs and wants?
sonnyspats1 on June 9, 2007 at 2:17 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »