Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution

posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit

Via the new Harris Poll, a long-distance dedication to my pal CJ, the creationist-slayer. Key data points are in yellow. I’m not sure how to explain Catholics’ greater credulity on matters as diverse as evolution, ghosts, and UFOs, but your theories are welcome. As for the top line, we already have theistic atheists. Why shouldn’t we have atheistic theists, too?

One other intriguing data point at the link: More Americans believe the Old Testament is the word of God (55 percent) than the New Testament (54 percent). Presumably the former attracted Jewish votes that the latter didn’t, but that margin should have been more than offset by a subset of Christians — like, say, George Bush — who don’t regard the OT as literally true but surely take the gospels at face value. Here’s David Brody of CBN picking up on that on CNN yesterday. Exit quotation: “Well, hello! It’s the Holy Bible!”

Tags:

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 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 16

Maxx, you don’t really want to start a discussion about the plausibility of Noah’s Ark do you? I don’t have the patience.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:00 PM

I got some really neat feasibility studies I can point you to. Its a great study… it could have easily been done…. REALLY, I mean it. And of course I believe its true, I think the arc might be found some day on that mountain (can’t think of the name of it right now, actually its a range of mountians).

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:04 PM

but the moral teaching of our religions will be constant.

In my 62 years on this planet I have seen changes in the interpretation of scripture. You see I was once a church goer. The mainstream churches today are a faint shadow of what they were when I was ten years old. Homosexual ministers, abortion, relativism, it is hardly constant.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:06 PM

right4life hang in there!

mwdiver on December 13, 2008 at 11:09 PM

The obvious and inherit design in all things. I bet you can reccognize intelligent design when you see it. Let’s suppose you were walking down the beach and saw “I love Sara,” carved into the sand.

Would you think that was a produce of random natural forces or would you think that was carved into the sand by a person?

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 9:41 PM

A) If sand made copies of itself, subject to environmental pressures that allowed sand in shapes resembling “I love Sara” to make more copies, then random natural forces would produce exactly such a carving.

B) I would assume it was a person because sand doesn’t make copies of itself, and doesn’t chemically interact with its environment to make novel structures. DNA does. I would also assume it was a person because it’s English. I speak English, I’ve seen actual people write messages in English. I even dated a girl named Sara once.

IOW, that’s a horrible analogy.

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:11 PM

SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 10:49 PM

SaintOlaf, congratulations, you have described the longest running conspiracy in modern history.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 10:56 PM

I guess you have nothing to say about the fact that Eurasmus Darwin and Thomas Huxley were both 33rd degree Masons and members of the Illuminati?

Do you know what one has to do to become a 33rd degree Mason?

Do you know what top level Masons and Illumati members do in their meetings?

They practice satanic rituals.

This is not some looney stuff I just made up..

The top level Masonry and the Illuminati have been condemned loudly by U.S. PRESIDENTS and WORLD LEADERS for hundreds of years!

SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM

By the way, the rainbow does convey a message.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:54 PM

If you are familiar with those verses it conveys that message. For early pagan people rainbows, rain, animals to hunt, or a good harvest could be a message from the gods. Maybe, but we can also understand their sources and predict to some extent their occurances.

A rainbow may be a message from God but it is also a combination of reflection and refraction of light through moisture. God may have sent the rainbow but we understand some of the technology he uses to display it.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:13 PM

I think I may have seen one of those neat studies where the writer decided that Noah discovered compressed feed and claimed that before the flood Koalas did not eat eucalyptus leaves. No thanks.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM

The mainstream churches today are a faint shadow of what they were when I was ten years old. Homosexual ministers, abortion, relativism, it is hardly constant.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:06 PM

There is a point we can agree on. But I think if you search around you can still find a few churches that teach it right from the book, but they are rare, I admit.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:16 PM

living things are built with a certain amount of variability to survive changing conditions.

That is exactly what the theory of evolution states.

its obvious you don’t even know what the theory of evolution is. evolution is one form of life ‘evolving’ into another…lizards eventually became mammals..which eventually became human.

its a fairy tale.

Several scientists take notes and pass them to the next generation. What i meant was that no individual can observe evolution.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 6:22

this is laughable. no one can observe evolution becaus it does not happen

So lions and tigers can have a common ancestor, but lions and bears cannot. That is at least a breakthrough, it represents a partial belief in evolution.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 6:30 PM

again laughable” read my lips: NOT AT ALL.

do you bow down before a picture of darwin 5 times a day??

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:18 PM

In my 62 years on this planet I have seen changes in the interpretation of scripture. You see I was once a church goer. The mainstream churches today are a faint shadow of what they were when I was ten years old. Homosexual ministers, abortion, relativism, it is hardly constant.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:06 PM

Fair points. I should have hedged my language. I do think in 1,000 years Christian churches will still be a very influential moral force on the society. The core message of Christ will still bind people together, though individual church doctrines will change.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:21 PM

Even if it isn’t how amino acids were formed on early earth it is interesting that they were formed in a lab from inorganic matter. It is also interesting that meteorites have contained amino acids, indicating that something like the Miller process could have happened here or elsewhere.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 6:49 PM

you do understand that amino acids making up proteins is a HUGE leap, and that making useful proteins is an even bigger leap??

you really need to keep up with the science. OOL is at a dead end. they don’t have a clue.

In short, the latest science has given us no reason to doubt a 48-year-old statement given by an honest scientist: “The physical chemist, guided by the proved principles of chemical thermodynamics and kinetics, cannot offer any encouragement to the biochemist, who needs an ocean full of organic compounds to form even lifeless coacervates.”6

link

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM

Maxx,
God always preserves a remnant. There are many of us out here who believe in New Testament Christianity and not the liberal version.

Rose on December 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM

I think I may have seen one of those neat studies where the writer decided that Noah discovered compressed feed and claimed that before the flood Koalas did not eat eucalyptus leaves. No thanks.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:14 PM

Think…. baby animals and how big the arc was and it was very doable with room to spare. Keep in mind there are only about 8,000 different “kinds” of animals, he didn’t take one of each “species.” No fish, no bugs, only animals with breath in their nostrils.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM

By the way, the rainbow does convey a message.

13. I do set my bow in the cloud, and it shall be for a token of a covenant between me and the earth.

14. And it shall come to pass, when I bring a cloud over the earth, that the bow shall be seen in the cloud:

15. And I will remember my covenant, which [is] between me and you and every living creature of all flesh; and the waters shall no more become a flood to destroy all flesh.

Genesis 9
Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 10:54 PM

If you hadn’t read Genesis, and somebody told you this story was from some indian tribe in South America, wouldn’t you be tempted to think it was just a fable to explain where rainbows came from? Seriously, do you think that light didn’t refract until a few thousand years ago?

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:25 PM

A detail that many people miss is that Noah took seven of every clean animal on the ark. There was a food source for the meat eaters as well as for the people on board.

Rose on December 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM

right4life hang in there!

mwdiver on December 13, 2008 at 11:09 PM

thank you my friend, I will! whats funny is none of these evolutionists even bothered to address the following:

The tendency for genetic architectures to exhibit epistasis among mutations plays a central role in the modern synthesis of evolutionary biology and in theoretical descriptions of many evolutionary processes. Nevertheless, few studies unquestionably show whether, and how, mutations typically interact. Beneficial mutations are especially difficult to identify because of their scarcity. Consequently, epistasis among pairs of this important class of mutations has, to our knowledge, never before been explored. Interactions among genome components should be of special relevance in compacted genomes such as those of RNA viruses. To tackle these issues, we first generated 47 genotypes of vesicular stomatitis virus carrying pairs of nucleotide substitution mutations whose separated and combined deleterious effects on fitness were determined. Several pairs exhibited significant interactions for fitness, including antagonistic and synergistic epistasis. Synthetic lethals represented 50% of the latter. In a second set of experiments, 15 genotypes carrying pairs of beneficial mutations were also created. In this case, all significant interactions were antagonistic. Our results show that the architecture of the fitness depends on complex interactions among genome components

mutations do not ‘add up’ in fact too many mutations causes death of the animal. add to that Haldane’s Dilemma, and evolution is clearly not possible

but these darwiniacs keep spouting off the faith, and they don’t even know how little they know. its amusing, and kind of sad. all they have are ‘just-so’ stories. but they keep the faith!! and thats all evolution is..a faith, atheism.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:26 PM

do you think that light didn’t refract until a few thousand years ago?

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:25 PM

this is seriously stupid. show me in the bible where no rainbows happened before the end of Noah’s flood.

nice lie.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:27 PM

you do understand that amino acids making up proteins is a HUGE leap, and that making useful proteins is an even bigger leap??

you really need to keep up with the science. OOL is at a dead end. they don’t have a clue.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:22 PM

Thanks for the link. I did make a point of saying that an amino acid is not a protein, DNA, RNA or a cell. Not making a case that Miller had found the answer to the start of life, just that the boundry between inorganic and organic material is not as fixed as had been assumed a few decades ago.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:29 PM

and tell me was there bread and wine before Jesus made it the symbol of the new covenant? or did He just invent them then?? :rolleyes:

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:30 PM

case that Miller had found the answer to the start of life, just that the boundry between inorganic and organic material is not as fixed as had been assumed a few decades ago.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:29 PM

I don’t even know what you are talking about. it sounds like you are just clinging to your faith that somehow life had to happen without God.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Freemasons:

Andrew Johnson, U.S. President.
George Washington
John Wayne
Mark Twain
Harry S Truman
Dave Thomas (Founder of Wendy’s)
William Howard Taft
Red Skelton
Heath Shuler
Theodore Roosevelt
Paul Revere
Audie Murphy
Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart
Harpo Marx
Trent Lott
Bob Dole

I guess that would be a short list of Who’s Who in devil worship.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM

8,000 different “kinds” of animals, he didn’t take one of each “species.” No fish, no bugs, only animals with breath in their nostrils.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:23 PM

You would still need a fair amount of evolution to get from 8,000 different kinds to the 1.4 million species we’ve identified–not including those that are now extinct. You can reduce that number by the fish and allow that the fresh and saltwater fish sorted things out during the flood.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM

No fish, no bugs, only animals with breath in their nostrils

Snakes too? All the saltwater fish died because all that rain reduced ocean salinity. Every earthworm and termite was killed. Where did they come from?

As I wrote earlier, I don’t have the patience for this.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM

if you’re really interested in the state of OOL research…

A veteran origin-of-life researcher died last October: Leslie E. Orgel of the Salk Institute for Biological Studies. Orgel had co-authored Origins of Life on the Earth (1973) with Stanley Miller, the man whose spark-discharge experiment launched the modern origin-of-life craze in the 1950s (05/02/2003). Orgel worked in the field for decades and was familiar with all the different approaches.

The Implausibility of Metabolic Cycles on the Prebiotic Earth
Leslie E. Orgel‡

Almost all proposals of hypothetical metabolic cycles have recognized that each of the steps involved must occur rapidly enough for the cycle to be useful in the time available for its operation. It is always assumed that this condition is met, but in no case have persuasive supporting arguments been presented. Why should one believe that an ensemble of minerals that are capable of catalyzing each of the many steps of the reverse citric acid cycle was present anywhere on the primitive Earth, or that the cycle mysteriously organized itself topographically on a metal sulfide surface? The lack of a supporting background in chemistry is even more evident in proposals that metabolic cycles can evolve to “life-like” complexity. The most serious challenge to proponents of metabolic cycle theories—the problems presented by the lack of specificity of most nonenzymatic catalysts—has, in general, not been appreciated. If it has, it has been ignored. Theories of the origin of life based on metabolic cycles cannot be justified by the inadequacy of competing theories: they must stand on their own.

link

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM

If you hadn’t read Genesis, and somebody told you this story was from some indian tribe in South America, wouldn’t you be tempted to think it was just a fable to explain where rainbows came from? Seriously, do you think that light didn’t refract until a few thousand years ago?

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:25 PM

If it wasn’t in the Bible I would give the story no weight. And yes, light has alway refracted…. but the question is, did it rain before the flood. The Bible indicates in Genesis that water came up out of the ground like a sprinkler system prior to the flood. I wouldn’t get real dogmatic about that and I can’t remember were the verse is, but that is the impression the verse gives. So no rain before the flood would mean that rainbows were a new thing after the flood, now that the Earth would be watered by rain.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:43 PM

this is seriously stupid. show me in the bible where no rainbows happened before the end of Noah’s flood.

nice lie.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:27 PM

If you don’t read it that way, good for you.

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:44 PM

I don’t even know what you are talking about. it sounds like you are just clinging to your faith that somehow life had to happen without God.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Don’t have that particular faith. Also I don’t worry about the origin of life. I’ll need to act morally regardless of what lies beyond our knowledge.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:45 PM

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:39 PM

Thanks for the link. I have more curiosity than knowledge on the subject. I’ll read up.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:46 PM

Also I don’t worry about the origin of life

That’s the proper attitude.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM

If it wasn’t in the Bible I would give the story no weight. And yes, light has alway refracted…. but the question is, did it rain before the flood. The Bible indicates in Genesis that water came up out of the ground like a sprinkler system prior to the flood. I wouldn’t get real dogmatic about that and I can’t remember were the verse is, but that is the impression the verse gives. So no rain before the flood would mean that rainbows were a new thing after the flood, now that the Earth would be watered by rain.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:43 PM

According to right4life, that’s a lie.

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM

Genesis 2:6, but there is disagreement that it meant until the flood or until the Garden of Eden. Many think it was until the flood.

Rose on December 13, 2008 at 11:48 PM

The fact is that the Bible skips over a lot of details we’re curious about. None of the 4 gospels gives even a hint of what Jesus looked like, or His childhood, or His birthday, etc.

tom on December 13, 2008 at 1:41 AM

What kind of sandals Jesus wore or what color eyes he had are not critical, but the original post I was discussing referred to CSI-type evidence of Jesus’ actions after the resurrection.

Luke likely wasn’t an eye-witness to the events following the resurrection and most agree he was using Mark as a source. The period of 40 days isn’t referred to in Mark and detectives trying to reconcile the different accounts would have a difficult time assembling corroborating accounts on the time and location of the Ascension–perhaps if they had the Q document it would help.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 9:49 AM

Mark was also not an eye-witness, but both Luke and Mark would have known and talked to many apostles who were eye-witnesses. Luke had more of a mind-set of a biographer. He often adds more detail than Mark.

The Q document, unfortunately, appears to exist only in theory.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM

You would still need a fair amount of evolution to get from 8,000 different kinds to the 1.4 million species we’ve identified–not including those that are now extinct.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:36 PM

Yes, a fair amount of micro-evolution or adaption of a kind. But think of how many types of dogs there are and that is all from breeding. I’ve heard that some breeders say that they could re-establish every type of dog there is from a couple of average muts within a hundred years. Is that true…. I don’t know. But I do know that it doesn’t take long for animals to adapt to different environments, maybe a half-dozen generations or so.

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.
It sounds to me like a simple description of the water cycle that exixts today. Water evaporates, and rains. It all depends on what “mist” means. Mist may not necessariy be water droplets; it could be fog. It all depends on what “is” is.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:55 PM

Luke had more of a mind-set of a biographer. He often adds more detail than Mark.

The Q document, unfortunately, appears to exist only in theory.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 13, 2008 at 11:50 PM

Yeah, Luke was an interesting guy. Very important to the spread of Christianity.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM

According to right4life, that’s a lie.

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM

What’s a lie?

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM

Luke was a physician. He was probably a little more detailed about things.

Rose on December 14, 2008 at 12:02 AM

Genesis 2:6 But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:55 PM

You found it! That’s the verse I was talking about. But no, I think its talking about water misting out of the ground. I think that was the method for watering the planet before the flood, I think rain was a new thing after the flood.

What is also interesting is that cold weather and ice is not mentioned until after the flood, so the catastrophic events probably gave the Earth its 23 degree tilt on its axis as well. In other words there were probably no seasons before the flood.

Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 12:06 AM

Maxx, you don’t really want to start a discussion about the plausibility of Noah’s Ark do you? I don’t have the patience.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:00 PM

I don’t quite get why you fixate on questions about Noah’s ark, or Jonah. Both are (allegedly) historical events, not scientific questions, and therefore irrelevant to the issue of (allegedly) scientific evolution. Again, both are claimed to have been miracles, examples of divine intervention, and irrelevant to a discussion of a naturalistic process.

So no matter where you wind up with the answers to your questions, it has no relevance to the discussion of evolution.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM

According to right4life, that’s a lie.

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:47 PM
What’s a lie?

Maxx on December 13, 2008 at 11:56 PM

ROL is full of it as usual. even if there was no rain, a rainbow could form because of the mist.

ROL thinks noah’s rainbow was the first rainbow EVA!! but you can’t show that through the bible…he’s so desperate to disprove the bible he has to make up things.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:11 AM

If you don’t read it that way, good for you.

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:44 PM

you made the ASSertion, post your proof.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:13 AM

I don’t know. But I do know that it doesn’t take long for animals to adapt to different environments, maybe a half-dozen generations or so.

For cats, six generations represents less than twenty years. So plain generic cats exit the Ark and become lions, tigers, ocelots, cougars, bobcats, jaguars, and so on in twenty years? Think in terms of tens of thousands of years. The flood was allegedly only 4500 years ago. You need more years plus allowances need to be made for the time it takes for these animals to migrate to different places with different climates and so on.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM

Snakes too? All the saltwater fish died because all that rain reduced ocean salinity. Every earthworm and termite was killed. Where did they come from?

As I wrote earlier, I don’t have the patience for this.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM

but nothing shakes your faith in your hairygod darwin..

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:14 AM

I don’t quite get why you fixate on questions about Noah’s ark, or Jonah. Both are (allegedly) historical events, not scientific questions, and therefore irrelevant to the issue of (allegedly) scientific evolution. Again, both are claimed to have been miracles, examples of divine intervention, and irrelevant to a discussion of a naturalistic process.

So no matter where you wind up with the answers to your questions, it has no relevance to the discussion of evolution.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 12:10 AM

because he is desperate to deflect attention from his woeful lack of knowledge about the theory he so desperately has FAITH in.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:18 AM

So no matter where you wind up with the answers to your questions, it has no relevance to the discussion of evolution.

It has relevance to the discussion of Biblical creation based on the Bible’s time frame. I will ASSume that you believe that the God of Genesis is the Intelligent Designer; therefore you at least have to deal with the flood.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:21 AM

I don’t even know what you are talking about. it sounds like you are just clinging to your faith that somehow life had to happen without God.

right4life on December 13, 2008 at 11:31 PM

Don’t have that particular faith. Also I don’t worry about the origin of life. I’ll need to act morally regardless of what lies beyond our knowledge.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:45 PM

There is wisdom in this viewpoint. While what we believe about the origin of life is important to us, and colors our view of God, there are yet many areas of life where your opinion of the origin of life is pretty much irrelevant/

Politics comes to mind. I have no problem voting for someone who believes in evolution or someone who believes in a literal six-day special creation. That person’s viewpoint means nothing in terms of public policy.

Unless, of course, they try to censor the science curriculum to reflect only their own viewpoints.

We don’t have any amendment against government control of science, but it might be advisable.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 12:23 AM

It has relevance to the discussion of Biblical creation based on the Bible’s time frame. I will ASSume that you believe that the God of Genesis is the Intelligent Designer; therefore you at least have to deal with the flood.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:21 AM

it was a miracle. there is your answer.

now give me the detailed genetic map, mutation by mutation, that turned a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:23 AM

SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM

did they do 9/11 too?

Snakes too? All the saltwater fish died because all that rain reduced ocean salinity. Every earthworm and termite was killed. Where did they come from?

As I wrote earlier, I don’t have the patience for this.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM

how dare you bring in common sense! why do you hate freedom and jesus!

lolwut on December 14, 2008 at 12:25 AM

Snakes too? All the saltwater fish died because all that rain reduced ocean salinity. Every earthworm and termite was killed. Where did they come from?

As I wrote earlier, I don’t have the patience for this.

Pelayo on December 13, 2008 at 11:38 PM

Yeah, snakes too, why not snakes? You are assuming that the ocean was salt water before the flood. The ocean gets its salinity from run off and erosion of salt. If it didn’t rain, no run off. The ocean was probably fresh water… and the fish gradually adapted to increased salinity over the next two thousand years.

Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 12:25 AM

now give me the detailed genetic map, mutation by mutation, that turned a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal.

They’re working on it. It’s called science.

I’ll continue this tomorrow, it’s 12:25 am in my time zone.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:26 AM

They’re working on it. It’s called science.

I’ll continue this tomorrow, it’s 12:25 am in my time zone.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:26 AM

clearly you just can’t argue! how dare you argue that its 12:30a.m. on Saturday! Don’t worry, but valiant internet warriors like myself and right4life will respond to EACH AND EVERY post made the rest of the evening!

lolwut on December 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM

The ocean gets its salinity from run off and erosion of salt. If it didn’t rain, no run off. The ocean was probably fresh water…

Now you’re making stuff up. I know a brick wall when I see one.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Oops…. make that over the next 4,400 years.

Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 12:28 AM

It’s only 9:30 in California. Hey, it’s still early.

Rose on December 14, 2008 at 12:29 AM

Now you’re making stuff up. I know a brick wall when I see one.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:28 AM

Well, maybe it was salt water, but how much fresh water do you have to add before you kill salt water fish? If it was salt water it certainly wasn’t as salty as it is today. They measure the increased salinity over time in studies of the ocean. Where do you think the ocean gets its salt?

Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 12:33 AM

So no matter where you wind up with the answers to your questions, it has no relevance to the discussion of evolution.

It has relevance to the discussion of Biblical creation based on the Bible’s time frame. I will ASSume that you believe that the God of Genesis is the Intelligent Designer; therefore you at least have to deal with the flood.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:21 AM

But that’s exactly the point. You’re trying to shift the discussion from how well proven evolution is to how scientifically plausible miracles are. But evolution is supposed to be a scientific theory relying on naturalistic processes, so miracles have no relevance to the discussion.

It appears you’re retreating from arguing the merits of evolution by attacking the flood. But the flood is already an example of divine intervention, so even if you prove divine intervention was required for the flood to be true, you haven’t exactly undercut the teaching of creation.

theregoestheneighborhood on December 14, 2008 at 12:35 AM

I’ll continue this tomorrow, it’s 12:25 am in my time zone.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:26 AM

Have a good rest Pelayo, I’ve enjoyed the discussion.

Maxx on December 14, 2008 at 12:40 AM

do you think that light didn’t refract until a few thousand years ago?

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:25 PM

Do you think light has refracted forever and ever, with no beginning to this phenomenon?

Or do you think the universe began as a pea, and all of a sudden, it blew up, and next thing you know, Beethoven writes the ninth symphony completely deaf?

Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 1:06 AM

do you think that light didn’t refract until a few thousand years ago?

RightOFLeft on December 13, 2008 at 11:25PM

Do you think light has refracted forever and ever, with no beginning to this phenomenon?

Or do you think the universe began as a pea, and all of a sudden, it blew up, and next thing you know, Beethoven writes the ninth symphony completely deaf?

Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 1:06 AM

How would you judge a tribal telling of the pea that blew up?

Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 1:10 AM

Don’t have that particular faith. Also I don’t worry about the origin of life. I’ll need to act morally regardless of what lies beyond our knowledge.

dedalus on December 13, 2008 at 11:45 PM

The zen of faith.

This was a beautiful statement.

Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 1:17 AM

Do you think light has refracted forever and ever, with no beginning to this phenomenon?

Or do you think the universe began as a pea, and all of a sudden, it blew up, and next thing you know, Beethoven writes the ninth symphony completely deaf?

Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 1:06 AM

Pretty much. Historical note – Beethoven didn’t go deaf until he was in his 20′s. I think you’re implying that his compositions could only have had divine inspiration. With advanced knowledge of musical theory and the memory of sound , his inspiration could’ve been entirely experiential.

RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 2:15 AM

How would you judge a tribal telling of the pea that blew up?

Saltysam on December 14, 2008 at 1:10 AM

If they justified it with meticulous observations of background radiation and used mathematical models to make predictions about what remnants would remain of such an explosion (and those predictions always ended up being right), I’d be duly impressed.

Believing in a literal reading of the creation story is silly. The resurrection of Jesus – at least there were witnesses – but Noah cramming every animal on a boat and feeding them for 40 days? Logistically impossible. It’s not like the bible is a little wrong. On the age of the Earth, it’s off by approximately 4 billion years. On the history of speciation, it makes a claim that every species was created distinct and its present form, which is easily refuted by even a single fossil of a dinosaur. Not to mention the fact that we should routinely be finding fossils of contemporary species. We don’t.

Jesus told parables. Jesus is God. Is it really so blasphemous to suggest that stories like the good Samaritan weren’t his first attempt at using fiction to impart wisdom? Or are we at the point where even Jesus’ parables have to be literally true to validate Christian faith?

RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 2:24 AM

ROL is full of it as usual. even if there was no rain, a rainbow could form because of the mist.

ROL thinks noah’s rainbow was the first rainbow EVA!! but you can’t show that through the bible…he’s so desperate to disprove the bible he has to make up things.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:11 AM

I don’t think it was the first rainbow. Many Christians do, however. It’s obviously the intended meaning of the passage. As a biblical literalist, you’re being a literal hypocritical criticizing me for taking the passage at face value.

You think I’m being silly for suggesting the bible say rainbows didn’t exist before Noah, but you’re pretty satisfied with Maxx’s, “it never rained before the flood” theory? Good lord, creationists are absolutely the worst Christians. You’ve got a little something in your eye, looks like it might be a beam.

RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 2:34 AM

Illuminati

SaintOlaf on December 13, 2008 at 11:12 PM

I’m surprised you haven’t quoted the movie Zeitgeist yet.

You’re putting a strain on the tinfoil supply.

MadisonConservative on December 14, 2008 at 2:35 AM

I apologize for the triple (now quadruple) post. I don’t mean to flood the thread on this late Saturday night, just couldn’t resist after missing the fun earlier…

RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 2:36 AM

To believe in evolution is to not believe in the Bible. Anyone who tries to marry the two is a mind-twisting hypocrite.

To believe in the devil is to believe in his opposite – God. You can’t have one without the other.

Basically. this survey only shows that more people believe in a fantasy, than do not.

OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 3:21 AM

I am NOT going to cover this thread (especially at 11 pages) …but what immediately stood out in the poll to me that IF you never attend a religious service, you likely believe in Darwinism and UFO’s.
.
So along with reading the Origin of Species, these people all make sure Coast to Coast AM is on their nightly media list?
.
BWA-HA-HA.
.
…but hey, in defense of their obvious superior intellects and erudition, Grey’s probably had to evolve, too: just ask Art Bell.
.

davisbr on December 14, 2008 at 5:48 AM

Studied from a scientific approach, evolution simply falls apart every time. But those of you that need something to “believe in” please keep faith with Darwin. I will simply follow the Creator of the Universe. Continue to mock Him if you wish but that does not change the fact that he exists, created all that is including YOU!

sabbott on December 14, 2008 at 6:57 AM

Continue to mock Him if you wish but that does not change the fact that he exists, created all that is including YOU!

sabbott on December 14, 2008 at 6:57 AM

Prove it! Your superstition has no standing.

OldEnglish on December 14, 2008 at 7:15 AM

Micro-evolution is scientific facts.

Macro-evolution is scientific farce and most all honest scientist know it.

jack_in_the_box on December 14, 2008 at 8:10 AM

God passed all the laws of physics.

jack_in_the_box on December 14, 2008 at 8:12 AM

This thread is still live?

If one believes in micro-rvolution, then one believes that horses and mules have the same ancestor. Lions and tigers still have the same number of chromosomes, 38; I think. A female liger is fertile, a male is not. Donkeys have 62 chromosomes; horses have 64. Mules and hinnys are almost always infertile. Could the difference in chromosomes be because of macro-evolution? Of course not. It’s a farce; jack_in_the_box, said so.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 9:39 AM

Micro-evolution is scientific facts.

Macro-evolution is scientific farce and most all honest scientist know it.

jack_in_the_box on December 14, 2008 at 8:10 AM

What is the mechanism for the boundary between micro and macro evolution? How are wolves and domestic dogs related but not wolves and coyotes or, if they are, then wolves and, say, foxes. Is it based on the level of morphological change or percentage of shared DNA?

dedalus on December 14, 2008 at 10:18 AM

Believe in him? Hell, they elected him!

marklmail on December 14, 2008 at 10:27 AM

valiant internet warriors like myself and right4life will respond to EACH AND EVERY post made the rest of the evening!

lolwut on December 14, 2008 at 12:27 AM

you really are obsessed with me. why don’t you stop stalking me? wacko.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 10:41 AM

you’re being a literal hypocritical criticizing me for taking the passage at face value.

You think I’m being silly for suggesting the bible say rainbows didn’t exist before Noah, but you’re pretty satisfied with Maxx’s, “it never rained before the flood” theory? Good lord, creationists are absolutely the worst Christians. You’ve got a little something in your eye, looks like it might be a beam.

RightOFLeft on December 14, 2008 at 2:34 AM

because the bible explicity says in genesis 2:6 that the Lord had not yet sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground.

there is nothing the bible thats says ‘this is the first rainbow’

you obviously pick and choose what you want to believe from the bible. you make up a god in your own image.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 10:45 AM

Believing in a literal reading of the creation story is silly. The resurrection of Jesus – at least there were witnesses – but Noah cramming every animal on a boat and feeding them for 40 days? Logistically impossible. It’s not like the bible is a little wrong. On the age of the Earth, it’s off by approximately 4 billion years. On the history of speciation, it makes a claim that every species was created distinct and its present form, which is easily refuted by even a single fossil of a dinosaur. Not to mention the fact that we should routinely be finding fossils of contemporary species. We don’t.

this is delusional. don’t be so sure about the age of the earth, or anything else in cosmology. that age is just there because evolution NEEDS ‘deep time’.

where does the bible claim that every species was created in its present form?

this just shows how desperate you darwiniacs to defend your hairygod. lie away, its all ya got.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 10:50 AM

oh heres another observation that does NOT fit with desperate darwiniacs 4.5 billion years…

The production of Ganymede’s magnetic field

We find that, contrary to expectations, there are no physically plausible scenarios in which tidal heating in the silicates is sufficient to cause the thermal runaway necessary to prevent core cooling. These findings are robust to variations in the silicate rheology, tidal dissipation factor of Jupiter (QJ), structure of the ice shell, and the inclusion of partial melting in the silicate mantle. Resonance passage therefore appears unlikely to explain Ganymede’s magnetic field and we must appeal to the special conditions described above to explain the presence of the field.

link

and yes its another science article that you darwiniacs just have to ignore.

I find you supposed supporters of ‘science’ ignoring my articles to be quite amusing. not surprising though.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:01 AM

this is delusional. don’t be so sure about the age of the earth, or anything else in cosmology. that age is just there because evolution NEEDS ‘deep time’

When I look upward I can see light from stars that are so far away that it takes more than 6000 years to get here. If the universe is only 6000 or 6500 years old, can anyone explain light from stars that are 100,000 light years, or further, away?

Right4life, do you want to try?

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM

When I look upward I can see light from stars that are so far away that it takes more than 6000 years to get here. If the universe is only 6000 or 6500 years old, can anyone explain light from stars that are 100,000 light years, or further, away?

Right4life, do you want to try?

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 11:15 AM

why don’t you try to explain the magnetic fields of Ganymede first? and I asked you to give me the mutations necessary to transform a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal. I also posted an article that tested beneficial mutations being added to each other…

you have not answered anything I have asked, yet you ask me to answer your questions?

you first.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM

no answers…no surprise..

but I’ll answer your question..just to show that I can! and you cannot. but this is to be expected…

link

if you really want to delve into this, read starlight and time, by Humphrey…and here is a page of various criticisms, and him answering them..the math is a bit much, but…

link

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:32 AM

I am just a guy with a BS in engineering from a lowly Land Grant University. I am sorry that I cannot start a new career at 62 yeas of age and answewr your questions.

There has to be a Latin word for the argument style where one insists that someone answer a question that is far from their area of expertise. If there is a Latin word, I am sure it has “copra” in it somewhere. I am certain that you cannot explain light from distant stars, your failure is forgiven.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM

There has to be a Latin word for the argument style where one insists that someone answer a question that is far from their area of expertise. If there is a Latin word, I am sure it has “copra” in it somewhere. I am certain that you cannot explain light from distant stars, your failure is forgiven.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 11:33 AM

isn’t that what you’ve asked of me?

and I just did explain light from distant stars. do you just ignore things, or do you just need new reading glasses.

obviously you have not read all the material in those links I gave you by now.

obviously you’re not interested in any other explanation.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:40 AM

and since I did answer your starlight question, and I’m not a physicist, why don’t you answer any of my questions, since you’re an engineer, thought you guys knew everything…you sure act like you…or do you just run model trains?

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM

I read part of the article at AnswersinGenesis. I did not read all of it because like an apple, I do not have to eat all of the apple to realize it is rotten.

This sentence in the Conclusion is the reason to reject this “theory”:“Do we know that light has always propagated at today’s speed? Perhaps this is reasonable, but can we be absolutely certain, particularly during Creation Week when God was acting in a supernatural way?”

Here is a piece of advice – When trying to write like a scientist do not rely on the supernatural to make a point.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM

I read part of the article at AnswersinGenesis. I did not read all of it because like an apple, I do not have to eat all of the apple to realize it is rotten.

ah yes the ‘open’ and ‘tolerant’ darwiniac….bet you put your hand over your ears and said ‘lalalalalal’

laughable.

Here is a piece of advice – When trying to write like a scientist do not rely on the supernatural to make a point.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 11:58 AM

here’s an observation. you’re a typical darwiniac. keep believe the lie, its all ya got.

nice you see you still can’t answer my questions…loser.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:02 PM

oh and you should try keeping up with the science before making such a fool out of your self pelayo.

Speed Of Light May Not Be Constant, Physicist Suggests
ScienceDaily (Oct. 6, 1999) — A University of Toronto professor believes that one of the most sacrosanct rules of 20th-century science — that the speed of light has always been the same – is wrong

*smirk*

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:04 PM

and since I did answer your starlight question, and I’m not a physicist, why don’t you answer any of my questions, since you’re an engineer, thought you guys knew everything…you sure act like you…or do you just run model trains?

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:42 AM

I’ve asked the same question of ‘absolutist’ friends in the past. The only explanation I got was that God made the universe to look old. There’s no other possibility if you aren’t willing to believe that the universe is more than a few thousand years old, and since it involves magic there’s no argument I’ve been able to find against it. Of course it does imply God is intentionally misleading us. I guess He really does work in mysterious ways.

DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM

“or do you just run model trains”

You’re good at this ad hominem stuff.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM

You’re good at this ad hominem stuff.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:07 PM

and you’re not very good at this evolution stuff, obvioiusly.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:09 PM

I’ve asked the same question of ‘absolutist’ friends in the past. The only explanation I got was that God made the universe to look old. There’s no other possibility if you aren’t willing to believe that the universe is more than a few thousand years old, and since it involves magic there’s no argument I’ve been able to find against it. Of course it does imply God is intentionally misleading us. I guess He really does work in mysterious ways.

DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 12:05 PM

well why don’t you try reading Humphrey’s book, and his critics, and his answers to them, and decide for yourself?

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM

and another thing that is obvious is I’m not very good at spelling..sigh.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:11 PM

and no not all christians agree with humphreys. hugh ross profoundly disagrees. who is right? don’t know.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:15 PM

I have heard of the claim that lightspeed could have been as much as sixty time faster. OK, lets pretend that 6500 years ago the speed of light was 60 times faster than it is now. It still does not explain light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:20 PM

I have heard of the claim that lightspeed could have been as much as sixty time faster. OK, lets pretend that 6500 years ago the speed of light was 60 times faster than it is now. It still does not explain light from stars that are hundreds of millions of light years away.

Pelayo on December 14, 2008 at 12:20 PM

there are many unknowns in cosmology. I think the conventional wisdom is wrong, as it usually is.

we don’t know what most of the universe is even made out of dark energy dark matter….terms of our ignorance.

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:21 PM

why don’t you try to explain the magnetic fields of Ganymede first?
right4life on December 14, 2008 at 11:20 AM

Certainly a valid question for scientific inquiry. It’s part of the reason we’re planning to send additional probes to the Jovian system.

That said, as an unresolved mystery it’s quite a few orders of magnitude lower in significance when compared to why we see light from stars much, much further than 6,000 light years away, not to mention galaxies millions to billions of light years away. True, the ‘cosmic yard sticks’ used by astronomers have some significant margin of error, perhaps as much as 50%. That means those supernova that appear to be 4 billion light years away may actually be as far as 6, or as near as 2. Still doesn’t help your case.

Now, can we get an actual explanation of how we see stars and galaxies at distances completely incompatible with Biblical time scales? Not a redirection, an actual explanation. If you can provide a convincing one I’ll move toward your side of the argument.

DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 12:23 PM

Funny that unguided neo-Darwinian evolution, after more than a century of being “established incontrovertible fact,” still doesn’t inspire acceptance by most of the population of the earth.

Nearly every other scientific fact does, even the wonky counter-intuitive ones from physics.

There’s a reason for that. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t explain reality. It doesn’t match reality.

spmat on December 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM

well why don’t you try reading Humphrey’s book, and his critics, and his answers to them, and decide for yourself?

right4life on December 14, 2008 at 12:10 PM

Because I’m ignorant and have no clue who “Humphrey” is. On the other hand, if we’re just tossing books around as arguments, I’m sure there’s plenty on both sides.

Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t mind believing in the Old Testament as a literal description of the origin of the universe, if it was consistent with observations you and I can make today. It would be very comforting in fact. But it isn’t consistent with objective observations; therefore I reject it as an explanation. Just like I reject Hindu and Mayan creation myths as real explanations.

DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 12:50 PM

If we were to find out that the universe has been stretched out would that answer your question regarding light years?

Yes.

Regardless..the point is, the “scientific” community has lost their cedibility (and continue to do so with their global warming propaganda).

Here is why they have lost all credibility:

Because they believe this:

Science requires a materialist approach in order to allow for empirical testing.

They blacklist, deny tenure, slander and deny grant money to anyone who provides valid scientific evidence that opposes their secular agenda.

That’s a fact.

The “Pseudo-Scientific” establishment(who propounds the false and unscientific theory of evolution and censor opposing views) is about to fall in this country:
More and more people are catching on to the fact that the NWO secularists are dishonest in order to promote their non scientific secularism.

Once this is exposed their whole mess of lies will come crumbling down.

Yes, many of the things you have been taught all your life, are in fact lies that the NWO uses to promote their agenda.

SaintOlaf on December 14, 2008 at 12:53 PM

Funny that unguided neo-Darwinian evolution, after more than a century of being “established incontrovertible fact,” still doesn’t inspire acceptance by most of the population of the earth.

Nearly every other scientific fact does, even the wonky counter-intuitive ones from physics.

There’s a reason for that. It doesn’t make sense. It doesn’t explain reality. It doesn’t match reality.

spmat on December 14, 2008 at 12:37 PM

Maybe because people cling to comforting traditions. Very few other theories so directly conflict with people’s belief in their special place. Modern cosmology would be another branch of science that probably conflicts with the majority of people’s beliefs.

DarkCurrent on December 14, 2008 at 12:56 PM

Comment pages: 1 … 9 10 11 12 13 … 16