Good news: More Americans believe in the devil than in evolution
posted at 2:00 pm on December 12, 2008 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
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!”
You must be logged in to post a comment.
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: « Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 Next »
If your femur bone grows longer but your flesh, nervous system and blood vessels don’t grow along with it then all that will happen is loss of that limb.
Random mutations are the only source of new information for genetic change. Logic dictates that for every beneficial mutation (which is currently unknown in the scientific community) there must be a multitude of unfavorable mutations. So de-evolution is believable but upward macro evolution is not.
Maxx on December 16, 2008 at 12:05 PM
first genetics was NOT part of evolution until the synthesis.
traits change, but evolution, one type of animal becoming another over time, does not.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 12:09 PM
Really in order to avoid heretical interpretations, it is not recommended to use the Bible to prove creation science.
The Coptic Orthodox Church for instance, uses population statistics to disprove evolution, and steers clear of using Scripture as a science textbook.
In reality, evolution is an atheistic heretical religion not a science.
Evolution theory is clearly a demonic lie foisted on the public in order to prevent people from becoming Christian.
There is ZERO evidence proving evolution. In fact there is much available evidence unequivically DISPROVING evolution.
Wise up you’re being taken advantage of.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 12:19 PM
unequivicallyunequivocallySaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 12:22 PM
Didn’t wolves become dogs and Mouflon sheep?
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 12:23 PM
Did crickets become gophers?
Rose on December 16, 2008 at 12:28 PM
Here’s a question I’ve always wanted to ask hardcore evolutionist. Let’s see if anyone steps up to the plate.
Was the first living thing plant or animal?
Maxx on December 16, 2008 at 12:36 PM
Probably not since evolution branches, usually splitting off from simpler into more complex creatures. Dogs and cats had a common ancestor, but at this point one couldn’t take a dog reverse it up the tree and then down the cat branch so that it would purr and use a litter box. Turning it into a cricket–even harder.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 12:37 PM
a statement of faith.
another statement of faith. it just amazing that evolution can do that all by chance…pretty clever of it overcoming entropy!!
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 12:53 PM
I’ll grant you that the evolution of each organ is complex. In the case of the heart, though, we do see differing complexity from fish, to frogs, to reptiles, to humans. It doesn’t prove evolution, but it does show that different species can survive successfully with more rudimentary cardio systems that employ fewer chambers and valves in the heart.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 12:54 PM
Seems to me that “and how do we measure fitness? it survives” = “fitness means you reproduce and the species continues.”
davidk on December 16, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I’m not an evolutionist, not do I play one on HotAir. But if I may presume, an evolutionist would say, “Yes, the first living thing was a plant or an animal.”
davidk on December 16, 2008 at 1:08 PM
The question seemed to be asked within the context of Drawin’s theory. Maybe he’s wrong but I thought that was the answer that was being sought.
Darwin’s evolution doesn’t perpetuate new features by chance, but in combination with interaction with the environment. To get from the species count on Noah’s Ark to the subsequent 100-fold increase (at least) in number of species requires some artificial and natural selection to generate the change in features and cause speciation.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 1:10 PM
If these lower life forms survive well with their rudimentary systems there would have been no reason for them to change. These lower life forms still exist and do not have incomplete systems in the process of evolving. The only way these organisms would change would be by mutation. But then you have the problem that mutations tend to be harmful and the number of positive mutations it would take just to produce a functional umbilical chord would be astronomical.
Rose on December 16, 2008 at 1:13 PM
uh ok so what does 1% of an eye give you, or a clotting system that clots all the blood, not just a cut??
and the squid eye, and the human eye arose by chance, since evolution is unguided and unknowing…amazing how similar they are!!
but whatever the question, evolution is the answer, praise darwin!!
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 1:22 PM
yeah bacteria does pretty well just like they always have….first something has to be able to survive to ‘evovle’ but if it can survive, then why should there be any reason for it to evolve???
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Actually Evolution is a well established scientific discipline and there are mountains of evidence supporting it. Religion has zero evidence to support their fairy-tales which is why you take it on faith. Where’s the proof of your God, heaven or the rest of it?
By denigrating Evolution you’re insulting your hypothetical God by suggesting He is unsophisticated and not smart enough to come up with such a complex theory. You satisfy yourself with a primitive and simplistic conception of the origins of life, ie-Iron age Creation myths.
If you label Evolution as another competing religion, what makes you so certain your beliefs are any more valid or credible than the ‘evolutionists’? If both views are taken on faith which theory is correct? It can be applied to other religions also.
Is it more plausible that an invisible unprovable Skyman waved his hands and poof-in 6 days everything we see magically appeared? Then he breathed life into mud and made the first man. lol Or as scientists tell us life evolved over billions of years from simple to complex lifeforms? The evidence is on the side of science and all you have is your faith, which amounts to diddly squat.
*Waits for Olaf to make his usual insane and false ad hominem attacks by suggesting I want to kill Christians simply because I support Evolution and am atheist.*
thinkagain on December 16, 2008 at 1:39 PM
Eugenics was not “applied Darwinism” but a means of taking very old ideas and couching them in new terms that sound scientific. Darwin’s observations regarding Natural Selection are concerned with how populations of organisms changed over time in response to various natural pressures. Humanity had been aware of artificial selection, in which changes to a population could be brought about through selective breeding, for quite some time. Even before Mendel was mucking about with beans people had been using selective breeding to create drastic changes in dogs, cats, livestock and flora. The great revelation of Darwin’s theory was absent the guiding hand of man, changes occurred in populations, when natural pressures arose.
Eugenics was very simply old ideas of elitism repackaged to a modern market. The premise of Eugenics had been around for quite sometime. For those who consider the Bible to be an accurate historical text, look at Exodus and the Egyptians’ plan to reduce the number of Jews by slaughtering Jewish infants. It has never been a great leap of logic to conclude that genocide would remove a particular group of people from the world or at the very least reduce their numbers. The creation of royal bloodlines is evidence to the long standing belief that those that are “properly bred” are more deserving of wealth and privilege.
True evolutionary theory is Laise-Fair; as species struggle survive the losers will go extinct. Eugenics on the other hand is protectionist; it claims that certain groups that are deserving of flourishing are dwindling in numbers, while the groups that are flourishing should be reduced. Eugenics was a result of the insecurity of the white upper and middle classes of the West that their identities would be swept way by growing minority populations. Eugenics was a means of portraying this demographic shift as a crisis of health, and therefore a mandate to preserve the status quo. Eugenicists did not create the tensions between whites and blacks, Christians and Jews, Protestants and Catholics, rich and poor; Eugenics was simply trying to rationalize these existing prejudices.
Some of the true scientists within the Eugenics movement eventually defected when their own research demonstrated that “racial dissemination” actually produced not only viable, but strong healthy offspring. For these brave few the actual science expanded their artificially narrowed world view.
So who resembles the Eugenicists more? Scientists who simply observe the natural forces of the word, and put forth hypothesis and analysis as to how things have come to be? Or creationists, who dress themselves up to appear scientific, but are only interested in rationalizing conventional social arrangements and preserving their belief in their own moral superiority?
Dr. Venture on December 16, 2008 at 1:42 PM
An eyespot apparatus.
You have it backwards. Scientists think that whatever the question, the answer must be found in the natural world. You can’t measure or observe magic and miracles. Science has no use for the supernatural.
All you have is the argument from ignorance. If there is mystery within science, then God must exist. You seem to think that God somehow fills in all the holes of human understanding of the natural world. That’s a deadly gambit, because the holes shrink every year.
Reasoning doesn’t work like that. There are mysteries within all fields of science. Like I pointed out earlier, no one argues that since relativity and quantum mechaics appear irreconcilable, this proves that gravity doesn’t exist. But if anything can’t be explained in biology, it is clearly the work of God. I mean, if you come across a math problem that you can’t solve, do you take this as proof that God exists? Or do you just take it as proof of your own ignorance?
A science problem is just that, proof of ignorance, not of God.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
And it is that kind of improbablility that makes me wonder how can anyone buy into this fantastic notion.
It’s not just the umbilical cords and circulatory systems of just one of hundreds of species, it is the many, many symbiotic relationships between species.
The yucca plant is pollinated by a moth; it needs that moth to reproduce and the moth needs the plant. To believe that these two species evolved at all is hard enough, but to claim that whatever blind process allowed/caused them to evolve over vast amounts of time to come to a point (at the same time) that they then became interdependent is just too illogical to believe.
To belive that goes against any scientific/mathematical methodology/theory. Even natural selection cannot support the incredible events that must have occurred to bring this about. How did each species which depends on the other to survive, survive until they got to the point where each was capable of supporting the other?
I have outlined at least twice the evidence which gives logical reasons for believing in the God of the Bible. But no one responds to any of the points in my argument. They just continue with they’re ad hominen attacks, their condenscending retorts, and offer no reasonable alternatives.
davidk on December 16, 2008 at 1:46 PM
Some mechanism to explain the growth in number and variety of species is helpful–even from the Ark to today whether with artificial or natural selection features change. What caused the physical differences between wolves, jackals and coyotes? It would seem some combination of their different environments interacting on the genetic code.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 1:49 PM
well if they survive so well with this ‘eyespot’ apparatus, why evolve more??
science believe in PHILOSPHICAL naturalism, not just ‘naturalism’ they believe in atheism. talk about miracles, everything evolution does is a miracle, give me a break.
please, thats all YOU have…if you don’t know the answer…well we’ll find it…and it’ll support evolution…somehow…a darwin of the gaps, which precludes scientific inquiry…just as the whole darwinian notion of ‘junk dna’ no such thing.
you sure seem to think darwin has all the answers. Somehow Newton, Pascal, Pasteur, etc. all managed to believe in creation and be great scientists, now you nazi darwiniacs silence anyone who doesn’t bow on the hairyone’s alter.
your ’science’ is atheism. and its a joke.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 1:52 PM
Competition for scarce resources and changes in the environment can cause certain new features to become favored to the extent they provide a competitive edge. Some organisms can go unchanged for millions of years–if they are well-suited for their environment, why bother?
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 1:57 PM
hate to tell you, but there is no evolution, nothing evolves. you cannot show it in nature or the lab. all you have is faith. explain the tuatara, with the fastest rate of molecular ‘evolution’ but is a living dinosaur…you cannot…I have asked this several times in this thread, and no darwiniac has even attempted to answer it.
you darwiniacs insult our intelligence on a daily basis with your belief in such a supperstition as evolution.
you satisfy yourself by worshipping your hairygod darwin. and by harassing, sueing, and silencing any who dare disagree like sternberg.
well go ahead and prove that sonny!! evolve something, take a bacteria and make it a multi-cellular animal….all you have is faith in your hairygod darwin. which amounts to diddly squat.
but you can’t…you’ll whine you need more time…which means you have FAITH in your hairygod darwin…
Israel exists, as the God of the Bible said it would long ago…and evolution does NOT exist…no matter how loudly hairygod’s imams like you shriek.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 1:58 PM
every organism is well suited for its environment, or it wouldn’t survive…sigh…
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 1:59 PM
yes and that is NOT evolution, sorry. genetic variability only goes so far, as with the case of a mule.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:00 PM
What do you mean by “proof”?
davidk on December 16, 2008 at 2:02 PM
eugenics was applied darwinism, sorry. here’s your hero darwin himself:
sounds like eugenics to me.
yeah evolution IS a racist theory.
and that racism lives on in evolution with people like Watson.
evolutionists obviously. give me a break.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
Until things get crowded (Hey the feeding looks pretty good over there). Until competitors are “new & improved” (Gee the new guys keep getting bigger and quicker to the prey). Until the environment changes (Yikes, the water hole dried up).
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 2:06 PM
so Watson, one of the founders of DNA, isn’t a ‘true scientist’
are you this pompous and idiotic in real life??
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
How many species were on the ark? How many have been created since? How to explain the net difference in a few thousand years?
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
and the animal decides…I’m a gonna evolve!!! right!! sounds like you’re talking about lamarckianism.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:08 PM
how do you define a species? are lions and tigers different species?? they can mate you know and produce ligers.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:09 PM
“The case for Darwinism cannot be based on any edification that is supposed to come from its truths. Through eugenics, Darwinism was a bad influence on Nazism, one of the greatest killers in world history. Darwinism probably contributed to the upsurge of racism in the latter part of the nineteenth century, and thus it helped foment twentieth-century racism generally. Darwinism was also used to exacerbate the neglect of the poor in the nineteenth century. All things considered, Darwinism has had many regrettable, and sometimes actually vicious, effects on the social climate of the modern world. Modern Darwinism does not offer any guarantee of unending progress. It is understandable that so many hate Darwin and Darwinism. It is often a bitter burden to live with Darwinism and its implications. Unlike so many doctrines, religions, and ideologies, it certainly isn’t intellectual opium. No one can make a case for Darwinism based on moral hygiene.” (Rose M.R. [Professor of Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Irvine], “Darwin’s Spectre: Evolutionary Biology in the Modern World,” [1998], Princeton University Press: Princeton NJ, 2000, Third printing, p.210).
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:12 PM
this your hairygod darwin at his finest…
a racist, evil man, and evolution is STILL RACIST.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:13 PM
No. More akin to the guy who brings a knife to a gunfight, the unevolved animal realizes that he’s lunch. After lunch the stronger animal can mate (usually often).
Not referring to acquired traits as Lamarck did.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 2:14 PM
and evolution wasn’t ‘hijacked’ to support eugenics and racism…
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:15 PM
this is another statement of faith. you have to presume that mutations can ‘add up’ when in fact they are usually fatal to the animal…and then you have to presume they get passed on, and spread through the population…ever hear of Haldane’s dilemma??
link
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:17 PM
Because a more complex eyespot apparatus was more favorable to survival in the environment. You do at least believe in “microevolution,” right?
“We’ll find it” implies that “we don’t know right now.” That’s true, when confronted with a mystery, scientists speculate and hypothosize, but they also admit ignorance. Ignorance, by definition, can’t lead to any conclusions by itself. Including “this is the work of God.”
And a Godwin for the win.
I actually don’t think that “creationists” should be silenced. I actually would love it if creationism was taught in high school science classes. It would only take up half an hour and would help reinforce accepted theories. The louder creationists are, the better.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 2:18 PM
And out of these “mountains of evidence” I notice you provide us with zippo…
The simple fact that we are here and evolution doesn’t work.
Of all the dumb arguments I consistently hear from the proponents of evolutionism, this is the dumbest. I am suppose to declare God of the Bible a liar in order to make their goofy evolution theory more plausible.
Statement like the above are mainstays of evolutionist, condescension is their only resource because they have no facts to rely on.
In many ways “science” is still catching up with the Bible, it contains many scientific facts that have stood the test of time in addition to great wisdom, I find none of this in your books of evolution.
Even a five year old knows a car can’t build itself, so yes, the creation model is the only plausible explanation.
Maxx on December 16, 2008 at 2:22 PM
why, since the animal could survive already? why would anything evolve since bacteria has survived very well without vision, or arms, or legs….
yeah they say ‘its the work of natural selection’ praise darwin!! the presume naturalism. they are frightened to death of the ID movement not because its ‘not science’ but because it threatens their atheism….even dawkins is fine with alien intelligence…just not GOD!!
I thought darwin was your god??
what I said is true, and you cannot dispute it. darwiniacs are the most intolerant nazis around. Ask Sternberg about the ‘tolerant’ darwiniacs.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:23 PM
Creationism is not science and has been repeatedly laughed out of court-yet you guys still don’t give up. You’re Appeal to Authority fallacy also fails, just because some scientists (assuming your claim is true) support one theory over another doesn’t make that theory invalid.
Also Newton was born long before Darwin, evolution didn’t exist at that point and his area of study was primarily in physics not biology. We’ve come a long way since then and the evidence for Evolution has only mounted, just as it has for the Big Bang.
If you know anything about science you’d realize what makes it so powerful is that it’s designed to reject false hypotheses while building on facts/truths that are valid. It runs counter to religion which is dogmatic, inflexible and rejects new information-which is why its been stalwart against science and modernity since its invention.
Let’s turn the tables now, where is you irrefutable evidence that Creationism which is rejected by the scientific establishment, is the real answer for the origin of life on earth? Of course in order to do that, you’d have to prove God exists since the universe was “Intelligently Designed” according to theists.
But God has never been proven to exist so none of the claims made as a consequence of god-belief have any credibility. Having faith is not proof-its just treating something as a fact without validation.
The real joke here is creationism and religion in general since they’re nothing but mythologies that people started taking seriously. If I tell you that I am Superman, would I not be expected to demonstrate my superpowers before I am to be believed? If you believe me on faith alone (as you do with god) that means you’re credulous and will blindly and foolishly believing anything.
thinkagain on December 16, 2008 at 2:24 PM
I wasn’t relying on mutations, necessarily, to explain how a species might go from a steady state in an environmental niche to a point where competition can suddenly favor traits found in a minority of the population or where the search for additional food supplies can push a species into a new environment that favors yet another set of traits. Over time isolation can cause the species to diverge.
I’ll have to go soon. If I don’t address a few tasks in the real world my own survival will be less assured. I’ll read through Haldane’s dilemma. Sounds interesting.
dedalus on December 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM
evolution is not science and would be laughed out of court except we know how most of the judges are a bunch of liberal wackos.
but you haven’t posted anything to validate the theory of evolution…you haven’t answered my question about the tuatara…why not???
you can say it, maybe even believe it, but you haven’t posted any…because you cannot.
evolution isn’t a fact, its not true, and its not valid. you have a make-believe version of ’science’ its really just a bunch of grubby men promoting themselves, often at the cost of others. because of evolution science IS a relgion…atheism. get a clue.
I’ve posted article after article refuting evolution you’ve posted nothing, no evidence. laughable.
the only joke here is you. and I am amused by you, not surprised, but amused.
neither has evolution, hasn’t stopped the darwiniacs. all you have is faith, in your hairygod darwin.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:32 PM
uh Israel exists, just as the God of the Bible said it would…and Iran is its primary enemy, as God prophecied.
when you take a bacteria and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal, let me know.
game, set, match.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 2:39 PM
That may be the case with your analogy, but that is not the case in regards to Christianity..
Christianity can be tested. You are just too lazy(or possessed) to try.
Try the methods of the Saints..
Fasting, Prayer, Worship in the Liturgy, Participating in the Eucharist and the Sacraments of the Church, overcoming negative logismoi(temptations) and the practice of asceticism in general..
If you have tried these methods and not found God then you can say that God does not exist but not before that.
SaintOlaf on December 16, 2008 at 2:47 PM
Because the more advanced lifeforms survived better and were able to reproduce more. It’s really a fairly simple and elegant concept.
Natural selection has been observed. Even the most ardent creationists believe in that. There is just too much evidence in the existence of natural selection producing new qualities, especially in species that reproduce quickly, like bacteria.
It’s not that they “presume naturalism,” it’s just that this is the only material they have to work with. If it can’t be measured and observed, then it is useless to science. Exactly what outside of nature can be measured and observed?
Saying, “No YOU’RE religious” is nonsense and doesn’t help your case.
Victimology is part Intelligent Design’s “wedge strategy.” Try to get mainstream acceptence by painting themslves as poor downtrodden theorists who are helpless against those big, bad University biologists.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 2:49 PM
How about the fact that Evolution and not Creationism is backed by the scientific establishment? If you really wanted evidence you know you could’ve done a simple google search.
The fact is that you theists only care about finding alleged “holes in the theory” to try to dismiss Evolution. Its because you’re brainwashed by the dogmatic beliefs you were raised with.
Its funny to see theists demand evidence when they provide none for their baseless beliefs and in fact rely on faith. People who believe things without proof have no place expecting it from others.
Your being here is only proof of your own existence. Provide direct, irrefutable evidence of your skygod. The more extraordinary your claim the more extraordinary proof required.
Evolution has been wildly successful while Creationism isn’t even considered a science. Your inability to understand evolution doesn’t mean it’s not valid.
You’re getting ahead of yourself skippy, you still haven’t proved that the Bible was written by God. Given all the errors it contains and the primitive myths, its obviously man-made.
Hahaha, more preaching about facts by those who’ve never established one fact of their own.
The Bible claims the earth is flat with four corners. Your god apparently didn’t know its spherical.
So the universe was created by an invisible unprovable fairytale creature that no one has ever seen? You’re right that makes so much more sense-if you have the mind of a 5 year old. :)
In fact your reductionism of evolution demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the theory. The brilliance of Darwin’s theory is that it shows life can emerge spontaneously and on its own-with the need of a divine imaginary hand.
Many processes in the universe are going on without any magical fairies making them happen. If you’d like to learn more about how evolution works, check out these YouTube channels:
DonExodus
Thunderfoot (see his ‘why do people laugh at creationists’ series)
thinkagain on December 16, 2008 at 3:02 PM
I wrote:
right4life wrote:
I had been operating under the assumption that you were not totally and utterly insane. Should I scrap that assumption?
Which, if any, of the following do you not believe to be true?
1. We have consistent physical laws in this universe
2. Femur bones can have different lengths.
3. The length of femur bones is not strongly quantized (i.e. They don’t come in choices of just Size 6 or Size 7, you could have Size 6.374
4. The length of femur bones are largely a product of the genes which code for the production of them
5. The length of a femur bone has an effect on how rapidly an animal can move
6. The leverage granted by femur bones is also not quantized.
7. We don’t live in a universe where the laws of physics randomly and chaotically change themselves from moment to moment.
If you agree with all of the above, how can the not-strongly-quantized length of a femur bone NOT be considered a “smooth fitness landscape”, and thus utterly unlike the typical fitness landscape which Demski uses in his NFL theorem misapplications?
How, then, is this a “just-so story”?
VekTor on December 16, 2008 at 3:31 PM
really? bacteria has done VERY well. and how would evolution know this?? you are saying evolution IS the intelligent designer. evolution is all-knowing when you need it to be, and purposeless when you need it…evolution is all in all, praise darwin!!!
natural selection is a TAUTOLOGY…if its fit, it survives…its meaningless.
ok, then it should be EASY to evolve a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal…go ahead. you spout talking points, thats about it.
you really don’t have a clue what ’science’ is all about. again you just parrot talking points. ID is great in SETI, but verboten in biology…ever wonder why??
what is natural, and what is not? do you know??
do you even know what happened to Sternberg?? all you can do is parrot talkorigin talking points.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 3:42 PM
yawn. again you parrot talking points. in other words you’re just a lemming, a follower. ya got nothing. why don’t you answer the question about the tuatara?? HMMMMM??
ever wonder why evolutionists NEVER seem to find holes in the ‘theory’ (faith) hmmmmmm??? talk about brainwashed, you really are laughable.
uh I just did with Israel…can’t handle the truth huh? you’re a good darwiniac…a mindless little drone.
this is some of the stupidest drivel you atheist wackos can come up with…ever hear of a figure of speech?? DUHHHH…Ezekial speak of the Lord sitting above the circle of the earth…
it contains no errors, get a clue, its withstood wackos like you lying about it for centuries…the bible stands, and you’ll be dust. loser.
you post youtube videos laughable…try doing some research, duhhhhhh moron.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM
That might be true if one were silly enough to think that the length of flesh, nerves and blood vessels HAS NO RELATIONSHIP at all with the lengths of the underlying skeletal structures.
Tell me, why is it that when adolescents reach “growth spurts”, that their bones don’t just poke out of their skin?
Why is it that, if bone lengthening is suppressed without underlying genetic changes (diet, etc) that the skin doesn’t just hang off of these folks in huge folds? Why don’t they grow spaghetti-like blood vessels that loop all over the place?
Why don’t you see one of these two effects in genetically identical twins if you raise one of them with fully proper diet for optimal bone length, and raise the other in a malnoutritious environment, where they grow up to be significantly shorter?
Could it, perhaps, have something to do with the growth of these structures accomodating the underlying skeletal changes naturally, rather that having to follow some intricate and miraculously coordinated simultaneous schedule of growth? That the skeletal structure might be a DRIVER of these other lengths?
Think, Maxx…. Think!
VekTor on December 16, 2008 at 3:47 PM
I have not made the same assumption about you, and I’ve been proven to be correct.
this is just drivel. lengths of femur bones do NOT prove evolution…amazing. oh and do you think Andre the Giant had a longer, bigger femur bone than Carl Lewis??
why don’t you try answering my question about the tuatara??
you’re STILL trying to argue that you can program an evolutionary algorithm USING INTELLIGENT DESIGN to prove evolution??? amazing.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 3:50 PM
uh they were DESIGNED not to.
I wish you would. most of the things you talk about are rather meaningless…
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 3:52 PM
Isaiah, sorry.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 3:53 PM
you can’t say that even then.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 3:54 PM
How about the fact that any scientist that goes against the dogma of evolution gets fired?
And read the same type of boring claptrap again, no thanks. I know that the evolutionist say and there are no facts in it to support their theory. If you disagree, give me at least ONE THING that you know for sure that supports macro evolution.
Yes, but evolution has more holes in it than a moon-sized block of swiss cheese. When the reasoned mind looks at evolution, all it can see is holes.
I’ll be happy to give you specific evidence for creation. How about the fact that the rate of increase of salinity of the oceans is know and at that rate, there is only about ten thousand years worth of salt in the oceans. Since evolution could not even happen in billions of years its really hurting with only ten thousand years or less. (your turn, lets hear a solid fact that supports macro evolution)
Somebody said that once the impossible has been eliminated (that would be evolution) that whatever remains must be true. The only explanation left is creation and that requires a creator.
Evolution has been wildly successful at what? Certainly not at being accepted, read the poll for this post again. And keep in mind that evolution has been force fed to kids in school for about forty years now…. and they still don’t believe it. And most scientist go along with evolution because they would like to keep their jobs. Evolution has already fallen flat and is in fact dead, what we see of it now is just the involuntary twitching of an already dead body.
I couldn’t prove to you that the sun comes up in the morning if you are unwilling to believe it.
Ok, here’s a (another) fact…. you have no transitional fossils, most of the animals found in the Cambrian can be found with only slight adaptation today.
The Bible never says the Earth is flat, it does talk about four corners. I never understood that verse, I don’t know what it means by “four corners” but it does not say the Earth is flat.
Well now… according to Scriptures there are a lot of people that have saw Him, but I admit I have not saw Him and I’m guessing you have not either. Don’t worry, you will see Him one day.
I wish I had a dollar for every time some evolutionist said I didn’t understand the theory, I’d be able to retire already. There is not much to understand… according to evolution, it all happened by chance. What am I missing?
Maxx on December 16, 2008 at 4:05 PM
don’t hold your breath! glad you liked that site!
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 4:14 PM
And more advanced bacteria did better.
Please point to where I claimed that it is an intelligent process. You are seeing what you want to see.
Even Kent Hovind believes in natural selection. It’s real, and it has been observed. The most common cited example is bacterial antibiotic resistance. And contrary to what ID supporters claim, there is no magic barrier between “microevolution” and “macroevolution.”
Wow, you cite SETI, and then accuse me of using talking points? I guess we can expect you to whip out the woodpecker next. Creationists are so predictable. If SETI receives a radio signal from a pulsar, does this mean it was sent intelligently. SETI isn’t looking for simply complexity, it is looking for artificiality, which is totally different.
Please, you were the one who tried to pass off scientific problems as “refuting” evolution. I suppose since there are still are unsolved math problems, like the collatz conjecture, that “refutes” algebra (Come to think of it, the Nazis also used math to build their concentration camps. DOWN WITH ARITHMATIC!!!)
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 4:15 PM
what??? what is ‘more advanced’ bacteria???? huh???
thats what you do with evolution, but you said:
whats ‘advanced’ and how does evolution know its ‘advanced’???
its BS. natural selection is a tautology…its meaningless. if its fit, it survives. ok then if you think there is no difference, then evolve a bacteria into a multi-cellular animal…go ahead.
oh so SETI can discern intelligence, by looking at ‘artificiality’ whatever that means, and you can’t do that in biology??? why??? even dawkins admitted that biology looks designed, and its OK if it was aliens, just not God.
when did I do that? are you talking about the tuatara? but if it has such a fast rate of molecular evolution that does NOT translate to new physical characteristics, then ‘micro’ evolution does NOT add up to macro evolution. now can you show me anything that proves macro evolution???
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 4:28 PM
Nothing “knows” that it is more advanced. If it is more favorable to survival in its environment it is more likely to survive.
That’s not it. It’s that if it is MORE fit than other oganisms, it is MORE likely to survive than others.
That process takes millions of years. But it’s really silly to say “Yes, I believe that an animal can adapt to its evironment by changing color or building resitence, but I don’t think this sort of thing can happen, y’know, a lot over time.” If you believe in antibiotic resistance, you are an evolutionist.
There are lots of distinctions, but one of the main ones is junk. SETI dismisses pulsar radio signals even though it is complex, because it contains “junk.” If you want to tell me that male nipples and the hair on the human arm are purposeful, you go ahead and believe that.
Proof doesn’t really exist outside of math and physics. All I can provide you with is data with one could reasonably make an inference that fish evolved into tetrapods, land creatures evolved into whales, etc. But you don’t really seem interested in making reasonable inferences.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 4:57 PM
so in other words there is NO ‘advanced’ bacteria. ‘advanced’ is an arbitrary term.
yeah if its fit it survives…a tautology.
yeah if its fit, it survives, again a tautology….you’re making my point here TWICE.
then you can’t see it, and you can’t reproduce it…you have FAITH that it happens…and thats all ya got.
thats not evolution, sorry.
link
so you dismiss design because you don’t like the way it was designed. amazing. but if seti can look for intelligence, then so can biology, or any other field of science…as archeology does. so ID IS science.
hate to tell you, but it does NOT exist there..ever hear of the wistar conferences??? the mathematicians don’t like evolutuion…ever hear of Fred Hoyle???
in other words you see what you want to see, you don’t have any real science, verifiable, duplicatable, science…just a bunch of faith.
and thats all evolution is, atheistic FAITH.
again, game set match.
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 5:07 PM
If you come home and you see that all your windows are broken and all your stuff is gone, do you have FAITH that you were robbed? Do you believe that it is unreasonable to infer that you were robbed unless you saw the theiving process with your own eyes? Plenty of crimes are prosecuted without a single eyewitness.
How the hell do you square the idea that natural selection is nonsense, but antibiotic resitence is true? The cognitive dissonance must be dizzying for you. You keep ignoring my explanation and saying “tautology” because that’s what those nonsense creationist sites have taught you to parrot.
You may or may not believe that antibiotic resistence is evolution, but the fact that it is an example of natural selection at work is disputed by nobody.
By the way, that article you quoted has a lot of great info on the benefits of evolutionary thinking.
I dismiss design because useless human body hair makes more sense if humans had an ancestor that had a greater use for hair. Otherwise I have to believe useless things were put in place “on purpose,” which is absurd.
I have evidence with which I can make a reasonable inference, like with the robbery analogy above, and that actually is science. You observe data, and find a way that it can all fit together.
Wow. I wish anyone in the world could argue as well you think you can.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 5:36 PM
This thread is about out of steam. but I will add my last two cents anyway.
I am going to be a good guy to you IDers and give you some amunition – water. Yeah, water, Water is a unique liguid, in that unlike most liquids, its density decreases below 39 deg F. (A gallon of water at 40F will weigh more than a gallon of water at 39F and all temperatures below 39F; got it?)This means that the colder water is actually on the surface of a lake or pond. When water freezes, its density becomes even less, so, it floats. In most other liquids. the solid will sink when it is frozen.
Forget the eye, and all this other nonsense about ID. The uniqueness of water means that a lake will most likely never, ever freeze solid. Fish will remian relively warm, cozy, and most importantly, alive below the ice.
Pelayo on December 16, 2008 at 7:13 PM
Some people reject God and believe in evolution because it’s all they’ve been taught. Others because their employment depends on it. Some people hope there is no God because it effects their lifestyle. Some people believe evolution because of political and or social reasons, and finally some people believe in evolution simply because they have too much pride and won’t admit they are wrong.
“75% of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college.” Author, Caryl Matritiano, Video – “Let My Children Go (and Paperback).”
When you were young greek mythology challenged your Christian faith, I understand, the public school system will do that, but now you’re grown up I presume, and you are able to get up to date on the research. We can fix that now. You simply need to study the truth and stop believing lies. The evolution theory was proven wrong years ago. Now if somebody is teaching a theory, but has no supporting evidence, that’s their problem not yours or mine.
apacalyps on December 16, 2008 at 7:41 PM
Where do you come up with such wild statements. Creationists aren’t the ones with the burden to prove God exists. We aren’t using tax payer money to teach our religion in public schools. Evolutionists want to paid with everyones tax dollars while they teach lies to support their dumb theory. The burden of proof lies with them to prove their evolutionary theory. If there is any real evidence for evolution, I would like to see it.
apacalyps on December 16, 2008 at 7:42 PM
I don’t think you read right. I lost my faith while studying history at a PRIVATE Lutheran school.
Only to those that want it proven wrong.
I could provide you with some rock solid evidence of what creationists categorize as “microevolution,” but you would simply move the goalposts and insist I further provide as good of evidence for “macroevolution.” While evolutionists do use those words, they don’t make a functional distinction between the two the way that Kent Hovind and other creationists do. Like I said earlier, I can provide evidence with which one can make a reasonable inference of evolution between species, but you would dismiss it as meaning nothing. It would be like looking at a bank vault with an exploded hole in side and all the money gone, and you saying “Well, technically, this doesn’t PROVE you were robbed. I mean, did you see it happen? It might be Intelligent Money Disappearance through divine means.”
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 8:05 PM
There are words that describe many situations, but when somebody describes the “irreducible complexity argument,” which is a negative argument against evolution, because it points to creation and to a Creator, as a “canard,” when somebody says, “irreducible complexity” is an argument from ignorance, and shrugs off the complexity of such structures like the eye (each creature in the world seems to have an eye specific to their environment) at that point you really have to wonder if that person is a serious debate partner. In Charles Darwins book he said, To suppose that the eye… could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree.” (p. 217). Of course, Darwin then goes on for several pages trying to explain how thought it might have happened. The eye is millions of times more complex than an automobile. If just one thing goes wrong with it ceases to function. It is an example of irreducible complexity – incredibly complex and conspicuously designed. Point is, to assert examples of irreducible complexity such as this is a “canard argument” is ludicrous and completely devoid of wisdom or good sense.
apacalyps on December 16, 2008 at 8:44 PM
You posted an article on the evolution of the Termite like that was supposed to settle the question I asked you about the little tiny critters in their intestines that can’t live without the Termite, and the Termites that can’t live without those little tiny critters, because those critters digest the wood the Termite eats. It’s a remarkable symbiotic relationship. I asked which one evolved first? Anybody can post links there buds. I don’t mind them, just tell me what your article is saying?
apacalyps on December 16, 2008 at 9:07 PM
huh? and this has what to do with the price of Tea in china???
natural selection is nonsense, as I’ve proven, and you are unable to dispute. it all comes down to the definition of ‘fitness’ and you admit that the definition is survival..so its a tautology…look it up, since you obviously do not have a clue.
as I’ve proven bacterial resistance to antibiotics is not evolution…because the organism that acquires that resistance is STILL A BACTERIA…duhhhhhh
glad to see you actually reading something…to bad you can’t do your own research, and have to steal mine.
this is typical darwiniac thinking…just like they thought of ‘junk dna’ they didn’t understand it, so it was a ‘relic’ ‘junk’. what arrogance. and stupidity.
‘inference’ faith. science is observing, experimenting, and reproducing that experiment. which evolution cannot do…all you have is faith, which is all evolution is.
I managed to make you look foolish rather easily, not that it was very hard. you darwiniacs are legends in your own mind, and you cannot admit the obvious, which makes it amusing to make fun of you.
its amusing to see you BITTERLY CLING TO YOUR FAITH IN HAIRYGOD DARWIN!!! *smirk*
but he won’t save you. you’re in for ugly surprise!
right4life on December 16, 2008 at 9:21 PM
If somebody was going to create their own personal god they wouldn’t make rules like no lusting, lying, drinking, stealing, no sex outside of marriage, etc. They would create a god in their mind that they’re comfortable with, they’ll also create a moral standard to go along with him. You’d make sure your god likes the things that you like, and hates the things you hate. So if you like to cheat and lie, steal and lust, your god will too. And you’ll be able to pursue all those sinful things as long as you wanted. Christians don’t maintain their beliefs out of habit or for social reasons.
Talk about dangling the carrot in front of the donkey. Always refining the idea of evolution, always being revised, re-written, re-thought, that’s the way scams generally work, keep the carrot dangling in front of a donkey and what’s the common word for donkey?
apacalyps on December 16, 2008 at 9:38 PM
Firstly, modern eyes evolved from the eyespot apparatus in cells, (which kind of blows up that whole “what good is half an eye” silliness) An argument from ignorance says that if you can’t explain something, then we must make some sort of conclusion. For example: “If you can’t explain why your car changed colors overnight, it must have been done by aliens” or “If you can’t tell me who built that building, Thomas Jefferson built it.” Similiarly, the irreducable complexity myth says “If you can’t explain the evolution of the bombadier beetle (with proof), then it must have been designed by God.” Ignorance is proof of nothing but ignorance. Thousands of years ago you would have argued “If you can’t explain why rain falls from the sky, then there must be a God.” If you don’t have evidence for something, it’s illogical to use that lack of evidence to reach a solid conclusion.
In regards to the termite, we have plenty of examples in nature of animals and plants coevolving. Here’s a relavant quote.
First they help each other, then they need each other. Not too hard to understand.
The fact that it is revised with the addition of new info is a strength of evolution, not a detriment.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 9:55 PM
The fact that you can’t grasp the idea that current, static evidence can point to past actions speaks volumes.
Natural selection is only tautology if you don’t understand natural selection. The fittest organisms are the ones who, based on their physical characteristics and the environment in which they find themselves, would be expected to leave the most offspring. There is nothing tautological about saying, for example, that moths possessing dark coloration will be less visible than light colored moths to predatory birds when resting on dark-colored trees. Why are you disputing this point? Do you want to write to Kent Hovind in prison and tell him he’s a stupid dawainiac for believing in microevolution and natural selection?
A bacteria with new and changed DNA. Check and mate.
I read plenty. Here’s a free debating tip: if you link to an article, have it actually support your argument, not refute it.
That’s actually a fairly limited definition of science. Would you argue that astronomy isn’t science because we can’t perform any reproducible expirements on Alpha Centarui? We can’t perform expiriments on it, but we can learn a lot by making inferences from what we observe.
And it’s a little sad to see you conflate inference and faith. Faith says “I don’t know but I believe…”, inference says “The evidence suggests that…” If you think they are the same thing, it explains a lot about your views.
It’s amusing to see you cover up your intellectual insecurity through macho posing. The cruelest thing a person can do to you is take your arguments seriously.
justfinethanks on December 16, 2008 at 10:20 PM
Here is what you said:
In your own words you explain how Greek mythology and their nonsensical gods caused you to start questioning your beliefs (Christian faith). You were stunned to learn about the ancient Greeks and their mythology. It made you start wondering if there was anything nonsensical your own civilized intelligent culture believed (ie, was the God of the Bible nonsensical too?). And that’s how you lost your faith you tell us. I was correct to say that Greek mythology challenged your Christian faith. You owe me an apology, or at least a correction of the record.
And with that, I have no more interest in continuing the conversation at this time. I’ve tried to help you, but, uh, you know how liars will say things in ten thousand words just to make it confusing? The more you talk the more the less I am able to tolerate. I’m not trying to be mean, it’s just that you don’t even pay attention to what is said, you overlook valid replies. And the one thing I’ve learnt in all my debates with evolutionists is that no amount of evidence will convince those who love their sin (Hosea 4:17) and don’t want God to control their lives. And to debate somebody like that, is like banging your head against a wall. If you are dumb enough to believe you came from a rock, that’s your business. Just know that there will be consequences on judgment day for teaching others, especially children, that humans probably evolved from bacteria that lived more than 4 billion years ago. Good luck to you, sir.
apacalyps on December 16, 2008 at 11:39 PM
That wasn’t what I was questioning. You took a swipe at public schools for creating athiests, but I learned about the Greeks at Zion Lutheran school. I consider being a teenager being in my youth. I think we just misunderstood each other.
That’s not fair. I’ve worked very hard to be thorough in my replies, often quoting entire posts piece by piece and giving my response. I never saw where you repsonded, for example, to my claim that the teleological argument was nonsense or that irriducible complexity is an argument from ignorance.
But creationists don’t rely on evidence at all. They rely on a lack of evidence and gaps in understanding within the current evidence. If intelligent design is indeed a science it is unique among the sciences in that it shrinks every time we learn something new about biology. It’s a contrarian stance with an agenda, not a valid approach to understanding the natural world.
It’s a little sad that you can’t even consider the possibility that evolutionists believe what they do because they believe that’s where the evidence leads them (even if you think they are wrong about that). I believe that you are sincere and that you at least believe that you have evidence on your side. I’m sorry the feeling isn’t mutual.
I used to think like you. I want you know that I actually would never take your belief in God away, even if I could. I know how important it is to people, and I respect that. I just can’t respect brazenly peddling falsehoods in regards to biology. I would argue just as much if you tried to argue that the moon’s gravity is equal to the earth’s or that the English language is derived from Mandarin, even though those beliefs have nothing to do with God or morality.
justfinethanks on December 17, 2008 at 12:18 AM
I wasn’t going to respond, but I do see there was a misunderstanding in what each of us meant. Fair enough. I was not taking a swipe at public schools though. I cited a study that reported 3/4 of all children raised in Christian homes who attend public schools will reject the Christian faith by their first year of college. Whether they are taught deliberately or innocently, teaching lies about the evolution theory is going to brainwash students into believing something that is not true. The fact is, children are having their Christian faith destroyed by the lies they face in their textbooks, by some teachers, counselors, and tests like SAT, ACT, etcetera.
I don’t think so. You do not sound like you have ever been a true saved Bible-believing Christian. A person cannot be saved and then lose their salvation. Salvation cannot be lost. It doesn’t work that way. And so, you were never “born again”. 2 Corinthians 5:17 tells us that when we are in Christ, we are a “new creation.” If you are truly saved then it will be known by your works – the things you do. Some of your language is very wicked and distrurbing. So, no, I don’t think you were ever really saved to begin with, and so you could not think like me. Christian’s are called to be obedient to the will of God. That means there are absolutes. I will be praying for you though. I truly truly hope you get saved. And I hope to see you in heaven.
What are you talking about evidence? I have seen no evidence for evolution. Man, you are so nonchalant about the whole thing. Do you know how many people are in hell right now because of that stupid lie!! If they believed in evolution all there life. There gonna be in hell forever. Thinking about how could I have been so stupid? Satan is laughing at YOU! Satan is laughing at them! He hates humanity. And this evolution theory is a lie. That’s why Satan loves evolution so much. The Devil has used it to deceive so many people into believing his lies. People are gonna sit in hell forever thinking how could I have possibly believed such a dumb idea that we all came from a rock 4.6 billion years ago. The evidence was all around me, it was overwhelming….. and I just didn’t want to look at it. The Bible says they don’t want to retain God in their knowledge. So God gives them up. When they refuse to turn to truth, God gives them up to be reprobates (a morally depraved person, preferring lies over truth). This is why some evolutionists are impossible to debate. God has already given them up to be reprobates for believing a known lie. “And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.” 2 Thessalonians 2:11
apacalyps on December 17, 2008 at 2:07 AM
Anyways, that’s it for me. I want you to know that I don’t hate you, justfinethanks. I really do NOT hate anybody. I love people and only wish to help them, hence my even being here. I mean, even though I’m frustrated you won’t listen, you seem alot calmer than most evolutionists I have debated, and that is a good quality to have, still, I am very worried for you because when you debate somebody that refuses to see even the most simple of stuff, there’s a very good chance you are debating a reprobate. And you can never win a debate with a reprobate. Reprobate is not calling somebody a name. It is a name of a curse that falls upon people who continually reject God, and would rather believe a lie over truth. I sincerely pray this has not happened to you (Romans 1:28; 2 Thessalonians 2:11)
apacalyps on December 17, 2008 at 2:14 AM
Even harder to win a debate with the irrational.
DarkCurrent on December 17, 2008 at 5:27 AM
but you have no ‘current, static evidence’ that points to macro evolution. zero, zip nada. zilch. laughable.
uh thats the definition of a tautology. please. we need a roll eyes emoticon here…
read what you wrote ‘a bacteria’ DUHHHHHHHHH its not a ziosdh (something new) its a BACTERIA….sigh. do you think people with different hair color, or dwarfs, are an example of evolution???
you really are clueless. what was said in the first part of the article was not refuted by the rest of the article. the writer was LAMENTING the fact that evolution is not mentioned in medical schools…you need to evolve some intelligence.
you have ADMITTED you cannot observe macro evolution…you have FAITH that micro-evolution builds up, and becomes macro…BUT the example of the tuatara destroys that. you have no answer for that, only faith.
the cruelest thing I have done lately is read your drivel. its idiotic and laughable..but you’re a typical darwiniac.
game set match AGAIN sonny.
right4life on December 17, 2008 at 11:14 AM
I’ve noticed that every time I talk to a darwiniac.
right4life on December 17, 2008 at 11:15 AM
As I have pointed out before, we have many transitional forms in the fossil record that suggest a transition from a fish to a tertrapod. Proof in the literal sense? No, but given what we have observed about evolution on a smaller scale, it is reasonable to infer that these are indeed trasitional forms given the timeline. If you don’t think so, I suppose you don’t believe in the existence of stars, since we are only able to infer what we know about them from our observations.
“The fit survive” is tautology, but saying that “ the fittest organisms are the ones who, based on their physical characteristics and the environment in which they find themselves, would be expected to leave the most offspring,” is not, and its not even disputed by creationists. (Except, apparently, the most clueless ones)
Only if those different hair colors of body types aid in survival and reproduction, like resistance to antibiotics does.
I assume physics isn’t mentioned much in welding school, even though welders use it every day.
Another free debating tip: If you link to an article, don’t get pissy if I actually read it.
Wait? NOW you believe in micro evolution? I thought natural selection is tautology? Be consistent.
I have reasonable inference that a mechanism that causes changes over a small period of time would continue to make changes given a larger period of time. The Tautara is yet another argument from ignorance, which seem to be the only weapon in your arsenal.
I’m sorry to tell you that only your God can say something and make it true. You don’t have that power, so saying that there have any sort of point does nothing for you, unfortunately.
justfinethanks on December 17, 2008 at 12:56 PM
you can ‘point it out’ but you would be lying. ever hear of punctuated equilibrium?? know why Gould and Eldridge came up with that theory?? Lack of transitions!!
laughable. all you’re saying is that the fittest survive…duhh. There is no criterion of fitness that is independent of survival. if you have no criteria independent of survival, then yes, it is a tautology. get a clue.
that resistance carries a price. and all that resistance has resulted in what new life form? did it make bacteria into something else?? no duhhh.
link
no I rather enjoyed watching you make a fool of yourself. the author ADMITTED that evolution is not used in medicine, and wished it would because of all the ‘benefits’ but don’t you think the doctors are smart enough to figure that out for themselves??? are MDs just stupid, so they don’t ‘get it’ about evolution?? hmmmm?? take the following line:
and what good does that do in treating the disease??? NOTHING. thats why doctors don’t bother with evolution, its a story, as far as coming up with treatments for the disease, its useless.
get a clue.
this shows just how dumb you are. seriously. natural selection is a tautology, for the reasons given above. natural selection was used in evolution before ‘micro evolution’ ie genetics was part of the theory…perhaps you should learn your own theory, and how it ‘evolved’ before you make yourself look more foolish.
oh ok give me that ‘reasonable inference’?? you have nothing. how can the tuatara be an example from ignorance?? the only ignorance is yours. amazing. you have an animal that disproves your whole ‘micro to macro’ and all you can say is some tired old darwiniac line??? you’re a cluless moron.
thought you didn’t believe in Him??? I don’t have to say anything, your posts make it obvious who is winning this debate. given your posts, its easy to see why darwiniacs have to try to silence the opposition, they sure can’t debate them. thats why it was so easy for Stein to make your hero Dawkins look like a moron!
right4life on December 17, 2008 at 2:03 PM
btw: if evolution could have told us that AIDS was GOING to jump from chimps to humans it would have been useful….but it cannot. its a useless theory, as coyne admits:
link
right4life on December 17, 2008 at 2:18 PM
Bacteria developing a resistance to antibiotics and the AIDS virus are examples of evolution that can be observed, both micro and macro evolution are well established facts. Most of the changes occurred over billions of years-while we obviously cannot observe that happening, we can investigate the fossil record and other means which records the process. Now if you want to ignore the evidence, stick your fingers in your ears and run around like an 8yr old while chanting “there is no evolution”, that’s up to you but it doesn’t mean you’re right.
The crocodile, the tuatara, the coelacanth are all examples of living dinosaurs who escaped mass extinction. If you’re trying to suggest they ’stopped evolving’ (ie changing), that’s partially correct. One of the common fallacies people make is to assume species are evolving to some greater form. In fact its all about adapting to one’s environment. Certainly random mutations can occur to cause evolution but if the change is not advantages its eventuall weeded out.
Despite all the bickering that happens between pro/anti evolution people I’d earnestly recommend reading up on it. Evolution is actually a beautiful, inspiring (and factual) tale of how life has fought the odds and thrived on this planet. The fact that we share our DNA will most of the life on this planet (including plants), says a lot about our common ancestry.
How ironic that you consider Evolution-a scientific discipline, “superstition” and overlook the fact that your religion is actually organized superstition. Evolution proposes no magic tricks or ‘miracles’ as religion does to explain things they didn’t understand thousands of years ago. Nor does Evolution propose ideas that contravene the laws of nature-like walking on water, turning water into wine, raising the dead, etc. Incidentally fiction writers call such techniques in story-telling “magic realism”, its sad you take the Bible a work of fiction, literally.
It can be argued that Darwin is the Einstein of biology so he deserves his accolades for advancing humanity’s understanding of our world. Its sad to see theists would rather cower in ignorance, clinging bitterly to their ancient myths where men once feared thunder and lightning as anger from the gods.
There’s nothing special about Sternberg, many other scientists (or frauds) have been trounced by the scientific community if their theories didn’t pass muster (ie-their ideas were found baseless or unscientific upon scrutiny). Once again it runs opposite to religion, where a set of unfounded ideas are held fervently regardless of evidence to the contrary.
The reason Christians oppose Evolution today is the same reason the Catholic Church refused to look through Galileo’s telescope to empirically confirm his theories and instead forced Galileo to recant Heliocentrism and placed him under house arrest for the rest of his life because it attacked their erroneous dogmatic world view and bible scriptures. Showing once again that religion was and remains to be an enemy to science, reason and human progress.
No Christian has answered this question yet: if I have faith in Evolution and you have faith in Religion, are we not both equally right because they’re matters of faith? Who’s to say my faith is better than yours? How do we determine which view is correct?
I support Israel, but your God said a lot of weird and false things in the Bible, why do you ignore those? Things like, stone women for adultery, kill gays, its ok to keep slaves, the earth is flat and has 4 corners, etc. Don’t mistake me for an imam, if there’s one thing that Christians and atheists can agree on is that we both believe Islam is a threat to Civilization and needs to be eliminated.
thinkagain on December 17, 2008 at 2:44 PM
uh its not evolution. sorry. its still a bacteria, and a virus.
you can’t see it, but you believe it…its called FAITH.
the fossil record DOES NOT SHOW EVOLUTION. thus the need for punctuated equilibrium…duhhhhh amazing.
link
but every animal that can survive is ‘adapted’ to its environment…else it wouldn’t be able to survive in order to ‘evolve’ talk about a fallacy…you think that these animals just can’t survive without evolving, but if they couldn’t survive they couldn’t evovle…bit of a paradox for you darwiniacs. and since these animals CAN survive…what would cause them to evolve?? just decide one day ‘well I think I’ll evolve’????
its your creation fairy tale obviously.
actually it says just the opposite. sharing a common DNA is the sign of a good DESIGN…you would think with the randomness of evolution we would not share much DNA, especially with very diverse creatures, but we do. just like you would expect to see a lot of transitions in the fossil record, but you don’t.
he was a RACIST evil man. that had no problem with Eugenics. Marx LOVED him….its easy to see why you would too!!
you atheists think you’re SO SMART but you all mouth the same talking points…professing to be wise, they have become fools….and you verify the bible..thanks!
thats not what happened. He merely allowed an article favorable to ID to be published..then the darwiniac nazis came after him. bunch of intolerant fascist thugs.
more BS. we’ve seen your atheist ‘progress’ in the killing fields, the Gulag, and Hitler ovens.
Christianity is the reason we have science today, as well as what little freedom we have left. atheism would grind us under brutal totalitarianism.
uh no because the bible has proven to be true, OVER AND OVER again…evolution has not. not all religions are true. truth is truth, there is not one truth for you, and one for me.
see which lines up with the evidence. evolution does not. creation does.
laughable. its amazing that the same wackos can say the same BS for centuries…get a clue, the bible has stood for MILLENIA, and it will continue to stand, after you are dust…why? because its true, and after MILLENIA of attacks, it cannot be disproven. good luck disproving it…all have failed before you.
stoning, hanging, crucifiction, gas chamber…death penalty..we have it too… so??
and have you EVER heard of Wilberforce??? Slavery would be worldwide without christianity…no atheist was ever concerned about slavery….name an atheist, or muslim abolitionist society! you cannot.
as far as the ‘earth is flat’ thats a lie, and all you can do is lie to try to disprove the bible. it shows how desperate you are.
right4life on December 17, 2008 at 3:22 PM
you do know the Lord God of hosts, the God of the bible, said that Israel would be reborn??
in a day….
This is exactly what happened on May 14, 1948. the Jewish people gathered together in Israel and declared themselves a nation in a single day. The United States recognized Israel as a nation on that same day.
right4life on December 17, 2008 at 3:32 PM
Apacalyps, Right4life, My story is similat to justfinethanks’ story only it involves polio and Islam.
I was 6 years old in 1954; that was the height of the polio epidemic. I remember going to Sunday school and singing “Jesus Loves Me” and “Jesus Loves the Little Children.” On Monday at school I was confronted with March of Dimes posters with pictures of children in iron lungs or wearing leg braces that were steel and probably weighed as much as they did. I asked my mother if Jesus loved the children with polio. Or why do I not have polio; was I special? My dear late mother tried to answer those questions , but her answers were unsatisfying. Polio planted th seed of my non-belief.
Now we come to the first WTC attack in 1993 then 2001, I began studying Islam to find out WTF was with these creatures. I started studying Islam in far more detail than I studied Christianity. A long about 2004 I realized that Islam was a construct from Judaism, and it was fabricated by Mohammed. I thought that if 1.2 billion could believe this crap, then every other religion was man made. Mohammed was certainly no smarter than Abraham.
The proper answer to why so many children had polio was that there is no god, and terrible things happen to good people.
I have a corollary – Sometimes good things happen to bad people.
Pelayo on December 17, 2008 at 5:02 PM
What’s with five, how come damn near every mammal with digits (fingers) on ths planet has five on their hands and feet? Does God like the base of ten?
OK you have permission to cite the very, very few mammals that have less than five, but they are rare.
Pelayo on December 17, 2008 at 5:13 PM
right4life, you realize bacteria are not all the same species don’t you? You don’t think an amoeba and cyanobacteria are the same thing do you? They’re not even in the same phylum.
DarkCurrent on December 17, 2008 at 6:48 PM
Which is why I had to laugh at the irony when the creationists much earlier in this thread attempted to use Ganymede as some kind of support for creationism.
DarkCurrent on December 17, 2008 at 6:54 PM
I looked on this thread and marveled it was still going. And here I am about to add to it.
Your question intrigued me, since I figured you should get at least a partial answer to it. But I suppose I’ll respond to all the quoted parts. The parts I didn’t quoted look mostly like the usual “I’m too enlightened for superstitious religon” that I see all over the place, so, with apologies, I’ll skip those parts.
First, you’re mistaken in both the incident you cite and the scriptures you’re so quick to malign. The Bible nowhere teaches that the sun revolves around the earth.
You may ask then, how it became Catholic doctrine. The answer is that it traces back to the Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas, who proposed that the Catholic church should not reject pagan learning just because it was, well, pagan. Rather, they should let pagan learning speak to the material world, and let their faith and the Bible concern itself with the spiritual world. All very reasonable, and many have proposed exactly that sort of division regarding faith and science.
The geocentric view of the universe came from Greek philosophy, and worked for a time. Obviously, it had some problems, which is why Galileo and others rejected it for a heliocentric view.
However, in deciding to accept Greek philosophy — the “science” of the day — the Catholic church unwisely made it part of their doctrine. Which is why they threatened Galileo with charges of heresy when he rejected the geocentric view of the universe which the Catholic church had effectively canonized.
So you should remember three points about that story: 1) Galileo’s fight was not against the Bible, but against an older theory of the universe that had been given the weight of doctrine by the Catholic church, and 2) scientific theories change, and should be allowed to change as new evidence comes in, and 3) what is good or bad science should not be determined by church or government or judge. That cripples the development of science.
But I guess your conclusion to the story gives away your real point: that religion is an obstacle to science, reason, and human progress. Those are your words, and that seems to be your real point in discussing evolution.
Moving on to your question, which I answer more because it is a good question than because I believe you are asking seriously. I’ll quote the question again for clarity:
If the value of faith is in faith itself, then you would be correct that all faiths are equivalent. Otherwise, you would be wrong. I think, to take an extreme example, that Linus’s faith in the Great Pumpkin falls a little short.
A complete answer to your question would require a detailed comparison of faith in evolution to faith in God, and is way beyond the scope of a post like this. But I’ll at least throw out a few noteworthy differences.
1) Faith in God involves scripture and revelation
2) Faith in God speaks of a chosen people, Israel, which are known to exist
3) Faith in God has created churches, hospitals, institutions of learning
4) Faith in God has created an environment which gave rise to modern science, technology, and the United States
I’m sure you can argue about my list, and probably will, but my point is that no, faith in totally different things doesn’t mean that each is just as right.
And, finally, the “weird and false” things in the Bible. I’ll just hit these point by point
1) stoning women for adultery: This is only found in the Old Testament, which contained laws for a theocracy, so we’ll go there. The Old Testament law said, “The adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death..” So where do you get the idea that only women were to be stoned? On the contrary, I have this feeling that men stopped accusing women of adultery once it became clear that the law applied to them as well.
Now, you may well object that stoning was still a penalty for adultery, and it was. But it’s clearly wrong to say that only the women were stoned for adultery.
2) killing gays: Again, Old Testament law for a theocracy, that included laws against sex with animals, relatives, etc.
3) OK to keep slaves: Slavery has been a part of the human condition from the beginning. The Old Testament laws restricted the practice, ruling that the slaves had top be freed every 7 years, which pretty changed slavery to a 7-year indentured servitude.
So why didn’t God just outlaw it entirely? Probably for the same reason the Old Testament allowed divorce: the hardness of human hearts. People didn’t live up to the laws as it was.
Also note that the slavery allowed was not at all like that permitted in the U.S. for years, where a black man was a slave for life, no matter what, was not allowed to read or own property, and even his children could never be free.
Frankly, as much as I love this country, we had an institution of slavery that was worse in its way than the ancient world had. At least in the ancient world, a slave could earn money and eventually buy his freedom.
4) The earth is flat and has four corners: Not taught by the Bible at all. It’s the Bible that says, “It is He that sitteth upon the circle of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as grasshoppers.” So the Bible actually suggests that the earth is more of a circle.
There is one reference in Revelation to the “four corners of the earth.” But that phrase seems clearly figurative rather than literal. The fact that it’s in the highly figurative and symbolic book of Revelation should be a clue.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 17, 2008 at 10:54 PM
You studied Islam, and realized it was a construct from Judaism?
Come on. Judaism traces back to the time of Moses, and itself was built on the religion of Abraham.
Islam was more like an attempt to re-create the religion of Abraham without any historical documents or connection to the Jewish descendants of Abraham, filling in the gaps with the occasional bit of paganism. Aside from the claim made by Mohammed to be the religion of Abraham, there is really no tie between Islam and Judaism, or between Islam and Christianity.
So from the existence of polio, because you can’t make it fit with your idea of what God is supposed to be, you are sure there must be no God.
You make a judgement about the existence of God based on what you see in front of your face, never thinking that the better question is not, “Why are these children sick?”, but, “Why does God allow sickness? And since you don’t have an answer, you just decide there must not be a God.
By that standard, you should be apologizing to people for thinking the earth is flat, since it requires moving beyond your own limited perspective to understand that it is not flat.
That is, the earth is flat until you get far enough into the distance to perceive the curvature.
theregoestheneighborhood on December 17, 2008 at 11:10 PM
Are you sure about that?
apacalyps on December 18, 2008 at 12:10 AM
you should read Job.
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 9:27 AM
ok back to species, how do we define it? an amoeba is not a bacteria at all its a eukaryote and bacteria are prokaryotes….so?
the point is that after all this ‘amazing’ ‘wonderful’ example of ‘evolution’ resistance to antibiotics, its still a bacteria.
if you want to prove evolution, its simple, take the bacteria, and evolve it into a multi-cellular animal. should be easy since evolution is all in all. praise darwin!!
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 9:32 AM
this shows just how uninformed you are. science is a result of christianity, and flourished under it. its only since your hairygod darwin that science has been hijacked to mean atheism.
and you can’t explain Ganymede’s magnetic field. and yes it does throw the whole age of the solar system into question. but as any good darwiniac, you think ther MUST be something to explain it according to the hairyone’s gospel, and it’ll just take more time until some ‘just so’ darwinain fairy tale can be constructed…until then you’ll keep the faith of the hairyone!
laughable. you darwiniacs are a parody of yourselves.
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 9:44 AM
and since you’re interested in the age of the earth/solar system…a recent flyby of mercury, and measurements of its magnetic field have confirmed Dr. Humphrey’s prediction:
link
but keep bowing down to your hairygod darwin, don’t let facts get in the way of your faith!!
you darwiniacs NEVER do.
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 9:48 AM
You’re right – amoeba are not bacteria. They were when I was a kid in school, so I guess that’s evolution at work ;-)
I picked a bad example here, but the fact is bacteria are quite diverse and have diverse adaptions (morphology, metabolism, etc.) far beyond resistance to antibiotics.
As for evolving single-celled orgamisms into multicellular ones, I think we can agree that’s quite hard. From an evolutionary perspective it appears to have taken billions of years and may have been the most difficult step in evolution on earth. Expecting to easily reproduce that in the lab seems unlikely given how long the natural process seems to have taken.
DarkCurrent on December 18, 2008 at 2:51 PM
I would agree that Christianity has played a central role in sustaining Western civilization for the last 2,000 years. I’m not a Christian, but I certainly recognize the beneficial role it’s played historically and continues to play today.
You seem to believe that the theory of biological evolution demands atheism. It does not. It just requires you to let go of absolute literal interpretation of bronze age documents written down by humans.
As for Ganymede, do you really want to get into that again? You’ve already shown you are ignorant of basic astronomy. A global magnetic field means an active core. A number of mechanisms could explain a currently active core (as I pointed out previously in the more mysterious case of Enceladus). I imagine we’ll eventually come to an explanation that doesn’t require magic.
DarkCurrent on December 18, 2008 at 3:06 PM
it does…and evolutionists admit it…
because I disagree with you…uh ok, sure. you think you know more than those professors uh sure.
laughable. you just have faith that somehow there’ll be enough time for the MAGIC of evolution to take place. those 2 moons, along with mercury’s magnetic field decay show that the solar systems isn’t as old as the devotees of hairygod darwin need it to be.
here’s what evolution is all about:
The Darwin Dogma of Miracles can be summarized:
(1) assume evolution,
(2) personify Nature, and
(3) wave the magic wand of millions of years.
Then, miracles of exquisite design occur by natural law
SHAZAM!!!
right4life on December 18, 2008 at 3:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 ... 13 14 15 16 Next »