Poll: Nearly half of America is creationist

posted at 5:01 pm on June 2, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

What the heck… it’s been a while since we last opened up the flood gates on this topic and according to Gallup surveys, we’re no closer to a consensus now than we ever were. The subject at hand is our old friend, evolution vs. creation.

Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. The prevalence of this creationist view of the origin of humans is essentially unchanged from 30 years ago, when Gallup first asked the question. About a third of Americans believe that humans evolved, but with God’s guidance; 15% say humans evolved, but that God had no part in the process.

It will come as no shock to anyone that the answers given tracked tightly with the religious views of the respondent, and that a majority of registered Republicans fall in line with creationist views.

Two-thirds of Americans who attend religious services weekly choose the creationist alternative, compared with 25% of those who say they seldom or never attend church. The views of Americans who attend almost every week or monthly fall in between those of the other two groups. Still, those who seldom or never attend church are more likely to believe that God guided the evolutionary process than to believe that humans evolved with no input from God.

What’s interesting about the Gallup survey as compared to some others I’ve seen in the past is the phrasing of the questions. You tend to get more clearly splintered results if you pose seriously confrontational questions such as, “Did God create man from dust or did man evolve from ape-like creatures?” Gallup’s choices are a bit more subtle, asking which phrase best describes your feelings.

  • Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process.
  • Human beings have developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God had no part in this process.
  • God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years or so.

You’ll notice that none of the choices go so far as to say, for example, “There is no God so the question is pointless” or, at the other end, “The Bible is literal and God created man from the dust and woman from one of his ribs.” I think such polls provide more value if they add in a couple more choices along those lines and forget about trying to be nuanced or avoid offending anyone.

My own views have “evolved” over the past five decades, (if you’ll pardon the phrase) and I’ve seen a number of theories. As a young man, I once lost my faith entirely (and still struggle with it at times) and rashly published a letter declaring that “God is the answer to a collection of questions which man is either too stupid or too frightened to answer. On the day that science answers the final question, God will be dead.”

I confess, I regret having penned that one now, but the young are frequently rash and foolish. But there are other theories which have come down the pike and stuck around. A very popular one which echoes a couple of the Gallup choices is along the lines of The Blind Watchmaker theory. It essentially states that the universe may well have begun with the Big Bang and men may have evolved from lower primates, but this was all precisely how God designed it, like the greatest software programmer ever, freeing Him up to move on to other projects once our reality was set in motion.

But I still have plenty of friends who come from the “six days and a rib” school of thought, and you have to respect them as well. At the opposite end of the scale you find people like my friend Doug Mataconis, who simply seems to be waiting for the day when all this creationist nonsense “evolves” out of our society.

This is why, as I noted the other day, I am skeptical of the argument advanced by Richard Leakey that increased discoveries in the field of anthropology would lead to an end to the evolution debate in the near future. The creationist position has little to do with evidence, and everything to do with faith and culture. It’s not going away any time soon, at least not in this country.

But returning to my original question, does the phrasing of the survey really impact the results for a strictly non-political topic such as this? Since the Hot Air faithful have never been shy about sharing and debating their feelings in a vigorous fashion, let’s toss up our own poll and compare it to the historical results as well as Gallup’s. But we’ll give you a bit more ammunition to work with in the answers. Have at it.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

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 8 9 10 11 12

You don’t “prove” reality. You observe reality.

Reality exists. It doesn’t need to be “proven.”

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 2:09 PM

Then point to observation of a fish evolving into an amphibian. Or an amphibian evolving into a reptile. Or a reptile evolving into a mammal. Or a lemur evolving into an ape.

All things claimed by evolution, and therefore confidently asserted to be proven, to have overwhelming evidence, to have mountains of evidence — in fact, to be so thoroughly proven that questioning that claim is the mark of ignorance and superstition.

But never observed.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM

And since creation is impossible, you need to believe we evolved.

Not exactly. IF I want to be reasonable, then I “need” to NOT believe in “Creation, by God!” (since it is unreasonable to believe in the impossible.)

If evolution can be successfully challenged, the cornerstone of your belief that there is no God is challenged.

No way. There is no way to rationally challenge the fact that nature is real and ‘the supernatural’ isn’t. Regardless of what happens with evolution, God hasn’t got a leg to stand on.

Steve Stoddard on June 4, 2012 at 2:47 PM

You know, laser-vision would be a really useful feature and a reproductive advantage (you just kill the competition with your eyes).

I keep waiting for it to evolve. I know we wouldn’t get a Cyclops X-Man immediately, but isn’t it about time for somebody to be born with dim flashlights in their eyes? Gotta start slowly and work up to laser vision gradually, you know.

And since I can imagine how it would evolve, it must not only be possible, it must be true.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 2:44 PM

The dinosaurs had laser vision. That’s why Noah didn’t bring them along in the Ark. Fire hazard.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 2:48 PM

The dinosaurs had laser vision. That’s why Noah didn’t bring them along in the Ark. Fire hazard.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 2:48 PM

I knew that. It’s scriptural.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 2:51 PM

The dinosaurs had laser vision. That’s why Noah didn’t bring them along in the Ark. Fire hazard.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 2:48 PM

Oh, just a minor correction — Noah didn’t bring any animals onto the Ark except for food. God gathered the creatures and directed them onto the Ark. Noah pretty much just watched them all file in, by twos. All except the laser-eyed dinosaurs, that is.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 2:55 PM

It accumulates slowly through a natural filtering of mutations.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 2:38 PM

Sorry, mutations are overwhelmingly destructive. You might get one helpful mutation for every million destructive/inconsequential ones. But even if the ratio was 1 helpful mutation to 99 unhelpful mutations, complexity would still be overwhelmingly degenerative.

Try making a random change to a working program sometime and see if it works better or not.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 2:57 PM

It accumulates slowly through a natural filtering of mutations. Those mutations that provide a survival/reproductive advantage under the environmental conditions in which a population lives tend to be conserved, others are lost if they are disadvantageous.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 2:38 PM

To believe this incredible impossibility requires great faith. There is no possible way that this could happen by an unguided, natural process, no matter how many billions of years you’re talking about. What you describe is a natural process which has severe limitations on it, and extrapolating it out into unlimited potential for change. The difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is huge.

There is no way that major changes like the ones your describing can take place gradually. It’s impossible, it’s illogical, and it is about as far from science as you can get…but I can understand why you HAVE to believe it. You have no other explanation that doesn’t involve a creator.

You’re familiar with at least the basic concepts of the theory of evolution aren’t you?

Yes, I am, but apparently you’re not. You’re describing natural selection/adaptation, which is observed and proven, not evolution, which is neither. I’m not surprised that you deliberately try to confuse the two, as all evolution apologists do. That’s what happens when you stubbornly cling to a preconceived idea.

JannyMae on June 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Try making a random change to a working program sometime and see if it works better or not.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 2:57 PM

This is my coding style, exactly.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

Again, you fail.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB300.html

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 2:46 PM

Good Lt, there is no point in linking talkorigins, it’s all claptrap as far as I’m concerned. I’ve read much of it.

However, if you would like to explain concisely what you think a particular link means and why it’s relevant to the debate, then the link is fine as a source/reference.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM

You’re avoiding the simple fact that atheists have a much higher need for evolution to be proven than Creationists have for it to be falsified.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Here is the crux of the problem to the entire argument: you don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:06 PM

An argument on semantics. Much like asking, “Can God create a rock so big that He can’t lift it?”

In my case it’s more of a hypothetical, of course, since every man is capable of such sins.

But in the case of God, who is a God of order, it’s not so hypothetical. If God refuses to lie, is it really inaccurate to say “He cannot lie?” But if God cannot lie only because He refuses to do it, is it really accurate to say that God is not omnipotent?

It’s a question very appropriate to Jesus on this earth. Could Jesus have sinned? As God, He could not. As a man, He could. We know He didn’t. Was He technically capable of it? You quickly get into the semantics of “capable.” But if He absolutely refused to sin, can we really say that he was “capable” of it?

tom on June 4, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I disagree that this is merely a semantical argument.

I know with absolute certainity that I am physically incapable of willfully raping a woman, even though presumably I could go through the process in my imagination. Would any sane person take that statement at face value and say, “That proves you’re limited, in a negative way!” like many atheists do with any conceivable scenario they can come up with, no matter how stupid, preposterous or nonsensical, to try to attack the notion that God is omnipotent?

The answer to that is, no, no sane person acts that way, just like no sane person counts it as a limitation against God that He can’t act outside of time, or make triangles with 6 sides! :)

Bizarro No. 1 on June 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM

the department. It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”
Dante on June 4, 2012 at 2:12 PM

If it’s not scientific, then the answer is to demonstrate why the science is wrong. A statement that the department rejects his claims and does not regard them as scientific means nothing unless they can describe why they are not scientific.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 2:41 PM

Ahem. “It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

That whole scientific method thing kind of gets in the way for Behe/ID, you know. That’s why it’s not science.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM

You’re avoiding the simple fact that atheists have a much higher need for evolution to be proven than Creationists have for it to be falsified.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 2:31 PM

Here is the crux of the problem to the entire argument: you don’t know the difference between opinion and fact.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:06 PM

It’s a theory based on actual observation, which puts it on firmer ground than evolution itself.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:10 PM

To believe this incredible impossibility requires great faith. There is no possible way that this could happen by an unguided, natural process, no matter how many billions of years you’re talking about. What you describe is a natural process which has severe limitations on it, and extrapolating it out into unlimited potential for change. The difference between micro evolution and macro evolution is huge.

JannyMae on June 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

What? You can’t imagine how eyes could start out as a light-sensitive dot, and then benefit from additional mutations that produce primitive muscles to move the dot, primitive cornea, primitive iris, primitive eyelids, primitive eyelashes, and primitive tear ducts, all of which had mutated improvements gradually?

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:10 PM

Science is determined by EVIDENCE.

Agreed. So where is the EVIDENCE of the gradual, stepwise evolution of the blood clotting cascade? Or protein transport? Or photosynthesis? Or cilia? Or flagella? Or ATP synthesis? Life happens at the molecular level.

But you don’t even have transitional species that you can PROVE are transitional. Tiktaalik, you say? Interesting specimen. It has features of both amphibians and fish. It must be a transition species. The Platypus has features of both birds and mammals. Is it a transition species, too?

There is no evidence, only conjecture and “it might have been” fairy tales. Talk about your “god of the gaps” – Darwinists are prostrate at the altar!

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:12 PM

Ahem. “It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

That whole scientific method thing kind of gets in the way for Behe/ID, you know. That’s why it’s not science.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Actually, Intelligent Design has been tested and proved far more than evolution. Your smart phone exists because of experiments in Intelligent Design. Not a single unique form of life exists as a result of an evolution experiment.

Yeah, you’ll say that a smart phone is not a living thing — but it doesn’t have to be in order to be intelligently designed. And I have far more confidence in our ability to eventually produce a unique form of life by design than in our ability to produce one by simulating evolution.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

That whole scientific method thing kind of gets in the way for Behe/ID, you know. That’s why it’s not science.

Neither is naturalism, since it is impossible to prove that the natural world is all that exists. You’re in the position of a plumber who claims that electricity is a fairy tale because he doesn’t have any tools with which to measure it.

Behe’s critics are unable to answer his questions, so they simply assert that his questions aren’t worth answering, and claim victory by default.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:16 PM

And I have far more confidence in our ability to eventually produce a unique form of life by design than in our ability to produce one by simulating evolution.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Monsanto currently holds most of the patents in this area, I believe.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Monsanto currently holds most of the patents in this area, I believe.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:17 PM

Yeah, but they’re just modifying something that already exists. I don’t think we’re even close to building a cell from scratch, but I see that as far more likely to happen than building a unique form of life in an evolution incubator.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM

Good Lt, there is no point in linking talkorigins, it’s all claptrap as far as I’m concerned. I’ve read much of it.

You keep positing the same discredited, nonsensical arguments over and over as if nobody has ever heard them or addressed them.

that’s a signal that something isn’t getting through. So I’ll keep pointing other readers to a place where they can find the answers to these tired and discredited arguments for themselves, and you can keep your fingers in your ears.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:23 PM

Neither is naturalism, since it is impossible to prove that the supernatural world is all that exists.

Fixed.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM

There is no possible way that this could happen by an unguided, natural process, no matter how many billions of years you’re talking about.

Argument from incredulity.

Google it.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:24 PM

However, if you would like to explain concisely what you think a particular link means and why it’s relevant to the debate, then the link is fine as a source/reference.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 3:04 PM

They’ve done it for us.

It’s your problem that your litany of creationist complaints – all of them – are well-known and have been addressed.

There’s a reason they have no effect or impact on science.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:26 PM

It’s a theory based on actual observation, which puts it on firmer ground than evolution itself.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:10 PM

No.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:27 PM

Actually, Intelligent Design has been tested and proved far more than evolution.

LOL LOL LOL

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM

It is absurd to me now, but only because I’ve gotten to know the Lord.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 1:48 PM

.
Or have convinced yourself that you have.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 1:52 PM

.
Does it change anything with you, if I say “No, I really know the Lord”?

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Yeah, you’ll say that a smart phone is not a living thing — but it doesn’t have to be in order to be intelligently designed. And I have far more confidence in our ability to eventually produce a unique form of life by design than in our ability to produce one by simulating evolution.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

The watchmaker argument.

Google it.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:29 PM

Does it change anything with you, if I say “No, I really know the Lord”?

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM

Does The Lord speak to you?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM

I don’t think we’re even close to building a cell from scratch, but I see that as far more likely to happen than building a unique form of life in an evolution incubator.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:19 PM

What does this have to do with the theory of evolution?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Ahem. “It is our collective position that intelligent design has no basis in science, has not been tested experimentally, and should not be regarded as scientific.”

That whole scientific method thing kind of gets in the way for Behe/ID, you know. That’s why it’s not science.

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:09 PM

Ah. Then of course it must yield to the definitive experimental testing that has been done for evolution.

Why yes, that might be a little sarcasm.

More seriously, you’re conflating the department’s collective position on ID with a statement that they consider Behe himself to not be a scientist.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

So I’ll keep pointing other readers to a place where they can find the answers to these tired and discredited arguments for themselves, and you can keep your fingers in your ears.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:23 PM

I looked at the pages you linked but didn’t find the answers to my questions. If you are not willing to describe how the links you post are relevant to the debate then I can only assume that even you don’t know.

Your posting a link without your interpretation of how it’s relevant it is no more helpful than posting a link to a search engine, or simply saying — Google it.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

Can an omniscient god change its mind?
Can god commit deicide?

Annar on June 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Does it change anything with you, if I say “No, I really know the Lord”?

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:28 PM

.
Does The Lord speak to you?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:30 PM

.
Yup.

(finger on dial, calling the guys in white in 3, 2, 1 . . . )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Then of course it must yield to the definitive experimental testing that has been done for evolution.

Fail.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211.html

And before you can say Karl Popper, fail again:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA211_1.html

Keep ‘em coming.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

.
Yup.

(finger on dial, calling the guys in white in 3, 2, 1 . . . )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

Cool!

What does he say? What does his voice sound like?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

I looked at the pages you linked but didn’t find the answers to my questions. If you are not willing to describe how the links you post are relevant to the debate then I can only assume that even you don’t know.

Your posting a link without your interpretation of how it’s relevant it is no more helpful than posting a link to a search engine, or simply saying — Google it.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

It is not my burden to spend hours and bytes wasting time rehashing creationist arguments that have long been refuted.

The burden is on you to find out why your arguments, claims and complaints are not taken seriously by science.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

More seriously, you’re conflating the department’s collective position on ID with a statement that they consider Behe himself to not be a scientist.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

If Behe is a scientist, he is not to be trusted.

Creationist rules.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Can an omniscient god change its mind?
Can god commit deicide?

Annar on June 4, 2012 at 3:35 PM

Interesting questions, Annar. The answer to your first question is, yes, but he’d know in advance that he was going to. :-D

To the second, I suppose that depends on what sort of god we’re talking about. There’s a Hindu goddess who decapitated herself and is apparently continually in the process of bleeding to death.

The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? I think the answer has to be no, because God holds the power of life and death.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Cool!

What does he say? What does his voice sound like?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:36 PM

.
That’s where the “catch 22″ is for you. He is heard on the inside, without going through the ears.

A person has to get to know him, first. Then you’ll recognize his voice. : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM

More seriously, you’re conflating the department’s collective position on ID with a statement that they consider Behe himself to not be a scientist.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:32 PM

If Behe is a scientist, he is not to be trusted.

Creationist rules.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Straw man.

Logic rules.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

.
That’s where the “catch 22″ is for you. He is heard on the inside, without going through the ears.

A person has to get to know him, first. Then you’ll recognize his voice. : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM

That’s weird, because other organs don’t ‘hear.’ Only ears do.

Unless you’re ‘hearing’ voices in your head. If that’s the case, I’d advise getting medical attention.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

That’s where the “catch 22″ is for you. He is heard on the inside, without going through the ears.

A person has to get to know him, first. Then you’ll recognize his voice. : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM

That wasn’t god’s voice. Your body is telling you that extra enchilada wasn’t a good idea

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Straw man.

Logic rules.

tom on June 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

like

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:48 PM

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
“My sheep know My voice.”
–Jesus

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

To the second, I suppose that depends on what sort of god we’re talking about. There’s a Hindu goddess who decapitated herself and is apparently continually in the process of bleeding to death.

Who are you to say that’s not actually happening in the supernatural world?

How are you differentiating between your skybeings and determining which ones “make sense?”

The God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? I think the answer has to be no, because God holds the power of life and death.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Wait, how many gods are you alleging exist now?

What is your evidence that other gods are the ‘incorrect’ gods?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Sorry, mutations are overwhelmingly destructive. You might get one helpful mutation for every million destructive/inconsequential ones. But even if the ratio was 1 helpful mutation to 99 unhelpful mutations, complexity would still be overwhelmingly degenerative.

Try making a random change to a working program sometime and see if it works better or not.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 2:57 PM

You can code? Try applying a genetic algorithm to a problem and get back to me about how random changes can’t converge on a useful solution.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Your smart phone exists because of experiments in Intelligent Design.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:15 PM

Oh my god! This is priceless! I’m gonna post this comment on my ceiling in big bold letters so that when I wake up every morning I will start the day off with a laugh!

LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

“He who has ears to hear, let him hear.”
“My sheep know My voice.”
–Jesus

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

So you’re sheep?

Makes sense now.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Oh my god! This is priceless! I’m gonna post this comment on my ceiling in big bold letters so that when I wake up every morning I will start the day off with a laugh!

LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

I know. I almost spit on the screen after reading that. The screen that was created with experiments in intelligent design LOL

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:52 PM

You can code? Try applying a genetic algorithm to a problem and get back to me about how random changes can’t converge on a useful solution.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Read the “Criticisms” section.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

Oh my god! This is priceless! I’m gonna post this comment on my ceiling in big bold letters so that when I wake up every morning I will start the day off with a laugh!

LOL!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 3:51 PM

So, you’re saying your smartphone is not the product of intelligent design? It evolved?

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:57 PM

That’s where the “catch 22″ is for you. He is heard on the inside, without going through the ears.

A person has to get to know him, first. Then you’ll recognize his voice. : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:44 PM

.
That’s weird, because other organs don’t ‘hear.’ Only ears do.

Unless you’re ‘hearing’ voices in your head. If that’s the case, I’d advise getting medical attention.

Good Lt on
June 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM
.
That wasn’t god’s voice. Your body is telling you that extra enchilada wasn’t a good idea

Dante on June 4, 2012 at 3:47 PM

.
I am in there as well, and I am a spirit. And how I hear the Lord is with my spiritual ears.
Actually all of us are spirits, living inside a physical body. But since I can’t convince you of that, what difference does it make?
.
And stop casting dispersions on my enchiladas . . . they’re good ! : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

So, you’re saying your smartphone is not the product of intelligent design? It evolved?

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:57 PM

On second thought, I suppose it could have evolved. If I arrange these old phones in the correct order, I can imagine how they represent all the transitional species. Hey, I’m beginning to think like an evolutionist!

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

Read the “Criticisms” section.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:53 PM

None of them indicate random changes combined with selection pressure can’t move towards better solutions. In fact they’re quite useful and interesting. Implement one and play with it.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:02 PM

So, you’re saying your smartphone is not the product of intelligent design? It evolved?

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Unlike nature, phones are designed and created by a creator.

Living things, rocks, meteors and black holes are not.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM

It is not my burden to spend hours and bytes wasting time rehashing creationist arguments that have long been refuted.

The burden is on you to find out why your arguments, claims and complaints are not taken seriously by science.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:38 PM

You link is meaningless without your explanation of how it addresses the question.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

On second thought, I suppose it could have evolved. If I arrange these old phones in the correct order, I can imagine how they represent all the transitional species. Hey, I’m beginning to think like an evolutionist!

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 3:59 PM

First rule of holes.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:06 PM

You link is meaningless without your explanation of how it addresses the question.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 4:05 PM

The links are not meaningless.

Creationist claims are meaningless, and the links show you why.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

None of them indicate random changes combined with selection pressure can’t move towards better solutions. In fact they’re quite useful and interesting. Implement one and play with it.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:02 PM

Still, GA would be a better simulation of guided evolution with far more limited parameters, not materialist evolution in the real world. Among other things, materialist evolution has no intelligence overseeing the process and improving the algorithms.

Besides, I think he meant “make random changes to the byte codes of your program” and see how that affects how well it runs.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:07 PM

Speaking to mutations, Darwinists make a lot of hay over bacterial resistance to antibiotics. But in nearly all cases, the resistance is due to the mutation causing the failure of some cellular process that the drug exploits. It’s a DEGRADATION of function that happens to render invalid one particular exploit.

To the second, I suppose that depends on what sort of god we’re talking about. There’s a Hindu goddess who decapitated herself and is apparently continually in the process of bleeding to death.

Who are you to say that’s not actually happening in the supernatural world?

How are you differentiating between your skybeings and determining which ones “make sense?”

T

he God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob? I think the answer has to be no, because God holds the power of life and death.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 3:43 PM

Wait, how many gods are you alleging exist now?

What is your evidence that other gods are the ‘incorrect’ gods?

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Although I’m probably wasting my time, I’ll give you the short answer. I don’t believe the Hindu gods exist. They look and act a whole lot like all the other animist dieties and demigods you find all over the world. Some are more or less bizarre, but animism is animism, and it pretty clearly traces its roots to primitive superstition.

Christianity is based on an historical event – the Resurrection of Jesus. Years ago I decided to disprove that story. I found myself convinced by the preponderance of evidence that it actually occurred. Some time later, I talked to a God in whom I wasn’t sure I believed, and invited Him – if He existed, and if He cared what I thought – to help me believe.

Over time I gradually came to understand how Christianity made sense. Things that had seemed foolish were now understandable.

Jesus said, “I stand at the door and knock. Open, and I will come in.”

All I did, really, was undo the deadbolt. My life changed radically, and God continues to work in my life. Over the past few decades, I have seen God at work in my life and in others’ lives time and time and time again.

Mock all you want; it doesn’t impact me one iota. All it does is demonstrate your own foolishness.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Actually all of us are spirits, living inside a physical body

Evidence for this?

That’s an extraordinary claim.

But since I can’t convince you of that, what difference does it make?

Evidence would help. Objective evidence – that is, not personal feelings, beliefs or experiences.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Unlike nature, phones are designed and created by a creator.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:03 PM

Exactly! It doesn’t prove that we’re here because of intelligent design, but it proves that intelligent design is possible.

And that’s far more than anyone has ever done with evolution. Nobody has ever reproduced macroevolution in order to test the hypothesis and prove it’s possible.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

You can code? Try applying a genetic algorithm to a problem and get back to me about how random changes can’t converge on a useful solution.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 3:50 PM

I didn’t say it was imposable for a helpful mutation to happen, I said it was far less likely to happen than a destructive mutation. Thus the more mutations you have, the less likely it is that something of benefit will result.

Axion on June 4, 2012 at 4:10 PM

You know, I’m starting to see how the El Camino is a transition species between the Chevelle and the S-10…

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM

I don’t believe the Hindu gods exist.

The Hindus would vehemently disagree with you. And the have as much evidence suggesting they’re right as you do.

Christianity is based on an historical event – the Resurrection of Jesus.

Cool. What corroborating, objective evidence other than the story in the Bible do we have that it actually happened?

I found myself convinced by the preponderance of evidence that it actually occurred. Some time later, I talked to a God in whom I wasn’t sure I believed, and invited Him – if He existed, and if He cared what I thought – to help me believe.

Over time I gradually came to understand how Christianity made sense. Things that had seemed foolish were now understandable.

Personal anecdote =/= objective evidence.

All I did, really, was undo the deadbolt. My life changed radically, and God continues to work in my life. Over the past few decades, I have seen God at work in my life and in others’ lives time and time and time again.

None of this is evidence for the existence of a god or of a son of god.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Exactly! It doesn’t prove that we’re here because of intelligent design, but it proves that intelligent design is possible.

Except that you’re claiming that nature was “designed by a designer.”

And there is no evidence for that.

We do, however, have evidence that phones, TVs, watches and many other things are designed.

And that’s far more than anyone has ever done with evolution. Nobody has ever reproduced macroevolution in order to test the hypothesis and prove it’s possible.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Fail:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901.html

Macroevolution is merely microevolution over long periods of time.

The only difference between microevolution and macroevolution is timescale.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:15 PM

There is no way that major changes like the ones your describing can take place gradually. It’s impossible, it’s illogical, and it is about as far from science as you can get…but I can understand why you HAVE to believe it. You have no other explanation that doesn’t involve a creator.

JannyMae on June 4, 2012 at 3:00 PM

A fallacious argument from incredulity.

I think you’ve got it backwards though. You apparently have to reject evolution because it seems to threaten your cherished beliefs. I wouldn’t have any problem with an explanation involving a creator if I honestly thought it was actually the best fit with data. In fact I think I’d find it comforting, but I don’t believe things just because I want to. Call it a lack of faith.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I think you’ve got it backwards though. You apparently have to reject evolution because it seems to threaten your cherished beliefs.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:15 PM

I can’t speak for anyone else, but I continued to believe in evolution for years after I became a Christian. I stopped believing in evolution because I saw all the holes in it. It all started when I saw a documentary. Someone made a very flawed argument, and I picked up on the flaw and started wondering if this was pervasive. After that, I started to examine the arguments for evolution instead of taking it for granted. And I realized just how unfounded it is.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:21 PM

And that’s far more than anyone has ever done with evolution. Nobody has ever reproduced macroevolution in order to test the hypothesis and prove it’s possible.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

Microevolution and macroevolution… A distinction without a difference.

How hard is it to understand that a macroevolution is just an arbitrary point in a timeline of microevolutions. It’s you or me looking at a timeline of microevolutions that span hundreds of thousands to millions of years and choosing one of the microevolved species in that timeline and giving that creature a name like Tiktaalik, etc.

All the animals you see on the planet today are transitional species, transitional to whatever they evolve into in the future. In a million years, humans will have evolved beyond what we are today to the point that they don’t look much like us, maybe they’re completely hairless by then, maybe they’re much taller, could be any number of physical traits but the point is that over millions of years microevolutions change species into other species.

Good god man! It’s not hard.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM

I think this Richard Lewontin quote is appropriate at this point (emphasis mine):

We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM

None of this is evidence for the existence of a god or of a son of god.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:12 PM

Of course you don’t accept any of the evidence. You have to keep moving the goalposts. Your mind is firmly shut and you dare not open it one crack. That’s why I’m not wasting much time with you.

What corroborating, objective evidence other than the story in the Bible do we have that it actually happened?

There’s plenty, but you won’t accept it as evidence, because it’s only evidence, not proof-beyond-the-possibility-of-doubt. There is always room for doubt, SO THAT there can be room for faith. “Without faith it is impossible to please God.”

One day you will have your proof, though. The Bible promises that: “Every knee will bow, every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.” But on that day it will be too late for faith.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:24 PM

How hard is it to understand that a macroevolution is just an arbitrary point in a timeline of microevolutions.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 4:23 PM

Sure, it’s easy to IMAGINE. But it’s an untested assumption. Macroevolution has never been tested. Ever. It remains a hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

All the animals you see on the planet today are transitional species, transitional to whatever they evolve into in the future.

Funny, that’s not what the fossil record shows. Nothing close to it at all. And how about those coelecanths and alligators, remaining unchanged for hundreds of millions of years? Not to mention the bazillions of insects whose forms haven’t changed at all over time.

“we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations,”

That is the heart and soul of the matter.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

Evidence would help. Objective evidence – that is, not personal feelings, beliefs or experiences.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:09 PM

.
The closest thing I have to the kind of evidence you are searching for is from my 12:10 post:

“The odds of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a working vehicle are better than the odds of the Evolutionary Model being true”

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

I find this most revealing:

It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.

In other words, if something occurs supernaturally, we’ll explain it with a materialistic fairy tale rather than even look for an alternate explanation.

I think that’s pretty much the definition of closed-mindedness. But it’s not surprising — blind is the state of the fallen world.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

“The odds of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a working vehicle are better than the odds of the Evolutionary Model being true”

But evolution is step-wise. So what are the odds of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling two parts that are supposed to go together? And then another tornado passing through and adding the correct third part without destroying the first two? And so on? ;)

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

Sure, it’s easy to IMAGINE. But it’s an untested assumption. Macroevolution has never been tested. Ever. It remains a hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:25 PM

Microevolution HAS been tested though, and you’re willfully ignoring what I said. You don’t test macroevolution my friend… There is nothing to test, a macroevolved species is just a single point in a continuum of microevolutions, and we KNOW that microevolutions occur.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

But evolution is step-wise. So what are the odds of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling two parts that are supposed to go together? And then another tornado passing through and adding the correct third part without destroying the first two? And so on? ;)

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:36 PM

.
Oooooh . . . . . . I’d say that’s exponentially greater odds ! And that’s on top of the already “slimmest of the slim” odds.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 4:42 PM

In other words, if something occurs supernaturally, we’ll explain it with a materialistic fairy tale rather than even look for an alternate explanation.

I think that’s pretty much the definition of closed-mindedness. But it’s not surprising — blind is the state of the fallen world.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:29 PM

An alternate explanation such as ‘goddidit!’ whenever we encounter a difficult question? How far will that get us?

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Microevolution HAS been tested though, and you’re willfully ignoring what I said. You don’t test macroevolution my friend… There is nothing to test, a macroevolved species is just a single point in a continuum of microevolutions, and we KNOW that microevolutions occur.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

No question. If you find a sufficiently motivated chihuahua, you could mate it with a wolf and probably get viable, even fertile offspring.

But it is a leap of conjecture – faith really, since it cannot be proven experimentally – to suggest that that same process, repeated over a really long time accounts for the difference between a plasmodium and a platypus.

Life happens at the molecular level, my cabbagy friend. And the chains of events required for life at the molecular level have never been shown to be “evolvable” (if I can coin a word.)

I might even say that you’re willfully ignoring me. ;-)

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:45 PM

“The odds of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a working vehicle are better than the odds of the Evolutionary Model being true”

Is there anything you can present to support creationism that isn’t a misunderstanding of biology, a distortion of science or a fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM

An alternate explanation such as ‘goddidit!’ whenever we encounter a difficult question? How far will that get us?

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Slightly further than, “We have no idea HOW, but it MUST have been the result of random mutation and selection pressure.”

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

There is nothing to test, a macroevolved species is just a single point in a continuum of microevolutions, and we KNOW that microevolutions occur.

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 4:41 PM

Your saying so does not make it true. You are stating a hypothesis: “Given enough time, microevolutions would produce macroevolution.” But it is an untested and unobserved hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM

An alternate explanation such as ‘goddidit!’ whenever we encounter a difficult question? How far will that get us?

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

.
“Catch 22.”
You have to get to know Him to find out.
You have to believe He exists before you get to know Him.
.
It’s a real dilly of a pickle, alright.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Hm. Right at the top of the page is this:

This article needs attention from an expert on the subject.

What else ya got?

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

But it is an untested and unobserved hypothesis.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:48 PM

“You can’t prove that God exists either!” in 3…2…

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:51 PM

But it is a leap of conjecture – faith really, since it cannot be proven experimentally – to suggest that that same process, repeated over a really long time accounts for the difference between a plasmodium and a platypus.

Fail.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html

And the chains of events required for life at the molecular level have never been shown to be “evolvable” (if I can coin a word.)

I might even say that you’re willfully ignoring me. ;-)

Now you’re making up your own terms for the science you can’t understand.

Bravo!

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:52 PM

An alternate explanation such as ‘goddidit!’ whenever we encounter a difficult question? How far will that get us?

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:44 PM

No third option? It’s either investigate material causes OR just say “goddidit?” That’s a mockery of the issue.

The point is that there is the possibility that “goddidit”. In which case, all the materialist explanations are nothing more than fairy tales, and everything is the opposite of the way evolutionists state it. The evolutionists are the people who believe in fairies, and the creationists are the ones who are realistic.

While I don’t expect anyone to jump to that conclusion, it would be a step forward whenever a scientist entertains the notion that we were, in fact, intelligently designed. And more than a few scientists have already taken that step. I admire them far more than I do the materialists who prefer fairy tales just because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the supernatural as a possibility.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

“The odds of a tornado passing through a junkyard and assembling a working vehicle are better than the odds of the Evolutionary Model being true”

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 4:27 PM

.
Is there anything you can present to support creationism that isn’t a misunderstanding of biology, a distortion of science or a fallacy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:46 PM

.
I stick by that statement as being absolutely, scientifically true.

But that doesn’t mean you have to believe it. It just means I do, and nothing more.

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

What else ya got?

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:49 PM

Plenty on Hoyle’s Fallacy, which you put forth as an “argument against evolution.”

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF002_1.html

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Hoyle's_fallacy

Here – 11,600 results to sift through.

Read on!

http://tinyurl.com/7mryrce

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:56 PM

I stick by that statement as being absolutely, scientifically true.

Calculate the odds that things popped into being by an invisible skybeing using magic.

Go!

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM

Slightly further than, “We have no idea HOW, but it MUST have been the result of random mutation and selection pressure.”

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

And who is saying that? What science is saying is ‘We don’t yet understand all of the mechanisms involved, but the evidence seems to strongly suggest that species evolve through natural selection.’ Meanwhile research in biology continues apace.

Perhaps at some point it will be shown that our current theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and needs to be replaced, but it won’t be overturned by logically fallacious appeals to incredulity.

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM

The point is that there is the possibility that “goddidit”

In science, GODDIDIT is not a “possibility.”

The supernatural has no place in science.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:58 PM

Slightly further than, “We have no idea HOW, but it MUST have been the result of random mutation and selection pressure GOOOOOOOOOOODDDDDDD.”

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 4:47 PM

Fixed for the creationist.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:00 PM

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB901_1.html

Fail.

I wasn’t talking about limits in variations. I was talking about the claim that over “lots of time” small variations build up into large variations, despite the fact that the fossil record shows nothing of the kind, and the fact that nowhere in the scientific literature is a specific evolutionary path for any of a myriad of life-critical biochemical processes described.

IOW, GoodLt continues to avoid discussing the issues.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:01 PM

I was talking about the claim that over “lots of time” small variations build up into large variations, despite the fact that the fossil record shows nothing of the kind,

False.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB805.html

and the fact that nowhere in the scientific literature is a specific evolutionary path for any of a myriad of life-critical biochemical processes described.

Absolutely false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA350.html

IOW, creationists like yourself are unfamiliar with science and what evolution actually says, and as such appear increasingly incapable of making any correct claims about the subject at all.

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 5:05 PM

No third option? It’s either investigate material causes OR just say “goddidit?” That’s a mockery of the issue.

The point is that there is the possibility that “goddidit”. In which case, all the materialist explanations are nothing more than fairy tales, and everything is the opposite of the way evolutionists state it. The evolutionists are the people who believe in fairies, and the creationists are the ones who are realistic.

While I don’t expect anyone to jump to that conclusion, it would be a step forward whenever a scientist entertains the notion that we were, in fact, intelligently designed. And more than a few scientists have already taken that step. I admire them far more than I do the materialists who prefer fairy tales just because they can’t bring themselves to acknowledge the supernatural as a possibility.

The Rogue Tomato on June 4, 2012 at 4:53 PM

I’m not clear on what you think the third option is? Scientists should invoke supernatural causes even though there’s no credible evidence for supernatural forces at work?

DarkCurrent on June 4, 2012 at 5:07 PM

What science is saying is ‘We don’t yet understand all of the mechanisms involved, but the evidence seems to strongly suggest that species evolve through natural selection.’

More like science doesn’t understand ANY of the mechanism involved.

Meanwhile research in biology continues apace.

Under the a priori assumption that there can only be natural explanations. Which might explain why no one has published a paper on, for example, the motile effectiveness of proto-ciliate structures

Perhaps at some point it will be shown that our current theory of evolution is fundamentally flawed and needs to be replaced,

That point has passed. You might want to look up the Altenburg 15.

but it won’t be overturned by logically fallacious appeals to incredulity.

It’s not an appeal to incredulity to assert that extraordinary claims require evidence of some kind. I’m not even asking for extraordinary evidence. How did blood clotting gradually evolve over time? How did protein transport gradually evolve over time? How did photosynthesis gradually evolve over time?

Any evidence at all will do.

skydaddy on June 4, 2012 at 5:10 PM

Actually, we CAN see macroevolutions happen in real time in today’s world.

Since 1988 there has been an ongoing experiment run by a fellow named Richard Lenski… Long term E-Coli experiment home page

One of the most important ways to be able to verify that evolution occurs, and more specifically macroevolution, is to be able to see generations pass… thousands to millions of generations… Each generation has the same microevolutions at their death that they did when they were born, and the only time new microevolutions happen is when the next generation comes along (is born).

The Lenski experiments have seen over 50,000 generations of bacteria being born and dieing. The bacteria they have in this experiments today is totally different than the bacteria they had when they started the experiment.

Now, with larger animals like us/pigs/cows/etc, you will not see macroevolution take place. You need thousands to hundreds of thousands of generations to pass before “macroevolution” takes place and they’ve done just that in the Lenski experiments.

But I’m sure some creationist scientist has already come up with some excuse to ignore it too.

Who are you going to quote to me now?

SauerKraut537 on June 4, 2012 at 5:12 PM

Calculate the odds that things popped into being by an invisible skybeing using magic.

Go!

Good Lt on June 4, 2012 at 4:57 PM

.
Those odds are nil -0-

However, the odds of The Living God speaking thinking into existence by faith are 1:1
[Heb. 11:1,3] : )

listens2glenn on June 4, 2012 at 5:15 PM

Comment pages: 1 8 9 10 11 12