Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[FrustratedPoet]

There are academic Trolls too, y'know.

I would like to add at this point that it would probably be wise to treat any book/article, even from a 'respected academic', that solely supports one theory by making reference to the falsehood of another with suspicion.

Titles such as: 'a dilemma for Evolutionists', or perhaps: 'Creationists don't know what they're talking about, but I do' suggest to me that the author has a closed mind on the issue because they have decided to 'take sides' in the argument for their own personal gain rather than the advancement of knowledge.

It is surely the case that books / conferences with provocative and inflammatory titles are far more likely to attract attention (read: fame and money) than those that are called, say: 'Now let's all be reasonable about this, shall we?' (my personal motto, perhaps? ).
The same is true of forum thread titles ... as we all know.

EDIT: I like your sig Asher. It seems very appropriate for the OT forum. I wouldn't have understood a word of if I hadn't read it three times, though, it's pretty impenetrable.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

How is it idiotic to discuss my philosphy of life?
I'm not debating the science part and never was, simply using logic and philosophy.

Of course it's "talking out of my ass" because there's no other way to debate philosophy.

your statements are not presented properly (they need a series of logic and in some cases evidences)

I have seen that what you throw out as being illogical is actually logical, and some of what you have said youhave said without any evidence presented (and I have seen evidence to the contrary)

I beleive that this philosophy class has made me finicky for proper presentation of philosphical ideas (even then things usually go nowhere)

I recommend reading a philosphy book sometime (one that tries to address all sides of a subject and one that argues for a specific side)

Jon Miller

[spicytimothy]

Originally posted by Dissident
A long drawn out process of ugly hairy, apes turning into men.

This is exactly why so many ppl reject Evolution. APES DID NOT TURN INTO MEN!!!!! In the theory, Humans have the same ANCESTRY with ape, not that men came from apes.

spicytimothy

[mactbone]

Jon, jump over to my Philosophical Thoughts on God thread, I need someone to present an Anti-Thesis

[Asher]

Jon Miller, get off your high horse.

I don't need to read philosophy books or take philosophy classes to determine my philosophy of life and my reasoning behind it.

If you don't like it, feel free to disagree, but don't just insult me for my ideas.

If you're going to debate, post replies and go for it. Otherwise go away.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't need a "proper presentation of philosophical ideas", I've never intended to do that at all, I'm simply telling you how I live my life.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher
Jon Miller, get off your high horse.

I don't need to read philosophy books or take philosophy classes to determine my philosophy of life and my reasoning behind it.

If you don't like it, feel free to disagree, but don't just insult me for my ideas.

If you're going to debate, post replies and go for it. Otherwise go away.

Contrary to what you seem to think, I don't need a "proper presentation of philosophical ideas", I've never intended to do that at all, I'm simply telling you how I live my life.

but you should be able to present it and argue for it in an intelligent manner

I think everybody should be able to do that, but especially those who are trying to present and argue for their beleifs in a discussion (good job on doing that by the way, too many people are wusses currently)

you were not debating is my point (and neither do many others)

oh, and I thought you loved me

Jon Miller

[Draco aka Se7eN]

In a hunter-gatherer society (which is to say anything before 8000BC), it is impossible to have a growth rate of 2% a year. Such societies can barely support one person per square kilometer, and thus any sort of growth at all would result in starvation.

Tell that to Joe White, Ed. D. Nicholas Comninellis, M.D. "Darwins Demise" (2001)

World population growth: Who would assume a positive population growth on the average of 2%? There is no way to estimate this number. First of all, a dramatic plague in a low population of man concentrated in a small locale (ie early in mans history) could result in a -95% growth rate in a single year. Ditto war, ditto weather or crop variations. Even later on, the european plauges of recent history devastated huge populations. Since we are making up numbers, if I assume 50% loss over a 1 year period in europe, then a 5% growth rate after, it would take ~15 years to recover to the old point. That means a 0% gain over that 16 year period. Given the dangers to life and limb in ancient and medival times, I find it hard to believe that you can quote a stead 2% growth rate since the dawn of man.

Please Read what i quoted before you respond. Then tell it to Joe White, Ed. D. Nicholas Comninellis, M.D. "Darwins Demise" (2001)

As soil, mud, or sand accumulates, the stuff that's below experiences so much pressure that they eventually fuse into sedimentary rocks, like sandstone or conglomerate. That's why we can't have 56 miles of topsoil.

Tell that to Edward Blick, Correlation of the Bible and Science (Oklahoma City, OK: heathstone publishing, 1994), P 28

It fluctuates both up and down. Whats the problem.

Tell that to R.E. Walsh, editor, procedings of the second International conference on Creationism. "Reversals of the earth's Magnetic Field during the Genesis Flood, " by D.R. Humphreys (Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship, 1986), Vol. 2 p 113 126

The earth's erosional forces are very great. If there were no winds, rivers or seas, the earth would probably be as cratered as the moon. That's why there're very little craters or meteor remains.

Tell that to W.H. Twenhofel, Principles of Sedimentation (New York, NY: Mcgraw-hill, 1950), second edition p 144
Walter T. Brown Jr. In the beginning (Phenix, AZ: Center for Scientific Creation, 1989),p 53

They probably originated farther off and were hurled inwards by Jupiter's or Saturn's gravity.

tell that to John Maddox, "halley's comet is quite young" Nature, Vol 339 (May 11, 1989)

The sun doesn't "burn its fuel". It transforms hydrogen into helium, and during the process, the sun gets larger.

LOL Be sure to make this argument with R.G Kazmann " It's about time: 4.5 billion years" (report on symposium at Louisiana State Univercity), Geotimes, Vol 23 (September 1978): P 18 Quoting John Eddy.
And Tell that to Dennis R. Peterson, Unlocking the mysteries of Creation (El Dorado, CA: Creation Resource Foundations) p 43
Also Paul S Taylor, "the Earth, A young Planet?" quoting Thomas Barnes.
OH and also better have a chat with all these people who im going to list. I think they will be interested that all the information they have gathered for years with expensive equipment and such was all pointless since you have the answer.
D.W. dunham
A.D. Fiala
J.R. Lesh
Andrew A. Snelling
Thomas G. Barnes
Harold L. Armstrong
Ronald L. Gillilland
Hilton Hinderliter
G. Russell Akridge
S. Sophia
J. O'Keefe
A.S. Endal
Dudley J. Benton
Paul D. Ackerman
Paul M. Stidl
Daved D. Dunham
John Eddy

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
but you should be able to present it and argue for it in an intelligent manner

I think everybody should be able to do that, but especially those who are trying to present and argue for their beleifs in a discussion (good job on doing that by the way, too many people are wusses currently)

you were not debating is my point (and neither do many others)

Well, all I know is my beliefs and logic behind it makes perfect sense to me.
Other people apparently share it.

So I take it you disagree, since you didn't call it intelligent, but are too chicken**** to respond to it?

oh, and I thought you loved me

Jon Miller

I've never seen this side of you before.

[mactbone]

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

Beliefs of American adults:
According to Newsweek in 1987, "By one count there are some 700 scientists with respectable academic credentials (out of a total of 480,000 U.S. earth and life scientists) who give credence to creation-science..." That would make the support for creation science among those branches of science who deal with the earth and its life forms at about 0.14% 5 However, the American public thinks very differently.

The Gallup Organizations periodically asks the American public about their beliefs on evolution and creation. They have conducted a poll of U.S. adults in 1982, 1991, 1993 and 1997. By keeping their wording identical, each year's results are comparable to the others.

Results for the 1991-NOV-21 to 24 poll were:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 47% 40% 9%
Men 39% 45% 11.5%
Women 53% 36% 6.6%
College graduates 25% 54% 16.5%
No high school diploma 65% 23% 4.6%
Income over $50,000 29% 50% 17%
Income under $20,000 59% 28% 6.5%
Caucasians 46% 40% 9%
Afro-Americans 53% 41% 4%

1997-NOV data is little changed. Note the massive differences between the beliefs of the general population and of scientists:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution
Group of adults God created man pretty much in his present form at one time within the last 10,000 years. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life, but God guided this process, including man's creation. Man has developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. God had no part in this process.
Everyone 44% 39% 10%
Scientists 5% 40% 55%

The "scientist" group would presumably include biologists and geologists. But it would also include persons with professional degrees in fields unrelated to evolution, such as computer science, chemical engineering, physics, etc.

Political science professor George Bishop of the University of Cincinnati published a paper in 1998-AUG listing and interpreting 1997 poll data. "Bishop notes that these figures have remained remarkably stable over time. These questions were first asked about 15 years ago, and the percentages in each category are almost identical. Moreover, the profiles of each group has been constant. Just as when these questions were first asked 15 years ago, creationists continue to be older, less educated, Southern, politically conservative, and biblically literal (among other things). Women and African-Americans were more likely to be creationists than whites and men. Meanwhile, younger, better educated, mainline Protestants and Catholics were more likely to land in the middle as theistic evolutionists." 1

With the elderly representing a gradually increasing part of the U.S. population, one would expect that the creationist view would receive increasing support. In fact, there appears to be a gradual erosion of support for the creationist view. It is barely statistically significant. The sample size is about 1,000 so the sampling error is within +/- 3.2%, 19 times out of 20. It will take a decade or two to determine if a significant shift has really happened.

By any measure, the United States remains a highly religious nation, compared to other developed countries. And its citizens tend to hold more conservative beliefs. For example, the percentage of adults who believe that "the Bible is the actual word of God and it is to be taken literally, word for word" is 5 times higher in the U.S. than in Britain. Church attendance is about 4 times higher in the U.S. than it is in Britain. 1 Similarly, according to one opinion poll, belief that "Human beings developed from earlier species of animals..." is much smaller in the United States (35%) than in other countries (as high as 82%).



Beliefs among Internet surfers:
The Christianity section of About.com conducted a poll of its readers during 2000-SEP. They listed two responses which more or less agree with the Creationist, and Theistic Evolution beliefs. Their third response, that Evolution is a fact, would probably have received the votes of most believers in Naturalistic Evolution. Their final option would probably have been selected by some creationists who believe that students should be exposed to all belief systems, and by others who are undecided. Results were:

Belief system Creationist view Theistic evolution Naturalistic Evolution (probably) Neutral
Group of adults Evolution is an unproven theory, contrary to God's revealed truth. Evolution was simly the means God chose to create life on this planet. Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact. Evolution may be an unproven theory, but it is important enough to merit study in our school systems.
Everyone 27% 15% 50% 8%

These results are based on 2904 votes. The margin of error in this poll is 1.8%. Needless to say, Internet surfers are are not necessarily typical of the general public. 7



Beliefs among conservative Christians:
In 1999-NOV, Focus on the Family, a Fundamentalist Christian agency, concluded a poll of their web site visitors concerning their beliefs about creation and evolution. Results were:

God created the universe, but I don't know when: 46%
God created the universe thousands of years ago: 43%
God created the universe billions of years ago: 10%
Life came into being and evolved on its own: 1%
I don't have a clue: 0.4% 6

[Author's note: The poll is not particularly well designed; it mixes apples and oranges. The first three options concern when the world came into existence and assumes that God created it. The fourth response concerns evolution of life on earth. A participant in the poll might well believe that God created the world billions of years ago and that life evolved on its own. They would believe in two options, but could mark only one.]

The participants in the poll are self-selected from among the visitors to the Focus web site. They may not represent typical Fundamentalist or other Evangelical Christian practices.



Beliefs elsewhere in the world:
Belief in creation science seems to be largely a U.S. phenomenon. A British survey of 103 Roman Catholic priests, Anglican bishops and Protestant ministers/pastors showed that:

97% do not believe the world was created in six days.
80% do not believe in the existence of Adam and Eve. 4



Why do they hold these opinions?
The Wichita Eagle and the Kansas City Star, surveyed 604 respondents on 1999-OCT-22 to 26. Kansas has been a target of much interest and some ridicule after the state Board of Education dropped the necessity of teaching evolution in its public schools. 3 Some interesting comments by Kansans were published. As always, beliefs seem to be derived from people's fundamental interpretation of the Bible:

Auctioneer Gary Corwin said: "I believe that the Lord God created everything, just like the Bible says, I don’t think we came from apes." [Author's note: 95% of scientists support evolution and have reached a consensus that humans did not come from apes either; they believe that humans and apes have a common ancestor.]
The National Center for Science Education, which promotes the teaching of evolution. Spokesperson Eugenie Scott commented: "It goes to the meaning and purpose of life. I think many Americans believe that somehow they are less special to God if they evolved from nonhuman animals." [Author's note: The main alternative to evolution is found in Genesis which states that Adam came from dirt.]
The Rev. Victor Calcote, pastor of Epworth United Methodist Church in Wichita KS stated: "I believe there is a God that’s in control of creation. I’ve never gotten hung up on how he did it." He added: "I don’t appreciate some of the caricatures of Kansans. Just because our school board voted that way doesn’t mean we’re a bunch of bumbling idiots."
A liberal religious source was not interviewed. If someone who was a Unitarian Universalist minister or a Humanist or other secularist were asked, they would probably comment that Genesis is a very beautiful myth, but not a story that should be interpreted literally. The authors of Genesis lived in a pre-scientific era and simply adopted creation legends from their surrounding Pagan societies.



Other related essays dealing with evolution & creation science:
Overview of evolution and creation science
3 conflicting world views, and many individual belief systems
Beliefs held by various faith groups



References:
Johnathan Moore, "What do Americans believe about the origin of species," Public Religion Project, 1998-OCT-12.
George Bishop, "The Religious Worldview and American Beliefs about Human Origins" The Public Perspective, 1998-AUG.
"Most Kansans for evolution: Majority polled think kids should study, be tested," Associated Press, 1999-NOV-9.

News item in ReligionToday for 1999-DEC-29. They quoted the Conservative News Service. Original source of data was not specified.

Newsweek magazine, 1987-JUN-29, Page 23.
"What do you believe about creation or evolution?," Focus on the Family poll, at: http://www.focusonthefamily.org/focuspollarchive.cfm?
"Darwin makes a comeback in Kansas," at: http://christianity.about.com/religi...anity/library/
Originally published on 1995-NOV.
Copyright © 1995 to 2000 incl.
Last update: 2000-SEP-6
Author: B.A. Robinson

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Andrew A. Snelling
Thomas G. Barnes
Harold L. Armstrong
Ronald L. Gillilland
Dudley J. Benton
Paul D. Ackerman
Paul M. Stidl
Daved D. Dunham

so many initials ...

do you think they all have really dorky middle-names, or are they just pretentious?

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by Asher

Well, all I know is my beliefs and logic behind it makes perfect sense to me.
Other people apparently share it.

So I take it you disagree, since you didn't call it intelligent, but are too chicken**** to respond to it?


I've never seen this side of you before.

I am suppose to be writing an essay (on the Philosophy of Time)

and I was just trying to be funny

Jon Miller

[Asher]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
I am suppose to be writing an essay (on the Philosophy of Time)

and I was just trying to be funny

Jon Miller

Perhaps you should stick to ballet.

[loinburger]

Tell that to Joe White, Ed. D. Nicholas Comninellis, M.D....Tell that to Edward Blick...Tell that to R.E. Walsh...Tell that to W.H. Twenhofel...

You just don't listen, do you?

I'm particularly interested in seeing a link to the fellow who says that the sun is burning its fuel, seeing as how that's the most blatant lie you've presented thus far.

All you do by presenting a list of names is prove that ignorance loves company. We already knew that, now try presenting something worthwhile.

[Draco aka Se7eN]

closed mind on the issue because they have decided to 'take sides' in the argument for their own personal gain rather than the advancement of knowledge.


This is interesting, perhaps you are right. But dont be a hypocrit. Evolutionists are the same way, they have a closed mind on the subject. I would like to see one evolutionist even atempt to prove his own theory false. If you believe Evolution to be an advancement in our knowlege then put it to the test. Turn the table and make an honest attempt to prove it false. Im willing to bet that you wouldnt, because you have made up your mind that its a fact and their is no changing your mind despite the facts.

I used to believe in evolution. But i dont believe anymore. I have read several books arguing both Evolution and Creationism in the last ten years and Evolution seems illogical.

Evolution has done nothing for me. Its mind boggling that there is even an argument. How can you possibly look at the complexity of life and how everything comes together and claim that it all came from chance? I dont see how.

But somehow evolutionists do. I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Draco aka Se7eN
Evolution has done nothing for me. Its mind boggling that there is even an argument. How can you possibly look at the complexity of life and how everything comes together and claim that it all came from chance? I dont see how.

How can you possibly look at the complexity of life and how everything comes together and claim that some egomaniac snapped his fingers and created the world and told people to worship him? I don't see how.

Perhaps you should look at how outrageous the concept of the magically-created-world is before you say evolution is outrageous. Evolution makes perfect sense, and there is more evidence for it than against it, despite what religious scholars have tried to do to it.

I beg the question; Do any of you have any respect for life?

After this thread, my respect for life has gone down.

Obviously God created this world, and he created morons such as yourself for me to ridicule endlessly. What a nice guy.