 |
|
|
|
June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human originsBy Dan Merica, CNN (CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday. That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012. "Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins." The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents. Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists. Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church. Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God. The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs. Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats. According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years. "It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature." The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points. |
  About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.  |
|
|
|
But these same people who believe this bull and don't believe what science has proven without a shadow of a doubt about the earth being infinately older then 10k years is that when they get sick they go to a doctor who uses that same science to heal them.
When you believe in fairy tales, then I guess that is not surprising.
So happy I live in a large city away from all you fundies and your prehistoric "beliefs."
As it has been said many times before, god save me from your followers.......
god supposedly cures the crippled and the blind through faith healing all the time.
how come God never curse amputees? weird...
*cures
Mabye god did curse them which is why they are amputees 🙂
Is such a moron?
shweet, my favorite troll is back! 🙂
Oooh, I'm so jealous, Booty! You have a secret admirer! He/she must be getting off on your every post!
Nearderthal, Cro Magnon, etc. are all fake. Dinosaurs lived alongside modern man. The earth is only 10,000 years old. Out of an infinitely vast universe, the one true god centers around earth. Out of the thousands of gods that have "existed," the one true god is ours. Ignorance.
That's all fine and dandy, just show me the fossil site in Montana where a Velociraptor is buried next to a chicken next to Noah's uncle. Then we'll talk. Until then, most people here will recognize that you're a fool. And NOT a fool for Christ. Just a fool.
for the religious folks who have trouble understanding evolution, here's a simple explanation. funny too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
That was good funk.
But it won't change anything for for the fundies.
They have closed their eyes and minds and only believe in their magic man in the sky.
They have their guns and their bibles, what would they need with science?
Except when they get sick........
Religion is nothing if not the rejection of the obvious for the acceptance of the obscure. They do like their magic tricks. Thanks for the video. I was just about to point out the antibiotic conundrum. I'm curious what there people think the scientist who work on these antibiotics are doing all day and why they have to keep making new agents.
I know what they think, that god comes down and guides their actions and discoveries.
I work with fundies, and that is their standard line.
Space aliens could make contact with us and show us how the whole universe works, but the fundies will go right along believing in their fairly tales.
I think it would be a wonderful thing if a lab cloned about 5,000 copies of the Florida face-eating cannibal, and then parachuted them into Vatican City.
Look no further than Calvary Chapels across the country. They've already done that, and are multiplying rapidly, at 5,000 a pop.
Prayer changes things,
action changes things; prayer wastes time.
People believe in God and Creation simply because we have souls. It is not natural for us to be aiteists or agnostics. If you had no faith in God, we would have to worship something else because we were designed that way. Faith is perfectly natural for humans.
Faith: Pretending to know things you don't. -Dr. Peter Boghossian
Desa, that is not true. I never knew of God until my parents told me about it. These kids didn't know about him either.... (BTW, is this healthy?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZzE36jTw8pQ&feature=related
"People believe in God and Creation simply because we have souls."
which makes no sense considering there are people that don't believe. do they have souls? or do you only have a soul if you believe?
"It is not natural for us to be aiteists or agnostics."
wrong. it is exactly natural for people not to believe in god. you were born an atheist. someone had to indoctrinate you into the christian cult for you to believe.
"If you had no faith in God, we would have to worship something else because we were designed that way. Faith is perfectly natural for humans."
wrong. we don't need to worship anything. break off the mental shackles and think for yourself.
@Rick James, great clip. You really hear the wisdom of the child here. When I first heard Dawkins say that indoctrinating children with religion is child abuse, I was shocked and thought it was a pretty extreme position. Now that I have my own child, I understand fully the danger of a what you feed your child's brain.
Much like feeding your child food, if you only give them candy, you're killing them. It's child abuse. When I hear this boy I think of a child who's being fed nothing but junk food practically begging for meat and vegetables while the parents sit around and insist that he only eat the sweets and learn to like it. Really sad.
That's why, GodFree, making children believe just because you believe is wrong. Let them choose their own path in life and support them. When I first saw the clip, I was astounded but not surprised.
~Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!
Atheists keep demanding proof of God, and by proof, they mean proof in the mathematical sense, i.e. there can be no other conclusion but that God exists. But the world doesn't work on mathematical proofs, and not everything is so rigid. Not even science adheres to such strict standards of mathematical proof. Moreover, logic doesn't have a monopoly on truth. If that were the case, there wou.ld be no artists or poets.
The thing about God is that you have to open your heart to the possibility of his existence before you get proof of his existence. Every believer has had something marvelous happen to them. Every believer has reasons for what he/she believes – it is not simply because "mommy told me so." We all walk a unique path and God manifests himself to each in different ways. The key is being open to God. The believer has all the proof he needs.
Your post is a cop out. Way to admit you don't have any evidence.
It's Eva's stock in trade, along with accusing those who don't believe what she does of 'hating Jesus'.
Oh, yeah, and telling them that they're going to hell if they don't believe the earth is 6000 years old and that fossils aren't real.
you have no proof for the existence of god. that much is obvious. produce some or go away.
ah but Rick WE have no evidence
Won't do the dirty work? Then it won't ever work.
Atheists deny any shred of evidence it's just a game to them
Deny all you want atheists, but you shall find out that what I have written is correct. Let us hope that it is not too late for you.
ADAB, if you guys had any evidence that wasn't found in the Bible or just completely made-up, then we would give it some thought. The burden of proof is on believers, remember?
More proxy threats from the thumper-in-chief.
Dullard.
"extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."
- Carl Sagan
christians make an extraordinary claim - that there is a God - but christians provide no evidence, let alone extraordinary evidence. you are making the claim - the burden of proof is on you.
where is your proof?
Yo Eva: Does dog ever make a mistake? If not, why did he have to have a do over with the most fundamental of his famous sayings and rulebook. It never ceases to amaze me what some people are willing to believe.
Flagellum has OM, PG and IM at the base
article says TTSS is same as teh base of flagellum but it has OM, PP and CM.
I dont see how they are the same.
Really? Mathematical proof is required? How about a visit or growing back the limb of one amputee? Why not reach down with his almighty finger and scribble something never before known to man?
Evolutionists are drinking the kool-aid and ignoring inconvenient facts!
Take for example the bacteria flagella, a complex system that only works when all the protiens and genes line up. If even one of them is missing it doesnt work. Many of them are useless by themselves. So how did this come together? Imagine an archaeologist from 10,000 years form now coming upon a swiss made clock and saying these metal minerals organized themselves...
LOL projection out in full force. Have you even heard of mutations, at all?
A mutation to what effect? to break something?
Since the school doesnt, we teach the controversy at home to our kids. Let them make up their own mind about evolution, about whether they are just another smart monkey or ...
Apparently not all humans are "smart monkeys".
What a stupid post. Whatshappening, did you ever get past high school?
Put organized prayer back in the schools and evolutionary BS will eventually devolve.
@ Tom : I have a masters degree and a white collar job that puts me in the top 10% bracket in this country.
It will help to have people be respectful to each other not call each other 'goofus' or insinuate that they are high school dropouts. If I see more such posts from you (or from anyone else), said person will be ignored.
All Im suggesting is that the kids are taught the inadequacies of Darwin's 'theory' . I guess kool-aid drinkers cant have that.
LOL. study evolutionary biology. all your questions will be answered scientifically. LOL.
Anyone care to prove me wrong on the flagellum argument? (personal insults otherwise.. which are the last refuge of someone who cant defend themselves!)
Whats. what makes you think that they aren't being taught the holes? And even if there are some minor holes, does it matter? Science is finding about what we don't know, and that's what makes it great. Religious people have a cognitive dissonance that allows them to ignore the holes of religion.
"I have a masters degree and blahahahhahhablahaha". Yeah, right. And I'm the Queen of England. Today is my Diamond Jubilee. Hop on across the pond and help me celebrate.
See how that works?
Tom = schoolyard bully. click IGNORE.
modus operandi :
– call victim a goofus and other names
– say whatever victim says is stupid
– insinuate that victm is undeducated, etc etc.
One thing that a bully does NOT do is
– answer any challenges head on with words to disprove the challenge
One cant win against a bully. see ya!
@WhatsHappening –
Here you go...
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html
Have a read and let us all know if you want to continue holding-on to that bit of bunk.
BTW – If you have any problems with understanding the text, you can easily find video on youtube that will explain it for you.
@WhatsHappening –
For clarity, my previous post was with regard to your flagellum post.
What'sHappening sez: Wahahhahha! I don't like it when Tom says I'm nuts. I'm gonna take my ball and go home. WAhhahah!
Very impressive.
Poor little Whatsits. It needs to wave its hanky and flounce off in a huff whilst blaming its retreat on another poster. Oh, and it thinks it has an IGNORE BUTTON on this forum. I guess it's never learned to scroll or scram. Poor baby.
@Really-O
Flagellum has OM, PG and IM at the base
article says TTSS is same as teh base of flagellum but it has OM, PP and CM.
I dont see how they are the same.
@WhatsHappening, Does your master's degree happen to be from Liberty or Bob Jones University? I suggest you read Richard Dawkin's "Blind Watchmaker" for answers to your post. I'm not sure where you're getting your ideas from but science has already refuted your perspective.
I wonder if Whatsits has been in a high school biology class in the last decade, in a school system that actually produces graduates that are literate. What would make the dumbazz think that students aren't being shown that there are still many questions as to how evolution occurs?
Sorry whatshappening, but people with masters degrees do not spell protein incorrectly. Or uneducated. Or from (in fact my three year old doesn't spell from wrong ).
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/3994630/bacterial_flagellum_a_sheer_wonder_of_intelligent_design/
shows the real complexity behind all this. so all this happened by chance huh? I stick to my story.
@whatsHappening:
Your master's degree must be in sociology or history or english or one of the other sciences. My guess is that you also had about $1000,000 in student loans in order to take your white collar job or $25,000 per year. I have an IQ of 73 and I know baloney when I hear it, see it or read it. What you said is baloney. If I live to be 13 years old, I will never understand why it is that people since the years +/- 850 continue to believe that some cloud-based guy with a white robe, whiskers down to his crack, a shepherd's staff taller than he is and only one tooth created everything in six days (that's another embarrassing amount of time for an omnipotent guy) and has preplanned and monitors every moment of every moment and who will send you to the eternal lake of fire if you will not let the strange men who appear at your door in the dead of night have their way with your daughters. It is truly bizarro land.
Oh, Jen, thanks for pointing out the bit about "protien" (sic). I meant to do that, but there were so many other issues with Whatsits posts that I forgot.
@WhatsHappening – regarding: "I dont see how they are the same."
Thanks for being honest. Try actually reading then entire article. If that doesn't work, check out youtube.
@WhatsHappening – "I stick to my story."
I guess it's true...you can't cure stupid.
Ok So I had a typo. sorry. I meant protein. Did any of you see the video I found explaining the complexity in how its built and used (e.g. bacteria with hook for > 55 nm cant swim and die, and there is a mechanism of measuring 55nm.
@WhatsHappening, Apparently you will stick to not furthering your education by stepping outside of your comfort zone as well. We atheist suffer through the bible and your pseudo-scientists time and time again so we can be better educated on your position. Is it too much to ask the same from you?
Oh, please. Don't bother with the "it was a typo" excuse, Whatsadoofus. You can't write worth beans. Why can't you reveal your degree and the "university" from whence it came, dear? Scared it will out you as a complete and utter fraud?
@ Tom
University of Maryland College Park : M.S. in aeronautical engineering. This had one of the few rotorcraft research centers in the US. I did my research in Structural part. i.e. how to best build an airplane.
Happy?
I think I'm going to stop flying.
@WhatsHappening, I think it's fair to ask what year? There have been a lot of advances in the last 20-30 years, so if you're not constantly reading up on the science you will get left behind.
Nope. I don't believe a word of it, Whatsits. You're a complete nutcase. You don't have any such degree. If you did, you wouldn't be here broadcasting your utter idiocy on a blog.
From An Index to Creationist Claims
Claim CB200.1.1:
Evolutionists propose that irreducibly complex systems can arise by co-option of parts from other existing systems. But approximately thirty of the proteins needed for the bacterial flagellum are unique to it; closely similar proteins are not found in other living systems. Thus, there is apparently no place they could have been co-opted from.
Response:
The claim is simply false. Of the twenty proteins in the archetypal Salmonella bacterial flagellum which appear to be required in all bacterial flagella, only two have no known hômologies, that is, are "unique". It is at least plausible that hômologies for those will be discovered later. At least nine flagellar proteins are hômologous to proteins of the Type-III secretion system (T3SS), suggesting the two evolved from a common ancestor. Regardless, the existence of many hômologous proteins shows that the parts of the flagellum can function for purposes other than motility (Pallen and Matzke 2006).
There is no such thing as "the" bacterial flagellum. There are thousands, perhaps millions, of varieties among different bacteria, not to mention other very different kinds of flagella on archaebacteria and eukaryotes. The Salmonella flagellum, for example, has 22 additional proteins which some other bacteria lack in their flagella. Do design proponents suggest that each was a separate creation, or did they evolve? (Pallen and Matzke 2006).
Links:
Matzke, Nick, 2006. Flagellum evolution in Nature Reviews Microbiology. http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/09/flagellum_evolu.html
References:
Pallen, Mark J. and Nicholas J. Matzke. 2006. From The Origin of Species to the origin of bacterial flagella. Nature Reviews Microbiology, Sept. 5 (epub. ahead of print).
Further Reading:N. J. 2003. Evolution in (Brownian) space: A model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum.
Why do you fundiots lie?
@whatshappening- if you truly have a Masters Degree from a reputable, accredited university (and not one from Liberty University), and a white collar job that puts you in the top 10%, then why the frick are you posting on a CNN comments board? Seems like you shouldnt have the time or need to do that. Go back to your fine mansion and ponder how you, an ostensibly wealthy person, will be able to enter the Kingdom of God? Try stuffing a camel through the eye of a needle pal. Better way to occupy your time than posting on CNN.com. Or donate to charity, but either way, you seem to be wasting your presumably valuable time.
Oh, please. If that fool got into UMD, he did it long ago. University of MD is far more selective now, and no one as stupid as this git would ever gain entry, much less graduate.
He's a complete sham.
I was ay UMD between 1998 and 2000, and still work in the rotorcraft (thats helicopter for the layman) area in a major metro area in the US. If you want to authenticate my degree, in my class there were many indian and chinese graduate students. Sigh, americans didnt go to grad school those days. Also, I lived in graduate apartments called 'Grad Hills' at Adelphi Rd and 193.
@Staneck : I am posting because I feel like it. It's a free country. I do NOT believe that the world was created in 6 days. However, I am keeping an open mind as to whether evolution explains everything. Unlike some of you who are not keeping an open mind.
Nope. Sorry, Whatsits. You can claim to be anyone you wish on the web. I don't believe a word of your claims. Anyone with an education that thinks that creationism is a valid explanation for the universe never got any degree worthy of the name. UMD should sue your azz for defamation.
@Whatsis: Indian and Chinese grad students don't "authenticate" a degree. LMAO. One can google "grad hills." LOL. Sorry, pal, you must be one of those few that snuck thru the Graduate Programs without a lick of real-life experience or common sense. You probably have pretty decent technical skills, though, or at least above the "layman."
Neither does an advanced degree "authenticate" the insubstantial and fatuous claims you are making here. Jerry Falwell (perhaps you've heard of him?) held several advanced degrees, but, as the good Christopher Hitchens once opined, "If you gave falwell an enema he could be buried in a matchbox." It doesn't take a person having a Master's Degree to understand the statement, so I'm sure you'll have no problem either way.
@ Stanek:
"Sorry, pal, you must be one of those few that snuck thru the Graduate Programs without a lick of real-life experience or common sense."
With the help of my CPA, in 2011 I paid 13.6% of my income as combined federal + state tax. in 2012 it was 15.8. Does that look like someone with no real life experience or common sense? Minimizing my tax exposure like that?
Unless you post your real name, address and SSN, dude, you could be anyone. What kind of moron are you, that you don't get that?
@WhatsHappening, I for one will concede that you are probably who you are claiming to be. However this only serves to increase the incredulity that I feel regarding the education process in America. How you could get out of a school like that and still believe what you believe requires denial to such a degree that it saddens me to think that you are probably not alone in this behavior. If you've gone this far and still can't see the reality that is so obviously staring you in the face, you are likely lost to us.
as long as the creationists aren't wasting time in a lab or in charge of scientific or medical policy, i'm fine with this.
Why not teach the controversy and allow kids to make up yheir own mind?
@WhatsHappening –
1. There is no controversy in the scientific community regarding whether or not evolution is a fact. Those who tell you there is are being dishonest.
2. Throwing ideas at children and letting "make up their own minds" is NOT education.
Because this isn't a matter of opinion, you simple-minded goofus. Evolutionary theory is based on science, not belief. Creationism has nothing to back it up but the Bible. It isn't science. It's faith. It has no place in a science class. It can only be approached in class that discusses religious beliefs.
@WhatsHappening, are you that dumb that you think children should really make up their own mind about the sciences? That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've heard a person make. Children go to school to be told how the world works. It's not a democratic meeting where 12 year olds sit around and discuss why physics isn't really necessary, and take votes on whether or not leprechauns actually have gold pots at the end of rainbows.
Hahhah, GFN! That was stupendous!
@Whatshappening: then why not also teach the contoversy that Al Qaeda thinks the U.S. is Satan's tool, and let kids make up their minds? Because you have to draw the line somewhere, pal. That's why it's a public school, where teachers don't pander to specific religious belief systems, but go by the views of the MAJORITY of the non-religiously-affiliated scholastic communities. It shouldn't scare you that kids aren't taught the myths of the Old Testament in public school. It should just make people like you work harder to educate your kids and their friends on what you think the truth really entails. After school. Or, you could simply enroll them in the Southern Baptist, white collar, top 10% Christian Private School down the street from your house, where they'll get all the indoctrination they could ever want.
WhatsHappening
Creationism isn't science, that's why. It's a religious position, best left for Sunday school. Intelligent Design bills itself as science, but what science does it do? Where are it's experiments into how God created the universe? Where are it's measurements in how much energy God must have amassed in order to create the universe? Where are it's theories as to how all the species radiated out from one central point to end up in distant locations sometimes, in the cases of lemurs, penguins, kangaroos, and others, in places very far away from the Mid East, leaving no representatives along the way? It can't be a science without doing any science, so why should intelligent design belong in a classroom?
Darwin firmly believed in gradual change
Charles Darwin understood that evolution was a slow and gradual process. By gradual, Darwin did not mean "perfectly smooth," but rather, "stepwise," with a species evolving and accumulating small variations over long periods of time until a new species was born. He did not assume that the pace of change was constant, however, and recognized that many species retained the same form for long periods. pbs.org
Darwin acknowledged that rapid change could occur in isolated instances; however that was not the norm:
He who believes that some ancient form was transformed suddenly through an internal force or tendency into, for instance, one furnished with wings, will be almost compelled to assume, in opposition to all analogy, that many individuals varied simultaneously. It cannot be denied that such abrupt and great changes of structure are widely different from those which most species apparently have undergone. He will further be compelled to believe that many structures beautifully adapted to all the other parts of the same creature and to the surrounding conditions, have been suddenly produced; and of such complex and wonderful co-adaptations, he will not be able to assign a shadow of an explanation. He will be forced to admit that these great and sudden transformations have left no trace of their action on the embryo. To admit all this is, as it seems to me, to enter into the realms of miracle, and to leave those of science. Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species
Darwin felt that the reason we didn’t have this evidence of finely gradated change was that the fossil record was incomplete:
The geological record is extremely imperfect and this fact will to a large extent explain why we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all the extinct and existing forms of life by the finest graduated steps. He who rejects these views on the nature of the geological record, will rightly reject my whole theory. Darwin, C. (1872) The Origin of Species
In the past 30 years however, the scientific community has been forced to acknowledge that the fossil record in no way reflects darwins notion of phyletic gradualism:
“When Darwin published his Origin of Species nearly three decades later, he explicitly rejected the role of catastrophic change in natural selection: “The old notion of all the inhabitants of the Earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up,” he wrote. Instead, Darwin outlined a theory of evolution based on the ongoing struggle for survival among individuals within populations of existing species. This process of natural selection, he argued, should lead to gradual changes in the characteristics of surviving organisms.
However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin’s theory that “most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment.” NYU.edu
The question remains, what are the processes that explain stasis followed by rapid bursts of change?
Why does the gene pool of a species "wobble about the genetic mean" (stasis) for millions and millions of years, then WHAM ,EVERYTHING explodes in one grand paroxysm of necessarily reliant mutations that produce a new species.
An atheist says "well.. ah... em... you know, given enough time anything can happen"
A theist says " do you think it coincidence that this is the exact sequence of events that the bible describes?"
@Chad-Good Post!
oopsy, forgot the 🙂
Chad....thankyou for stating the obvious!!!!!!! Some people just want there to be a God, but He cannot be argued away, He is a fact!!!
Chad
A "WHAM", like the Cambrian explosion, was still millions of years long, right? Plenty of time for life to adapt to a sudden change in the global environment, or some other cause. Don't misrepresent it as though it were some magician's magic trick, or something.
Wisdom
How is God's actual existence a "fact"? How has it been proven beyond any shadow of a doubt?
@Cq –
No! You're intelligent...why did you take the bait? Chad has no intention of engaging in an honest exchange of ideas and he will never go away if he keeps being rewarded with the attention he craves.
I'm confused, why does Darwin have to be 100% right in order for the theory of evolution to have any legs? Darwin came up with a theory that was beautiful and had the ring of truth. The fossil record has show that although darwin might not have been 100% correct, mammals having common ancestry is still correct in of itself. There is no claim of infallibility for Darwin or his theory and so he can be changed given evidence.
Also, Cq makes the point "WHAM" and the cambrian explosion still takes millions of years, it happens relatively fast on a large scale, but in time as we experience it, change when painstakingly slow. It's a ll a matter of perspective.
Also, your last little line about genesis being correct, please show me how it's possible for the earth to be created before the sun?
@Failure to communicate –
Now you've done it...prepare yourself for a gish-gallop of copy&paste, selective-quotation-meant-to-mislead, and argument devoid of reason from the most dishonest poster on this blog...Chad. Don't say I didn't warn you.
@Really-O
Thanks for the heads up, I've done my fair share of debate with Chad and it's always been quite clear that if he were arguing a certain type of evolution he may have made a good point here or there, but since his arguments almost always lead back to "god did it" because the answers presented so far don't satisfy him, Chad is pretty terrible at articulating his position and comprehending his own fallacies when he thinks he's so good at point out other fallacies.
As I see it, the more chad tries to copy and paste and then is promptly put in his place, the more others can learn from the thread and refine their way of thinking as well (Chad's other handles urging him on not withstanding).
@Failure to communicate –
Good points. Understood. My main concern is that Chad's dishonest misrepresentation of the works of good scientists (Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, Krauss, etc.) is bound to lead those on this blog without adequate education in the sciences to accept Chad's dishonesty and conclude that science supports the nonsense he spews. I think that is a valid concern.
@Really-O
Absolutely, I am very concerned myself, it's my opinion though that dishonestly and ignorance must be uncovered and laid bare before being corrected. This is why I continually ask Chad to actually state his opinion instead of copy and pasting. You make a valid point though and I agree.
Cq "A "WHAM", like the Cambrian explosion"
=>no
WHAM refers to the burst of change in a single species.
Gould posited 10-30k years for that, it has to be a short enough time period to explain why it always escapes the fossilization process (which is a rare event, but no more relatively rare during that short time period than during the stasis time period where many fossils are observed).
Cambrian explosion showed appearance of most animal phyla, however within a species stasis reigned during that time period.
@Failure to communicate – regarding: "Chad's other handles urging him on not withstanding"
HAAA! Transparent and ridiculous, isn't it? I know about the A.K.A.s "Rachel" and "Davey", but today was the first time I've seen him use "Shiloh". I will admit, the fact that he continues the sham, even though he's been called-out numerous times, is starting to seem a bit creepy or, at least, pathetic.
@Failure to communicate – "This is why I continually ask Chad to actually state his opinion instead of copy and pasting"
Isn't it interesting how dramatically the quality of Chad's posts degrades when they are in his own words?
Really-O?, Failure to co@mmunicate "Chad's dishonest misrepresentation of the works of good scientists (Dawkins, Gould, Hawking, Krauss, etc.)"
=>I realize this i the internet, and of course anyone can spout whatever nonsense they want.
however
at some point, don't you think you need to provide some data illustrating this "dishonesty"?
or, do you plan on just continuing to make that unsubstantiated claim?
just curious..
Chad, take me now!
Chad
My pleasure, where in any of Gould, Dawkins, Darwins, Krauss, et al's work does it point towards there being a creator, let alone the god from the bible? You make as.sumptions, your "evidence" being that the evidence for the other side does not crack up to standards. Using the work of one expert on evolution to refute another expert on evolution in no way "proves" anything for creationism.
Like I stated above, if you were not a believer and you were using these citations to back up your claims on evolution, then it would be a solid debate about the ins and outs of the theory, not the veracity. Do you see the difference?
@Really-O
I do find it hilarious when someone talks about how they love Darwin and chad attempts to discredit him with evidence from other evolutionist experts, but when asked what he believes that's when the nonsense kicks in (a.k.a. genesis is a true account of creation, the earth is thousands of years old, etc...). It's precious that he attempts to use science and logic to refute science and logic, but when turned on his own beliefs, that old "faith" thing rears its ugly head, or he tries an ad hominem attack on a person or all atheists when all his other tools are exhausted.
@Failure to communicate –
It's a bit more ridiculous, and nefarious, than that. Chad isn't simply proposing that scientific disagreements cancel-each-other-out; he actually hijacks and per.verts the theories and good works of scientists (non-believers all – at least those I've noted) and claims they support the nebulous and insupportable claims of his holy books. That's not only dishonest and delusional, it's despi.cable.
@Failure to communicate –
Just for clarity, my last post was with regard to your next-to-last post.
Cheers
Chad
Ah, the old "punctuated equilibrium" criticism of Gould. Remember that he didn't think that it could justly be used by creationists to discredit evolution.
"Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." Stephen J. Gould
Cq, you lay off my Chad with your reason and intelligence!
Uh oh, people have begun to counter chad, I guess he will soon reappear with another copy and pasted post later on and disregard this thread..... womp womp.
My Chad is PERFECT!! He will answer your challenges! I trust him with my very life!
And I WILL bear his children!!!
Rachel, Love ya sweetie.
Cheers!
Oh, darling! I'm sorry, but my heart belongs to Chad.
Rachel-My darling! come to me.
Hell hath no fury like a man scorned.
Cheers!
But I cannot leave my CHAD hanging! 😉
Trust me darling you will have more fun with me and we can shake our naughty bits like there is no tomorrow.
Cheers!
@Failure to communicate "My pleasure, where in any of Gould, Dawkins, Darwins, Krauss, et al's work does it point towards there being a creator, let alone the god from the bible? You make as.sumptions, your "evidence" being that the evidence for the other side does not crack up to standards. Using the work of one expert on evolution to refute another expert on evolution in no way "proves" anything for creationism."
@Chad "you have perhaps lost touch with the discussion..
Lets review:
Darwin proposed gradualism, a view that held sway for over a hundred years despite the lack of fossil evidence support for it. Darwin appeals to an incomplete fossil record as explanation.
Gould in 1972 publishes landmark paper on PE, excoriates paleontologists for failing to acknowledge that lack of support, noting that the fossil record consistently shows abrupt appearance of species fully formed.
Dawkins: I have never mentioned...
Krauss I have discussed on other threads with cosmological topics only in the context of the "you cant get something from nothing" as he disingenuously says.
Never have I said any of those 4 supported creationism, indeed they are all rabidly anti-creationism. I merely pointed out that
gould nailed phyletic gradualism..
right?
😉
I accept your apology, no worries, happy to have sorted it out.
@Cq "Ah, the old "punctuated equilibrium" criticism of Gould. Remember that he didn't think that it could justly be used by creationists to discredit evolution. "Since we proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups." Stephen J. Gould
@Chad "I suggest you read your post again, you are conflating several concepts, as a result you arent making sense.
-Gould (rightly) criticizes creationists who attempt to use his PE to claim there are no transitional forms
-Gould devastated Darwins theories, phyletic gradualism is dead.
-Gould would NOT object to anyone using his research to state that new species appear fully formed in the fossil record (which is what I do).
Right?
Well Chad, please do not hold you breath if you really are expecting an apology, it won't be happening. You have indeed pointed out what these experts have said, out of context I might add, but considering in my earlier post I never said you believed these people supported creationism. You try to use these people in order to support your own creationism, but that is clearly not the case as you and I both know.
I'll say it before and I'll say it again, using science and logic in a discussion about evolution and the ins and outs of the theory is fine, however using science and logic from these experts to try and support your own side of creationism is, at best, incredibly dishonest. If you were to turn that cynical nature on your own beliefs, I know you would find any sort of biblical account wanting, but instead you have chosen to turn a blind eye when it comes to shining a light on your own and instead try to get me worked up, or attack my character or imply apologies from me when I have none. It's a shame I have to disappoint you Chad, but until you are either willing to either give up like a bunch of these other believers who claim the "faith" and "belief" excuse and turn your nose up at evidence, or better yet, embrace the evidence and understand that the bible and scientific evidence can not be reconciled.
@Chad
I do not mean to speak for Cq so he can differ with me, however like I have said before. Your previous post is right that Gould would not mind if his works are used in pursuit of refining evolutionary theory, but you are not using it that. You are trying to use Gould's work to essentially disprove his lives work (a.k.a. what he hated).
Now Chad, if you truly believe that evolution is fact, but you prescribe to Gouldian type of evolution vs. other theories that have been set forth, that is acceptable and we can debate on the merits of both sides. However, if you are trying to insert your own bias of a creator, specifically the god of the bible, well then you are not using Gould's work in an honest manner like you claim.
@Failure to communicate "I'll say it before and I'll say it again, using science and logic in a discussion about evolution and the ins and outs of the theory is fine, however using science and logic from these experts to try and support your own side of creationism is, at best, incredibly dishonest"
=>you're saying that I can reference scientific data only if I support the conclusions that those scientists drew when looking at that data?
And, I'm dishonest otherwise?
is that what you are saying?
really?
Chad, did you read what you quoted from me? I said you were being incredibly dishonest, which you are if you infer from scientific data conclusions that aren't supported there to begin with. Please show me where in Gould's work you could use his findings to support a creator, specifically the god of the bible. If you can't (which I highly suspect), then it's being dishonest, which is what I said.
Please understand my posts before trying to counter an argument that does not exist.
@Failure to communicate & Cq –
This time Chad is not only being dishonest, he's also lying. Above he stages:"
"Gould would NOT object to anyone using his research to state that new species appear fully formed in the fossil record (which is what I do)."
...however, in the past, on this very blog, he stated:
'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'
Looks to me like the second statement is at odds with the first.
"Above he stages" should, of course, read "Above he states".
I don't really think anyone worth their intellectual salt actually takes Chad seriously, but I find dishonesty particularly repugnant and cowardly.
@Really-O
Awesome stuff. Have you used another handle on this blog or is this the only one you use?
And I agree, Chad's intellectual dishonesty is just sad and pathetic but you got to admire his perseverance.
So if a bacterium mutates and becomes antibiotic resistant, it's because God made it that way? Wow. God must be a sicko. Whose side is He on?
Creationists: I suggest you prove us wrong by never going to the doctor, never immunizing yourselves and never subjecting yourself to 'scientific' medical care!
@Failure to communicate " I said you were being incredibly dishonest, which you are if you infer from scientific data conclusions that aren't supported there to begin with."
@Chad "wow.. indeed you are claiming that unless a person supports the conclusions another scientist draws, they cant reference their work
Honestly,, that's a pretty astonishing statement.
For the record, I have said over and over.. and over and over
Gould showed the fossil record doesnt reflect gradualism, rather that new species appear fully formed.
The bible says that same thing
You dont have a leg to stand on attempting to find some measure of dishonesty in that logic. End of story.
@Really-O?
"Gould would NOT object to anyone using his research to state that new species appear fully formed in the fossil record (which is what I do)."
...however, in the past, on this very blog, he stated:
'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'
Looks to me like the second statement is at odds with the first.
=>really?
how?
Chad
Can you please point out to me in any statement I've made thus far that you have to agree with the scientists you are citing in order to use their work to further your own. As far as I can see, I did not but I DID point out how intellectually dishonest it is to use someones work to infer conclusions that are not stated. So again I say over and over..... and over and over again, it's intellectually dishonest to try and prove evolution to be false by using an evolutionists work which only seeks to fill the theory in with a different alternative. For you to use Gould's work as a way to discuss creationism and that god was present during the Cambrian Explosion is not supported by Gould or any other scientific finding, it's only your opinion, and a shoddy opinion at that.
-You dont you have to agree with the scientists you are citing in order to use their work to further your own.
-You cant use someones work to infer conclusions that are not stated [presumably conclusions the scientist didnt share]
good luck trying to fit a needle between those to statements. They are virtually identical.
Is that needle the size of the universe? Do you not see the difference? For instance, I can look at the work of say, Joseph Mengele and the amount of findings of human anatomy and so on that I can agree with without having to agree with all his work ( as we both know, a lot of the "science" he had on jews was pure propaganda) however (here's the needle) I can't use his work to then infer that humans used to have two opposable thumbs. Get it? The way you are using Gould's work is to prove your creationism, even though Gould in no way supports creationism nor is there anything in his findings that points to creationism. The "no transitional fossils" that you cling to like a life raft in no way points towards a conclusion of creationism the only thing that it directly addresses is Darwin's gradualism. The fact that you pervert that idea to fit your own agenda without taking it a step further but only imposing your opinion is still, like I said, dishonest.
@Failure to communicate " I can look at the work of say, Joseph Mengele and the amount of findings of human anatomy and so on that I can agree with without having to agree with all his work ( as we both know, a lot of the "science" he had on jews was pure propaganda) however (here's the needle) I can't use his work to then infer that humans used to have two opposable thumbs. Get it?"
@Chad "well, of course you are incredibly incorrect
of course you could use that data to put forth a case that humans at one point had 2 opposable thumbs. Obviosly you would be incorrect, and review of your reasoning would demonstrate that, but calling it "dishonest" to try to make some case based on data is a blatant and dishonest attempt to restrict the uses/outcomes of data
which is of course, completely and totally unscientific.
right?
you cant restrict theories being presented (which is what you are trying to do), just because you disagree with them. You have to deal with the data and counter the argument based on the data. That's basic scientific review guidelines
@Failure to communicate " The way you are using Gould's work is to prove your creationism, even though Gould in no way supports creationism nor is there anything in his findings that points to creationism.
@chad "again, his position on creationism does not in any way restrict who can use his data, or the conclusions that can be posited base on that.
Deal with the data.
@Failure to communicate "The "no transitional fossils" that you cling to like a life raft in no way points towards a conclusion of creationism the only thing that it directly addresses is Darwin's gradualism. The fact that you pervert that idea to fit your own agenda without taking it a step further but only imposing your opinion is still, like I said, dishonest."
@Chad "good grief, your reading comprehension stinks..
reread the post
I make no arguments based on presence/absence of transitional fossils.. it was not part of my argument in any way shape or form. You brought it in to the discussion.
get it?
Chad
Can you please help me understand after I said you were being dishonest and dishonestly using Gould's how you jumped to me telling you that you have to agree with everything Gould believes and that I am restricting you from scientific hypothesis? Claiming your dishonesty in no way implies either of those things, nor can I find in any previous post saying those, so please show me how you jumped to those conclusions? You tell me I can only argue data with you, but here's the rub, the data your using is what I'm using. We essentially agree except for the fact that you stop using any data and make huge, illogical leaps to your final conclusion. So show me, in Gould's data, where it supports creationism. Not rejects certain parts of evolution, not supports a certain type of evolution, but has in it that the earth is younger than a couple billion years, or that man is not descended from a common ancestor with the rest of the earths mammals but in fact appeared fully formed and we still look identical to those first people in the ME from 1,000's of years ago. If you can do that then I'll tip my hat to you and start using other data to prove you incorrect, however you have yet to do so. The best, and most dishonest, way you've done so is point out some of Gould's quotes as a way to show gaps in Darwin's theory and then take a huge leap, without any proof, to get to your creationist ideas. Savvy?
As for the latter part, Chad, this is what I have continually tried, over and over..... and over and over and over and over again to ask you to do. State your position and don't make it my job to infer your opinion. If I'm the one bring the absence of no "transitional fossils" into the conversation and that is not your stance, then please state your stance instead of playing the "I didn't say that you're putting words in my mouth" game, alright? It gets awfully tiring.
Look, I'll go slow.. Lets start with this:
What am I doing that you claim is dishonest? You said:
"For instance, I can look at the work of say, Joseph Mengele and the amount of findings of human anatomy and so on that I can agree with without having to agree with all his work ( as we both know, a lot of the "science" he had on jews was pure propaganda) however (here's the needle) I can't use his work to then infer that humans used to have two opposable thumbs. Get it?
the key part is : "I can't use his work to then infer that humans used to have two opposable thumbs
right?
so, explain WHY I can't use his work to support my ficticious claim that humans used to have two opposable thumbs.
is it because:
A. that claim isnt supported by Mengeles data
or
B. That wasnt a claim that Mengele was making, it wasnt a conclusion he was drawing, it wasnt a position he supported.
A or B?
I'm glad we're going to slow so you can finally keep up. Also, thank you for using my example. You keeping harping on me saying you can't use Gould's work, I'm saying and have been saying that if we're going to boil down to technicalities, you have every right to use his work however I believe it's dishonest. In this ficti.tious example, Mengele never mentions man having two opposable thumbs, never references it and if we were to go a step further has actually said many times that he has taken a position against humans having two opposable thumbs. Now, could I then delve into his work and attempt to extract my own theories involving that? Sure, as you have every liberty to do the same with Goulds. What you aren't processing however is that in this example as well as Gould as a whole, there work is bias towards one viewpoint. Thus far your use of Gould's work only goes as far as to disprove an as.sertion by an atheist who claims one type of evolution and you want to show there's a competing side within the theory, however you leave that data, logic and science behind when you attempt to tie it to your own opinion involving the bible and like I have asked a lot, show me within Gould's data that supports the argument you are trying to make whatever that argument is. Instead of playing this game where I try to guess it, hows about you just say it in clear and concise words. Let me help you get started:
Your argument, if you choose to accept it, could sound like this, " Gould states, "XYZ Citation", this data proves the account of genesis to be correct because of ABC reason. I support this theory with back up from "Gould's Data inserted here" and that's why evolution is the tool of a creator. I contend this creator to specifically be the god of the bible because "insert account of genesis here" (this is where it gets dicey as I have yet to see in any version of the bible I've read that talks about animals slowly diverging over millions of years, survival of the fittest and all that, but maybe thats just me) and this is where the bible states that god has directly had a hand in how we know life on earth came into being today. Namely evolution began by the God of Abraham because of this piece of evidence by Gould and this passage in the bible."
See how that works? So far the most you've done on this blog is half-as.s it and state the beginning part but have yet to back up the actual outlandish part of the claim. Instead, you opt to make the as.sertion and wait for a person to disagree with you so then you can either start inserting your winking emoticons, your, "I didn't say that, you're putting words in my mouth" retorts, your copy/paste paragraphs that you have on hand instead of your own replies and false smugness.
Please use the provided template to actually state your position and how Gould's work fits into to supporting your own theory. On the other hand, you can not actually make the logical tie in between one work (Gould's) and the other (The bible), which I suspect you can't, then we arrive back to your dishonesty which is very apparent to everyone except you and your beau Rachel.
ok, all of that was to say you're going with 'B'
B. That wasnt a claim that Mengele was making, it wasnt a conclusion he was drawing, it wasnt a position he supported.
which of course is nonsense, and certainly not dishonest.
anyone can use anyones data to attempt to support ANY CLAIM. The claim can certainly be wrong, or right, or unproven.. it really doesnt matter. The thing you cant do of course, is restrict what someone uses data for.
that's what science is all about. Right?
This isnt north korea..
So you didn't read my post? Please read then respond, not the other way around.
Shoot, that was supposed to be from me.
Prove me wrong chad, Use this and spell out exactly what you've been trying to say on this blog:
Your argument, if you choose to accept it, could sound like this, " Gould states, "XYZ Citation", this data proves the account of genesis to be correct because of ABC reason. I support this theory with back up from "Gould's Data inserted here" and that's why evolution is the tool of a creator. I contend this creator to specifically be the god of the bible because "insert account of genesis here" (this is where it gets dicey as I have yet to see in any version of the bible I've read that talks about animals slowly diverging over millions of years, survival of the fittest and all that, but maybe thats just me) and this is where the bible states that god has directly had a hand in how we know life on earth came into being today. Namely evolution began by the God of Abraham because of this piece of evidence by Gould and this passage in the bible."
ok, so:
1) we have established that it is perfectly fine to use another scientists data to support any good, bad, crazy, sound argument one wishes. To do so may be correct, or incorrect, but the ability to do so is what science is all about.
given that, can you please desist with the mickey mouse "dishonesty" stuff.
2) Next step, is what I am claiming correct? Using your template:
Gould states, "species appear fully formed in the fossil record [1] ", this data demonstrates that Darwins notion of phyletic gradualism was incorrect being inconsistent with the fossil record.
PE has the feature of being consistent with the fossil record, however It introduces a difficulty in understanding precisely how so many neccessarily reliant mutations could happen in such a short period of time. When viewing the mechanism for change (random mutation) an enormous probability problem arises. Why would mutations that had been weeded out of a gene pool for millions of years (stasis Gould [1]) wobbling about the genetic mean (Goudl [1]) then all of a sudden we see an explosion of surviving, coordinated and beneficial mutations?
I see supernatural intervention as the only rational explanation of this phenomena. I contend this creator to specifically be the God of Abraham because God has demonstrated his reality by his interaction with the nation of Israel, and by sending his Son Jesus Christ to this earth, who's resurrection from the dead demonstrates His divine nature. He alone is the only force capable of imposing the kind of order neccessary to produce fully formed species appearing in the fossil record.
[1] Punctuated equilibria: an alternative to phyletic gradualism" (1972)
Goody, you finally have stated an argument and now we can really begin. Thank you.
Before we do so, the "dishonesty" stuff I was referring to is the way you use Gould's comments to imply that that there is a creator, which is dishonest. I'm not the only one who thinks so, so whether or not you meant to, it's how it's presented and why I keep going back to the dishonesty thing.
Now for the meat of it. Your use of Gould's data and suggestion that species are popping up full formed must have divine nature behind it does not address the divine properties that the other religions gods claim to also have. I know you've already heard this so I won't go too far in depth but your opinion that it must be the god of abraham is only because the bible says that god is omnipotent even though Ra, Ahura Mazda, and many other gods have made the claim as well.
That's just one of my questions but we can just start with that for now. Gould's as.sertions are interesting and fun to delve into, but this being the belief blog and all I'll stick the religious aspect more. The other part of this is, what supernatural event have you witnessed so far that leads you to believe the supernatural exists and can (and should) be used as a rational explanation?
@Failure to communicate –
Lest you become bogged-down in yet another one of Chad's quagmires, you really need to have him define the term "data" as he uses it. It's pretty clear from his statement below that he is not using the term in the way it is used in the sciences –
"The thing you cant do of course, is restrict what someone uses data for. that's what science is all about. Right? This isnt north korea.."
@Failure to communicate "Now for the meat of it. Your use of Gould's data and suggestion that species are popping up full formed must have divine nature behind it does not address the divine properties that the other religions gods claim to also have. "
=>so I guess thats the signal that you have conceded the point.. as I specifically broke that out into two parts, I'll reproduce it again here for you. Do some reading..
Chad said earlier: "Gould states,
1. "species appear fully formed in the fossil record [1] ", this data demonstrates that Darwins notion of phyletic gradualism was incorrect being inconsistent with the fossil record.
2. PE has the feature of being consistent with the fossil record, however It introduces a difficulty in understanding precisely how so many neccessarily reliant mutations could happen in such a short period of time.
3. When viewing the mechanism for change (random mutation) an enormous probability problem arises. Why would mutations that had been weeded out of a gene pool for millions of years (stasis Gould [1]) wobbling about the genetic mean (Goudl [1]) then all of a sudden we see an explosion of surviving, coordinated and beneficial mutations?
4. I see supernatural intervention as the only rational explanation of this phenomena.
5. I contend this creator to specifically be the God of Abraham because God has demonstrated his reality by his interaction with the nation of Israel, and by sending his Son Jesus Christ to this earth, who's resurrection from the dead demonstrates His divine nature. He alone is the only force capable of imposing the kind of order neccessary to produce fully formed species appearing in the fossil record.
as you can see, I first contend that sudden appearance of species fully formed requires supernatural intervention.
I then indicate that the God of Abraham is the best explanation having made His presence known through Israel and Jesus.
in conclusion, your claims of dishonesty are w/out merit as shown.
Whether you like the case I build or not, it takes no ones statements or research out of context, nor does it infer that the author supports the statements I am making in any way shape or form..
Chad
Once I basically forced you to use this rubric to state your case, yes you are now being more honest and taking most of the onus upon yourself instead of heaping a lot of implication attached to Gould's data. When you finally separate yourself and your argument from Gould's work you are using his data more honestly. This was not the case in any previous post and I still stand by what I said.
However, you are now playing the, "ignore the questions asked" game. This game is where I challenge you with questions to back up specific claims, such as it being somehow "rational" to believe that it must be divine intervention and you counter with being offended that I pointed out your dishonesty and ignoring the real questions presented.
Please try again and this time answer my questions, thank you.
@Failure to communicate "Once I basically forced you to use this rubric to state your case, yes you are now being more honest and taking most of the onus upon yourself instead of heaping a lot of implication attached to Gould's data"
@Chad "oh absolutely I agree... It isnt like I made that crystal clear early on by saying something like:
Darwin proposed gradualism, a view that held sway for over a hundred years despite the lack of fossil evidence support for it. Darwin appeals to an incomplete fossil record as explanation.
Gould in 1972 publishes landmark paper on PE, excoriates paleontologists for failing to acknowledge that lack of support, noting that the fossil record consistently shows abrupt appearance of species fully formed.
Dawkins: I have never mentioned...
Krauss I have discussed on other threads with cosmological topics only in the context of the "you cant get something from nothing" as he disingenuously says.
Never have I said any of those 4 supported creationism, indeed they are all rabidly anti-creationism. I merely pointed out that gould nailed phyletic gradualism..
er.. wait.. I think I did say that..
any way..
@Failure to communicate "However, you are now playing the, "ignore the questions asked" game. This game is where I challenge you with questions to back up specific claims, such as it being somehow "rational" to believe that it must be divine intervention and you counter with being offended that I pointed out your dishonesty and ignoring the real questions presented."
@Chad "oh... my mistake.. I could have sworn the last thing you said was:
"Your use of Gould's data and suggestion that species are popping up full formed must have divine nature behind it does not address the divine properties that the other religions gods claim to also have. I know you've already heard this so I won't go too far in depth but your opinion that it must be the god of abraham is only because the bible says that god is omnipotent even though Ra, Ahura Mazda, and many other gods have made the claim as well.
to which I showed that indeed I was not using goulds data to support divine intervention.. as you then acknowledged.. Once I basically forced you to use this rubric to state your case, yes you are now being more honest and taking most of the onus upon yourself instead of heaping a lot of implication attached to Gould's data
perhaps you can point me to the post where you formulated a question?
😉
Chad,
You make me sad. You have, of course completely missed the entire point and once again tried to bog me down in idiotic technicality because your reading comprehension skills, denial or something else is stopping you from understanding the difference between presenting Gould's data without augmenting it with your own, and presenting Gould's data and asking the reader to infer an argument. As you've shown above when you say, "Gould nailed phyletic gradualism" great, that's all well and good, but when you present it without any of your own arguments it is (and believe I'm as tired typing this as you are at reading it) dishonest.
As for the latter portion of your answer, I'm sorry I forgot to add a question mark. When I pointed out that you have failed to show how this phyletic gradualism "rational" answer was divine but didn't cite why the god of abraham is any different than Ra, Thor, Ahura Mazda, etc... so let me rephrase so you understand more clearly. How is it that you consider the supernatural to be more rational than other answers? Furthermore can you please explain how your god is more supernatural than any other god past or present?
@Failure to communicate –
You, sir, are an articulate and insightful man with the patience of a saint (a non-believing saint, of course). Were I you, upon seeing Chad's five points completely decouple and derail at point four (not that there aren't flaws in points 1-3), I would have called Chad an asshat and put this one to bed. You do see, however, that Chad's ability to remain forthright and stick-to-task disintegrates when challenged...right? I assert you are once again on Chad's road to nowhere.
@Failure to Communicate "1) How is it that you consider the supernatural to be more rational than other answers?
2) Furthermore can you please explain how your god is more supernatural than any other god past or present?"
@Chad "For #1 as I said before:
-. When viewing the mechanism for change (random mutation) an enormous probability problem arises. Why would mutations that had been weeded out of a gene pool for millions of years (stasis Gould [1]) wobbling about the genetic mean (Goudl [1]) then all of a sudden we see an explosion of surviving, coordinated and beneficial mutations?
-. [failing any "natural" explanation] I see supernatural intervention as the only rational explanation of this phenomena.
in other words, there arent any other "naturalist" answers, so, like the origin of the universe, the solution must come from a force external to our universe.
For #2:
– I consider the God of Abraham real for the reasons I stated before, and restate below.
– since he is real and I believe what He says, I believe Him when he says there are no other gods than He. He is real, the others are fake.
I contend this creator to specifically be the God of Abraham because God has demonstrated his reality by his interaction with the nation of Israel, and by sending his Son Jesus Christ to this earth, who's resurrection from the dead demonstrates His divine nature.
@Failure to communicate –
Because it is pertinent to Chad's last post and, well, because it's just so damned ridiculous, I thought I'd provide you with another Chad-bite from this blog. Enjoy!
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
Chad merely uses pseudo-intellectual, and sometimes irrelevant arguments to justify an assumption that allows him to look for and lead what he perceives to be evidence for his beginning assumption. You can't argue with Chad since he is someone who refuses to abide by scientific or logical reasonings.
Just out of pure curiosity, why do you consider this statement ridiculous?
"I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
If I believe the God of Abraham is real, and that the bible is His word.. why is that statement ridiculous?
@Chad
Because it is circular reasoning. You need to accept your original premise that the arbrahamic god exists in order to justify believing that the bible is the word of god.
@HawaiiGuest –
You know you're wasting your time, right?
@Really
I'm not posting in an attempt to change Chad's mind. I make no illusions of how far gone Chad is, but I will still post the flaws in the hope that someone else will see it and perhaps at the least think more deeply about what they believe and why.
@HawaiiGuest "Because it is circular reasoning. You need to accept your original premise that the arbrahamic god exists in order to justify believing that the bible is the word of god."
=>while you are correct that one would need to accept the original premise that God exists, it is not circular reasoning any more than stating that our universe is the result of a multi-verse, or life on earth is the result of RNA world, or natural selection preserving random genetic mutation is the cause of the organic complexity we see. All have premises.
In all case, there is a premise.
@HawaiiGuest –
Point well taken. However, it seems to me that anyone capable of understanding and accepting your succinct (and correct) reply would already see Chad's assertion for the nonsense it is? No?
@HawaiiGuest –
Sorry...the second sentence was not a question.
@Really
Many people have never heard or examined the opposing views to their religions. And some could just be on the verge and holding on to certain aspects. It's not a necessary thing that they would see the flaws in his argument automatically.
@HawaiiGuest –
Again, point well taken. And it is kind of fun watching the cascade of nonsense that emanates from Chad when he's called out.
Cheers
@Chad
There's a difference in most of your examples, and that is that they are testable and confirmable, whereas your premise is untested, untestable, and has no foundation with which to explain anything. You are positing a mystery to answer a mystery, and it is faulty logic. You may want to lump in multiverse theory with evolution and abiogenesis, but that's merely a dishonest implied comparison on your part.
Your premise is also different from the way science actually operates, since we normally start with a hypothesis that can be tested, so really calling random mutation and natural selection a premise is completely off as well.
@HawaiiGuest –
...not to mention, in science you begin with a null hypothesis.
@HawaiiGuest "There's a difference in most of your examples, and that is that they are testable and confirmable"
@Chad "
A. How are you going to test the premise that the earth had a purely naturalistic origin? that something indeed did come from nothing?
On the other hand, I CAN test that the universe had a designer, as it is fine tuned for life, which is what you would expect from a designer, right?
B. more importantly, the fact that you are acknowledging that both claims are based on premises distinct from the claim (remember, you noted that your premise could be tested but mine couldnt) demonstrates that neither is circular reasoning.
Well, will you look at that...Chad caught being dishonest again. In his discussion with HawaiiGuest in this thread he asserts his asinine statement regarding the "god of Abraham" is "not circular", whereas previously he admits the exact same quote is circular and requires "re-phrasing" – http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/12/23/study-religious-americans-more-connected-with-community-than-non-religious-counterparts/comment-page-3/#comment-901757
"Chad
@Really-O? "Sweet! Another idiotic Chad-bite – "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real." How's that for circular reasoning?"
=>hmm.. perhaps.. let me re-phrase it as this
– Belief in any particular god is by definition mutually exclusive of all other gods
– The God of Abraham IS real
– by definition all others are fake."
December 24, 2011 at 10:21 pm | Report abuse |"
Damn I do love me some Chad nonsense! To "re-phrase" Forrest Gump, "Stupid is as Chad does." What a dishonest dou.che.
Busted! Again.
@Chad
Wow you really are a complete failure when it comes to logic and reason. I clearly made the distinction between a premise and a hypothesis, and the fact that the hypothesis of natural selection, abiogenesis, and cosmology are testable, whereas there is no test for your assertion of a god. Perhaps when you can actually hold a discussion in a honest manner, you will finally see how completely flawed your arguments are, not to mention your complete lack of being able to make a distinction between a premise and a hypothesis. Here's something to get you started, premise and hypothesis are two different words.
Regarding circular reasoning:
IF (as I noted in the earlier post, "perhaps") this statement is an example of circular reasoning ""I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real.
then,
this also is circular reasoning " life on earth is the result of RNA world,"
because: both have a premise(or if you want to call it a hypothesis fine, both can be tested ), namely:
1. God exists
2. Life on earth was created purely naturalistically with no supernatural intervention
take your pick both statements are formatted identically. They are either both examples of circular reasoning or they arent.
@Chad
Still can't figure out the difference between a premise and hypothesis I see. Well either way, in terms of your circular reasoning, you are deliberately ignoring your reasoning for thinking god has told you anything. This is stated when you say "If I believe the God of Abraham is real, and that the bible is His word", it is circular. The reason you believe the bible is his word because you accept the original premise of god existing to be real without any evidence, and the bible must be true when it says god is the only god because it says god doesn't lie. This is circular reasoning Chad, and your inability to actually see that is really astounding.
While abiogenesis may still be unkown at this point, and has no good explanation for life on this planet, this does not make supernatural claims right by default, that's just another faulty logic, since there hasn't ever been any confirmed supernatural events in history.
@HawaiiGuest
The reason people believe the RNA world theory is correct, is because they accept the original premise that the origin of life on this planet is purely naturalistic.
see?
The arguments are formatted identically. The only difference is you accept the one premise/hypothesis but not the other (the premise/hypothesis that God is real).
get it?
@Chad
The RNA world view merely states that self replicating RNA were the precursors to the more complex DNA lifeforms, due to it's ability to store transmit and duplicate genetic information, as well as it's ability to catalyze chemical reactions. This is not a huge leap by any means, yet there is not enough evidence to support it fully.
You are also making va.gue generalizations of "people" believing the RNA world view, and I'm wondering what people your talking about, and whether you actually realize that the RNA world view is still just a hypothesis and undergoing extensive testing to either confirm or debunk it. Individuals might think the hypothesis is correct, not the scientific community at large.
Then again to understand that, you still need to know the difference between a hypothesis and a premise. Why do keep avoiding that distinction Chad? Is it because your entire argument falls apart when a person knows the difference?
Whether you want to call the two starting points (God exists, life on earth was created naturalistically) premises or hypothesis is up to you, whatever you want to call them, you need to call both of them the same.
That's because the logical structure of the two arguments is identical
so, if you want to call one circular, you call both circular.
and, that's it..
@Chad
So now you change from RNA world view to a natural beginning, congrats you show your dishonesty once again. Positing either one would require evidence to back it up, and without any evidence, they would be circular (requiring you to accept the original posited premise to make it valid). Science doesn't do that, and all the different abiogenesis hypothesis are not premises. Until you actually understand that naturalistic hypothesis for the origin of life is not the same as positing that there is a god, then you're just talking out of your ass.
"then you're just talking out of your ass"
.
Comes natural for people like him.
Goodness you have a hard time following a thread.. I'll spell it out for you.
These are the two statements:
1. "I dismiss all other gods other than the God of Abraham because the God of Abraham has told me that they aren't real."
2. " life on earth is the result of [processes described in] RNA world,"
Each statement has a premise (or hypothesis if you prefer to call it that), here they are
1. God exists
2. life on earth was created naturalistically
Both arguments are structured identically, if you call one circular, you call the other circular.
If you dont get it this time, I give up.
@Chad
Then give up, because your talking about something completely different intentionally. Keep showing your dishonesty and idiocy, and I'll continue to point out the flaws and show how your an idiot.
Good god! It's just come to me...Chad IS the Black Knight!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9RZ-hYPAMFQ
At least Conservative Jews outthink most of the US Christians on the historical accuracy of the bible. No religious snake handling with them. Must have better sense and connections to God.
NYTimes: The notion that the Bible is not literally true "is more or less settled and understood among most Conservative rabbis," observed David Wolpe, a rabbi at Sinai Temple in Los Angeles and a contributor to "Etz Hayim.'
Republicans are extremely ignorant and dangerous. No wonder the ten poorest states in our country are all red.
From my perspective, it is the liberals who are ignorant of God who are dangerous.
From your God's perspective, you'd be a fool for thinking liberals dangerous, since it demonstrates your lack of faith in God.
Great, and the US has a lot nuclear weapons to go with this insanity.
William Lane Craig:
B. A. Communications
M. A. Philosophy of Religion
M. A. Church History
Ph.D. Philosophy
D. Theol. Theology
What a waste of a good mind.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7E97330766B2B124&v=KfDKhDUWBWE&feature=player_detailpage
this guy throws logic and reason out the window. baaaaaaad sheep.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PL7E97330766B2B124&v=3SNpPtltyeE&feature=player_detailpage
I just randomly clicked to Craig's "refutal" of Dawkin's argument that God would need a designer too. As usual, he doesn't even come close to actually addressing the problem. All he talks about is discovering pottery and inferring that it had a creator, but wouldn't discovering a being like God also infer he had a creator too? "Creator" in the sense of a parent, or inventor who, in turn, would require an explanation as to it's origin. I just cannot believe that people fall for this dribble.
William Lane Craig:
B. A. Communications
M. A. Philosophy of Religion
M. A. Church History
Ph.D. Philosophy
D. Theol. Theology
What a waste of a good mind.
.
Cq-Beings just don't show up just like that . If inanimate objects have a designer how much more so for living things.
Pause and think. If humans evolved from apes what is next for humans????
@Gold & Silver –
Humans did not evolve from apes...we ARE apes. And, we are still evolving.
Gold & Silver,
"If humans evolved from apes what is next for humans????"
Get out your notebook and camera and stick around for about 80 MILLION years and get back to us then, ok. Ready... set... go!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7B6FkBqkZ1g&feature=player_detailpage
ReallyO -that video of you is impressive!
@Gold & Silver –
Cute; however those appear to be CGI apes of the species G. gorilla , whereas I am an existent ape of the species H. sapiens.
Gold & Silver
And God would be another "being", so why should allowances be made for him? Not all inanimate objects have a designer. For centuries, the Giant's Causeway in Ireland was believed to have been created by a giant, but we now know the geological processes that led to it's forming. Similar legends abound all over the world related to oddly familiar looking natural structures. Even the supposed images of Jesus on toast and such are a part of our mind's seeing design where none actually exists. Besides, a truly intelligent designer would have created us with far fewer physical faults, you'd think?
Humans and the other "apes" had a common ancestor. Traits such as fair skin were evolutionary adaptions that arose to a branch of humanity's migration north, for example. We aren't isolated anymore, but it's still possible that conditions may arise where a certain trait may become a huge advantage. As Zombieland alludes to, being genetically wired to being a better runner may spark another evolutionary change. The slow would die quickly, leaving only the quick to live on to pass their genes to the next generation.
Current Ancient Alien theorist hold that at least two groups of Aliens came to Earth during the formation of our religions. One group the rather benign Gray Aliens really were trying to help mankind. Another Alien group came here to mine our Gold, chlorofluorocarbon, protein and other resources and used humans as Slaves. These two Alien Groups were seen as God(s) which explains the many contradictions in the Bible and other religious text.
This also explains why many cultures belief in multiple gods.
Actually the Mayans specifically believed that their Gods came from the Skies and knew of a Star around the time of Christ that modern man only discovered less than 100 years ago. They believed all mankind came from that star, Strangely enough just last year an earth like planet was discovered in that star system.
The most powerful gods in most systems are the sky gods. Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Horus, Thor and even Yahweh were all sky gods.
@Cq, Yes which means they were all Aliens.
Robairdo
Or storms, rain, stars, the sun, high places and lightening tend to impress people the most.
Not to worry....they will return during the predicted galactic alignment of Dec. 21st, 2012 which creates the wormhole they use for intergalactic travel.....only happens every 26,000 years. Excuse me, I have to go find my brand new hat made by Reynolds...seems I have misplaced it.
Mormons don't believe in creationism. They believe they are descended from space travelllers from the planet Kolob. Seriously. Mormons are cult members. Do you really want one in the White House?
All rerligions are cults.
What's your point.
hahaha. i always laugh when christians talk about how looney mormons are. yes, as opposed to run-of-the-mill christianity with talking donkeys and snakes, a man walking on water, people coming back from the dead, people with feathery wings flying around, magic cloud city in the sky where i get to see everyone i get to live for all eternity, etc.
LOL!
They kinda believe that people can evolve into gods though. God was once just a man according to their beliefs, and the aliens the came from had to have had some beginning, right?
Well I don't want Mittens in the white house but I would buy an Alien theory long before I would buy creationism.
Robairdo
Aliens who had evolved on their own, original planet, right?
@Cq: Yes
The time has come to execute crazy people. Death is not too good for them. It is what is best for everyone.
Those who think they'll get an afterlife should be executed first. That will keep us busy for a while since there are over 5 billion of these crazies who follow a religion.
When all religious people are dead, then we will still need to get rid of other crazy people.
Once all the crazy people are dead, we will need to make sure none of them can ever be born in the future.
Once insanity has been banished forcefully and prevented from arising again, we can get intelligent and sane things done around here like never before.
I do not like the harshness of this, but they leave us little choice but to execute them all. They cannot be reasoned with, cannot be lived with, cannot be allowed to spread their insanity or use their brainwashing techniques on innocent people.
Death is the answer. Until we kill the crazy people, they will always be turning this world into a pit of crazy filthy insanity because they are in the majority here.
Weapons of mass destruction would probably have to be used. Many sane people will have to be written off.
Death will stop them. Nothing else seems to work at all.
Uh, I vote for a well-funded, well-run public education system, but your way works too, I guess.
So, you want to commit suicide then?
Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
Prayer has been shown to have no discernible effect towards what was prayed for.
Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just go to http://santorum.com to find out more.
Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
Prayer makes you fat, pale, weak, and sedentary.
Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
Prayer fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
Prayer can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
Prayer reveals how stupid you are to the world.
Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
Prayer makes you think doilies are exciting.
Prayer makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
Prayer makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
Prayer gives you knobbly knees.
Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just google him to find out.
Prayer dulls your senses.
Prayer makes you post really stupid shit.
Prayer makes you hoard cats.
Prayer makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
Prayer wastes time.
Atheism is not healthy for children and other living things. Proof provided by copy/paste above
He could just be your sock puppet for all anyone here knows, right?
You should save your unintelligent gibberish for another blog, any chance you are about 14 and angry at Mommy and Daddy????
"Prayer changes things"
Prayer doesn’t not; you are such a LIAR. You have NO proof it changes anything! A great example of prayer proven not to work is the Christians in jail because prayer didn't work and their children died. For example: Susan Grady, who relied on prayer to heal her son. Nine-year-old Aaron Grady died and Susan Grady was arrested.
An article in the Journal of Pediatrics examined the deaths of 172 children from families who relied upon faith healing from 1975 to 1995. They concluded that four out of five ill children, who died under the care of faith healers or being left to prayer only, would most likely have survived if they had received medical care.
The statistical studies from the nineteenth century and the three CCU studies on prayer are quite consistent with the fact that humanity is wasting a huge amount of time on a procedure that simply doesn’t work. Nonetheless, faith in prayer is so pervasive and deeply rooted, you can be sure believers will continue to devise future studies in a desperate effort to confirm their beliefs!
ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS BLOG:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
https://www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
Any reason your link leads to a warning message that I shouldn't go to the site?
@Idon'tthinkso
You said, "Any reason your link leads to a warning message that I shouldn't go to the site?"
It's because of the https:// in the link. If you go to www3.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/, and let your browser and the site server work out their security protocol, it'll all work just fine.
Bootyfunk goes stupid
Bootyfunk gets stupider, I don't know, go figure.
Prayer changes things .
action changes things, not prayer.
And a self confessed idiot responds
Yes, post a truth, we already know all about you.
Prayer takes people away from actually working on real solutions to their problems.
Prayer has been shown to have no discernible effect towards what was prayed for.
Prayer makes you frothy like Rick Santorum. Just go to http://santorum.com to find out more.
Prayer prevents you from getting badly needed exercise.
Prayer makes you fat, pale, weak, and sedentary.
Prayer wears out your clothes prematurely.
Prayer contributes to global warming through excess CO2 emissions.
Prayer fucks up your knees and your neck and your back.
Prayer can cause heart attacks, especially among the elderly.
Prayer reveals how stupid you are to the world.
Prayer exposes your backside to pervert priests.
Prayer makes you think doilies are exciting.
Prayer makes you secretively flatulent and embarrassed about it.
Prayer makes your kids avoid spending time with you.
Prayer gives you knobbly knees.
Prayer dulls your senses.
Prayer makes you post really stupid shit.
Prayer makes you hoard cats.
Prayer makes you smell like shitty kitty litter and leads you on to harder drugs.
Prayer wastes time.
Got a vermin ridden rat in your pocket?
Amen...prayer is an intelligent response...given that God is real and created the world and everything in it. Prayer reaches for faith, faith changes the atmosphere from hopeless to hope, despairing to solutions!! Bring on the prayer!!!!
Wisdom
From "despairing to solutions" does not account for so many prayers going unfulfilled. It offers results no better than just allowing nature to take it's course, so it is the illusion of having a solution, nothing more.
Cq you are completely 100% wrong, prayer gets answered probably every 2 seconds in this world. Your NOT educated about miracles....you haven't even done preschool. Please refrain from speaking on the subject.