What Americans Think about Evolution

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I thought I already described to you that what we call Life is not some mysterious phenomena that separates living from non-living matter. Matter in general does not live, it is not alive, nor does it ever become alive. Matter is animated by the fundamental forces of nature, the same forces which result in the chemical reactions we see in nature. In the early days of the Earth, those chemical reactions started out fairly simple and thus things were not very lifelike to begin with. However, as time progressed those chemical interactions became increasingly complex in nature and in the process things became increasingly more lifelike. As the chemical interactions within forms became more complex and lifelike, they began to develop certain unique characteristics...metabolism, reproduction, etc...

So I will say this again. There is no true Life (living matter), only those forms of matter which appear more lifelike or animate than others. The more complex the chemical interactions within matter, the more lifelike those forms appear.

Creatures like us humans or other animals are not alive, we are merely engaged in a very complex order of ongoing chemical interactions. When something happens to interrupt those complex chemical interactions, it may in the process take away that which makes us so lifelike.

---

Yeah, you are the guy that believes that life doesn't exist. So as I said before, I could kill you and I can't be charged with taking your life, because you said that life doesn't exist. Well alrighty then.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

wow more ignorance?

we place no faith in Darwin.


The factual evidence surrounding evolution is evident and requires no faith.

But your version requires faith, wish and want.

You place your faith in the Origin of Species...and I place my faith in the Bible. So many ways to say it.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

The fallacy of affirming the consequent was not committed here.

Cart before the horse fallacy. Call it what you want, but the concept is apparent.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

What's your working/educational background in?

Relevance?

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Relevance?

I've noted that education and background has a correlation with how much a person is willing to learn and accept. For instance I can tell you don't have a scientific background because you mentioned before that evolution is just a theory. I've heard engineers say stuff like that.

 

[metis]

Well then we are obviously not talking about the God that revealed himself in Jesus Christ here. That God doesn't need a trial and error process as a method for his creation. The bible says God spoke it in to existence, and it was so.

Again, you're twisting things around. Most Christian theologians, for example, believe that there's been an evolutionary process but that God was behind it all. What you simply don't seem to understand is that evolution doesn't mean there cannot be God behind it.

Right, you just said it. His "creation thats right in front of our eyes". So based on what we can see with our "eyes", animals will only produce what they are, not what they aren't. And no man has ever saw with his "eyes" these large scale changes that you accept with faith has occurred. So if we are going by what is in front of our "eyes", then there is no reason to believe in evolution, because we've only seen dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. There has been no exception to this in your lifetime, my lifetime, or anyones lifetime. So why believe it?

Except it is in front of our eyes, which you choose to ignore. For example, ever have the flu? In most cases, the flu virus you might have caught is am evolved virus from previous years. With antibiotics, we've seen evolution take place with some bacteria whereas an antibiotic that used to work to kill them no longer does. With some insects, we've seen some fruit fly species evolve whereas they can no longer breed with those that are more genetically similar to the original source.

Yes, virus are viruses, bacteria still bacteria, and flies still flies, but to see these degrees of evolution over a relatively short period of time logically points to what can and obviously has happened over a much longer period of time. With the genome testing, we're seeing a pattern that pretty much replicates what the fossil record is indicating, so that should have erased any doubt about the general process.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, but left that church in my early 20's because I knew that I was not being told the truth, plus some other reasons as well. You simply are not being told the truth, and if God is Truth, you're going in the wrong direction.

There are many good books that explain the evolutionary process, so if you're truly interested in the Truth, let me know and I can recommend several of them. Are you afraid to actually look? I was, but then I eventually found that the Truth was actually is very liberating.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

One cannot argue and use logic with someone who confuses science with a belief system.

If you think evolution is science, you are the one that is confused. Science is about repeated experiment and observation. So far, macroevolution (what you believe in) has not undergone any repeated experiment followed by an actual observation of the theory. So it isn't even science.

One cannot debate with someone who ignores evidence in favor of mythology.

The evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus is not mythology, it is historicity.

One cannot be heard by someone who sticks his fingers in his ears and screams lalalalal to drown out the voice of reason.

Yeah, inantimate matter suddenly "coming to life" and animals making transformic changes long ago in the distant past is very reasonable. Sure.
One cannot discuss scientific discoveries with someone who has his head so far up in his own anatomy he can’t see the sun shine at high noon.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I've noted that education and background has a correlation with how much a person is willing to learn and accept. For instance I can tell you don't have a scientific background because you mentioned before that evolution is just a theory. I've heard engineers say stuff like that.

It goes deeper than that, Frankie. For the life of me, I just can't believe that we can get intelligence from a mindless and blind process. My rationale just can't allow me to believe it. I just can't. A process that can't think worth a lick gave me a function brain to think, reason, learn, reflect, etc. That just strikes me as completely absurd. Not only don't I believe that it did, but I don't believe that it can (big difference).

And I understand that most of you may feel as if my belief is absurd as well, and I understand that. But I find my belief much more plausible, rational, possible than the contrary.

As far as my educational background is concerned, I did want to be an electrical engineer in the past. Now I am in school for business science, focusing on small business and entrepreneurship. Yes sirrr.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

In the scientific method observation is the initial observation of a situation that needs explanation...it's not literal observation....

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

It goes deeper than that, Frankie. For the life of me, I just can't believe that we can get intelligence from a mindless and blind process. My rationale just can't allow me to believe it. I just can't. A process that can't think worth a lick gave me a function brain to think, reason, learn, reflect, etc. That just strikes me as completely absurd. Not only don't I believe that it did, but I don't believe that it can (big difference).

And I understand that most of you may feel as if my belief is absurd as well, and I understand that. But I find my belief much more plausible, rational, possible than the contrary.

As far as my educational background is concerned, I did want to be an electrical engineer in the past. Now I am in school for business science, focusing on small business and entrepreneurship. Yes sirrr.

Which is fine, but your responses don't always reflect how much you know about evolution or the sciences. I've noted there was a member here who actually studied evolution believed it to be scientifically a sound theory but still chose not to believe it due to theological reasons. That to me is a rational response. So when I suggest you read up on the theory it's not to convince you to believe in it but at the least to be able to defend why you don't believe in it clearer.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

Well, CotW claims that nothing useful can come from a process where randomness and selection happens, basically he was earlier rejecting the whole process because "it's impossible" to create something by trial-and-error. I know the GA aren't exactly the same as the evolutionary process, however, the evolutionary process is a form of genetic algorithm, and since we know that genetic algorithms are helpful to do things and work, we can't say that GA doesn't work.

I debated with myself for some time before responding to your posts. It was a struggle between my neurotic compulsion to corrupt useful analogies by ensuring that irrelevant technical nuances are covered in ways that don't benefit anybody and my desire not to add fuel to the fire (particularly given my only exchanges of the sort you're having). In the end, I justified my neurotic tendency with a rationalization that designed evolutionary/genetic algorithms might suggest a need for a designer.

Do you see what I'm trying to explain to CotW here?

Yes. I'd comment as to its futility, but I'm hardly one to talk and who knows? Perhaps it will be fruitful.

 

[Ouroboros]

I debated with myself for some time before responding to your posts. It was a struggle between my neurotic compulsion to corrupt useful analogies by ensuring that irrelevant technical nuances are covered in ways that don't benefit anybody and my desire not to add fuel to the fire (particularly given my only exchanges of the sort you're having). In the end, I justified my neurotic tendency with a rationalization that designed evolutionary/genetic algorithms might suggest a need for a designer.

It's too eloquent to deserve a response. Besides this one.

Yes. I'd comment as to its futility, but I'm hardly one to talk and who knows? Perhaps it will be fruitful.

I think I've given up already. CotW is a lost cause.

One day you and I should discuss GA and such, for fun. You know plenty about the subject. I only know enough to hurt myself.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Again, you're twisting things around. Most Christian theologians, for example, believe that there's been an evolutionary process but that God was behind it all.

Well, I disagree with them. And even if God did do such a thing, that still implies intelligent design.

What you simply don't seem to understand is that evolution doesn't mean there cannot be God behind it.

Well, as far as Im concerned, it is incompatible with the God that I worship. I can't speak for other "gods".

Except it is in front of our eyes, which you choose to ignore. For example, ever have the flu? In most cases, the flu virus you might have caught is am evolved virus from previous years. With antibiotics, we've seen evolution take place with some bacteria whereas an antibiotic that used to work to kill them no longer does. With some insects, we've seen some fruit fly species evolve whereas they can no longer breed with those that are more genetically similar to the original source.

But fruit flies are still...FLIES.

Yes, virus are viruses, bacteria still bacteria, and flies still flies, but to see these degrees of evolution over a relatively short period of time logically points to what can and obviously has happened over a much longer period of time. With the genome testing, we're seeing a pattern that pretty much replicates what the fossil record is indicating, so that should have erased any doubt about the general process.

Fruit flies still produce flies, right? They are not producing a non-life. Please, spare me.

I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church, but left that church in my early 20's because I knew that I was not being told the truth, plus some other reasons as well. You simply are not being told the truth, and if God is Truth, you're going in the wrong direction.

Many have abandoned the faith and instead chosen to follow the path of darkness. Nothing new.

There are many good books that explain the evolutionary process, so if you're truly interested in the Truth, let me know and I can recommend several of them. Are you afraid to actually look? I was, but then I eventually found that the Truth was actually is very liberating.

I can recommend many books to you that refutes the theory of evolution? Are you afraid to actually look? Or how about looking at some evolution vs creationism debates online? Or how about debates on intelligent design? Ever thought of that?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Which is fine, but your responses don't always reflect how much you know about evolution or the sciences.

Frankie, what are you talking about? It isn't that difficult. First off, lets see what I've been saying:

1. "Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc": Fact

2. No animal has ever been seen producing a different kind of animal (a dog producing a non-dog): Fact

3. Scientists have never been able to produce life from non-life: Fact

4. If life can't come from nonlife without intelligent design, then evolution is false: Fact

5. Science is based on repeated experiment and observation, no experiment has ever proven macroevolution, nor has it been observed: Fact

These are all FACTS, and that is all that I've been saying. You sit there and talk about how my responses don't reflect how much I know about evolution, well, as long as what I've been saying are all FACTUAL STATEMENTS, then that is all I need to know.

Speaking of which, out of those five "facts" above, pick any one of them and tell me why they aren't facts, since I know so little, and you know so much.

I've noted there was a member here who actually studied evolution believed it to be scientifically a sound theory but still chose not to believe it due to theological reasons. That to me is a rational response. So when I suggest you read up on the theory it's not to convince you to believe in it but at the least to be able to defend why you don't believe in it clearer.

I've already told you that I find the idea that intelligence can come from a mindless and blind process absolutely absurd. I haven't heard anything from you nor anyone else regarding how such a process can dish out all of this intelligence. Not to mention life from nonlife in general.

I understand it is convenient to just bypass that whole process as if it has nothing to do with anything, just so you can continue to push the evolution agenda. Quite obvious.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

In the scientific method observation is the initial observation of a situation that needs explanation...it's not literal observation....

The only observation we have is of animals producing different varieties within its kind. Anything outside of that is pure speculation.

 

[metis]

And even if God did do such a thing, that still implies intelligent design.

Of course it implies "intelligent design". What do you think I've been trying to tell you?

Well, as far as Im concerned, it is incompatible with the God that I worship. I can't speak for other "gods".

Oh, so if they disagree with you, they believe in "other gods"?

Fruit flies still produce flies, right? They are not producing a non-life. Please, spare me.

This is a rather weird response that tells me that you prefer to respond emotionally without actually thinking about what was said. Check back.

Many have abandoned the faith and instead chosen to follow the path of darkness. Nothing new.

But the reality is that you are in the "path of darkness" whereas you're truly afraid of seeing the light. Why? Probably because you're afraid to look for yourself, whereas you'll actually see that you have been taken for a ride, and this is because a paradigm-shift can be very painful. I know-- I went through that process.

I can recommend many books to you that refutes the theory of evolution? Are you afraid to actually look? Or how about looking at some evolution vs creationism debates online? Or how about debates on intelligent design? Ever thought of that?

I have actually read a fair number them and from various sources.

BTW, if you really have an interest, which I know you really don't-- but just in case-- check out the Dover (Pennsylvania) trial whereas the Christian judge condemned the "creationist" tactics as being dishonest and deceptive, and all the "creationist" witnesses except Behe fled the scene because they could have been charged with perjury. You can Google this and get the case on-line, but you're not likely to do that.

But what's interesting is that you didn't take me up on the recommendations I could give you, which again indicates you have not a single inclination to even try to look at this objectively. Instead, you prefer to wallow in ignorance on the subject while falsely claiming you see the "Truth".

That's too bad, but then I would not have guessed back then that I would have had to change my mind, especially since I had been debating going into the ministry. Seriously, let me recommend you find a church that's much more encouraging for it's congregants to actually try to look at such things objectively.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

1. "Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc": Fact

2. No animal has ever been seen producing a different kind of animal (a dog producing a non-dog): Fact

These are trivial. Yes, dogs produce dogs; but as I've already noted elsewhere, sometimes dogs produces dogs that are slightly different, and then those slightly different dogs produce even more slightly different dogs, and so on.

4. If life can't come from nonlife without intelligent design, then evolution is false: Fact

Nope. You don't get to stipulate the domain of a scientific theory; you can't say, "if evolution can't explain why I like Coke more than Pepsi, then it is false!" Evolution is not an explanation for the origin of life- it makes NO CLAIMS about the origin of life. But if it doesn't make ANY claims about the origin of life, it is CONSISTENT with ANY origin of life; abiogenesis, divine special creation, alien intervention, you name it.

5. Science is based on repeated experiment and observation, no experiment has ever proven macroevolution, nor has it been observed: Fact

Wrong once again. As I suspect has been pointed out to you before, speciation has been observed (directly) in any number of cases.

These are all FACTS, and that is all that I've been saying. You sit there and talk about how my responses don't reflect how much I know about evolution, well, as long as what I've been saying are all FACTUAL STATEMENTS, then that is all I need to know.

Open mouth, insert foot.

I've already told you that I find the idea that intelligence can come from a mindless and blind process absolutely absurd.

Which is irrelevant in the first place, since that something strikes you as absurd is not a valid argument- it is an appeal to incredulity, which is a logical fallacy.

 

[Ouroboros]

4. If life can't come from nonlife without intelligent design, then evolution is false: Fact

Again. That's a flat out lie. And you won't know why until you actually open your ears to hear what people are telling you.

 

[Enai de a lukal]

Again. That's a flat out lie. And you won't know why until you actually open your ears to hear what people are telling you.

Hey, its ALOT easier to criticize sound, established science when you can make ****** up as you go along. Otherwise it would be difficult indeed.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

Frankie, what are you talking about? It isn't that difficult. First off, lets see what I've been saying:

1. "Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc": Fact

2. No animal has ever been seen producing a different kind of animal (a dog producing a non-dog): Fact

3. Scientists have never been able to produce life from non-life: Fact

4. If life can't come from nonlife without intelligent design, then evolution is false: Fact

5. Science is based on repeated experiment and observation, no experiment has ever proven macroevolution, nor has it been observed: Fact

These are all FACTS, and that is all that I've been saying. You sit there and talk about how my responses don't reflect how much I know about evolution, well, as long as what I've been saying are all FACTUAL STATEMENTS, then that is all I need to know.

Speaking of which, out of those five "facts" above, pick any one of them and tell me why they aren't facts, since I know so little, and you know so much.



I've already told you that I find the idea that intelligence can come from a mindless and blind process absolutely absurd. I haven't heard anything from you nor anyone else regarding how such a process can dish out all of this intelligence. Not to mention life from nonlife in general.

I understand it is convenient to just bypass that whole process as if it has nothing to do with anything, just so you can continue to push the evolution agenda. Quite obvious.

But the process is not blind or mindless it's actually a rather good example of cause and effect when looking at natural selection though there's far more variables in play. While I know you latch on to life from non life it's confusing because you wouldn't consider God as living would you or being alive. DNA is a molecule for which allows life to do all that it does but would you consider DNA alive?