duh

Mere Third of Americans Believe in Evolution Theory — This is just plain ridiculous.

The poll shows that almost half of the U.S. population believes that human beings did not evolve, but instead were created by God — as stated in the Bible — essentially in their current form about 10,000 years ago:

Thi situation just gets worse by the minute as Americans believe less and less in the idea of scientific proof and the notion of progress.

I blame academia for all this. Nobody ever addresses these zealots and instead ignores them thinking that it will blow over. This is exactly what happens with right-wing talk radio. They are ignored as if they are inconsequential. They are not!! Now look what we have.

Now if people are going to claim that the Bible is literal and must be obeyed without question, then how long will it be before we, like some Muslims, re-institute public stoning? I’d like to know.



  1. John C. Dvorak says:

    Marvinski, I can’t fathom this post or who you are pitying. I mean..where are the references..you bluster out some stat with no links to anything, brag about the fact that you have knowledge of a number with 15 zeros and that alone is proof of something. Of what? All I got was this assertion..something about “Book of Genesis could not possibly contain meaningful references to modern day individuals ” but it does. To whom? Nixon? Is Nixon in the Bible. What’s a modern day individual? Why was there no a similarly equipped persona way back when? Did we somehow change? Did we only have one nut back then? I just don’t get your point here. As for my assertion that the President setting the moral tone of the country as rubbish, let me see…hmmm. Who did you vote for again? Is he setting a good moral tone but people are becoming pagans? You’re confusing me with your illogic in all this longwindedness. Get us some links to whatever it is you are trying to prove rather than pitying the audience because they ain’t you.

  2. Thomas says:

    How about this: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/list.html

  3. Thomas says:

    BTW, another logically fallacy is that you can somehow prove something by the statistical odds that it might or might not occur. Showing that the statistical probability that something might or might not happen is infinitesimally small proves absolutely nothing. Therefore, if you are attempting to argue the scientific validity of creationism, this is an argument that will not fly.

    Furthermore, you should note that you cannot prove that something does not exist. It is logically impossible. For example, provide a scientific proof that Santa Claus does not exist. It cannot be done.

  4. Rob McEwen says:

    Thomas:

    Ever heard of DNA evidence?

    Lives hang in the balance in courtrooms every day due to evidence that could potentially be false…

    …but scientists consider that something is impossible when its possibility gets to a point where its chances of occuring are 1/10 to the fiftith+ power. (and this dwarfs the impossibilties shown in the probabilities surrounding evolution)

    Also, if what you say is true, we should all be worried about our bank accounts being plundered (even Swiss Bank accounts) because most or all encryption schemes (some protecting billion dollar accounts) DEPEND on events NOT occuring where the event has been calculated to be “statically impossible”.

    Check out the articles present by this Google search. For example, this one.

    I haven’t researched it very much, but I suspect that Marvinski’s story was an elaborate hoax… but I’m not sure, I’ll have to look into it more.

    Nevertheless, isn’t it ironic that Thomas’s last post proves Marvinski’s point correct… as do the events that occurred during the 1966 Wistar Institute conference.

    (Thomas, where are the “millions of dollars” that these mathematicians from that conference should have made for proving Neo-Darwinism impossible?)

  5. Thomas says:

    Rob, you are proving how little you know about science. Court rooms convict (in criminal cases) based on evidence that is beyond a reasonable doubt. That means that if DNA evidence substantiating the prosecution’s case is presented, it statistically improbable that the accused is innocent and thus, jurors, having, by definition, to make a subjective evaluation of the innocence of the accused, are inclined to believe that the accused is guilty.

    Proving innocence in a courtroom, however, is categorically different from proving something scientifically. Reasonable doubt has absolutely no place in science. You cannot disprove a theory by claiming that the statistical odds that something could happen are so astronomical that it cannot possible be true. Science does not work this way and if you think so, you are showing your level of scientific ignorance. What are the odds that in all the billions of possible planets in the universe, that life would develop and at this exact point in time such that information was able to be passed electronically and that said life was able to write these exact words in this exact order? The odds are beyond astronomical, yet we clearly have evidence that it happened.

    You comment about encryption is another example of scientific ignorance. When you are given estimates for how long it would take to decrypt a message using a given algorithm, they are giving you an estimate based on the assumption that the cracker is using a brute force attack. By your reckoning, if the odds that someone can decrypt a message by some uber-algorithm, is sufficiently high, then it is simply not possible and any claims to the contrary must be false. That ignores alternative methods and techniques that *do* crack said messages (e.g. DES, SHA1 etc.).

    More than any other area of ignorance, I am noticing that by far people are lacking in skills in critical and logical thought specifically as it relates to science. There are specific techniques and types of arguments that work and do not work in science (e.g. proving/disproving purely through statistics, assuming you prove a theory by disproving a competing theory, straw-man attacks etc). It seems that this area is the one where our education system has clearly failed.

  6. M. Marvinski says:

    Mr. Dvorak, I think your old enough to understand that whatever you look for, you will find. The reason I didn’t give a link is that links prove absolutely nothing. If your open minded enough to look at all sides of a thing, you’ll see the truth for yourself.

    To Thomas:
    BTW, another logically fallacy is that you can somehow prove something by the statistical odds that it might or might not occur. Showing that the statistical probability that something might or might not happen is infinitesimally small proves absolutely nothing. Therefore, if you are attempting to argue the scientific validity of evolution this is an argument that will not fly.

    You misunderstand, I wasn’t trying to prove creationism.

  7. M. Marvinski says:

    Amazing, that the arguments put forth by Thomas actually disprove and negate what he is trying to prove when used to scrutinize his logic and methods. Those are the type people I pity, those that are fanatical to the point of delusion. This is exactly the type of mindset that produces religious fanaticals

  8. Elijah Blackoak says:

    Marvinski is obviously talking about Equidistant Letter Sequence (ELS) Codes not EDL. So far nobody has been able to refute it. The only thing I’m disappointed in is Mr. Dvorak’s obvious lack of objectivity. The rest I understand, I’ve seen plenty in my lifetime but I’d have thought better of him. The real point of the argument is that there is much more that science can’t explain than there is that it can, not that there’s anything wrong with that, it’s just foolish to hold it in such high regard.

  9. Thomas says:

    MM…Read my post again. You cannot prove or disprove a theory on physical phenomena based on the statistical odds that it is true or not true. The odds that an event happened or could not happen lends absolutely no credence to a scientific proof and therefore provides no credence to your position. Furthermore, if you are going to make blanket statements like “the arguments put forth by Thomas disprove and negate what he’s trying to prove” you need to substantiate that statement. Where exactly did I negate my position? When has any creationist actually stated in clear terms, the creationist theory to begin with? All of my statements have been entirely consistent. If you are going to use the scientific method to prove that creationism is a valid scientific theory, then you are required to abide by the rules of science and logic.

    I’ll state again, I’m waiting to see a clear, concise statement of the creationist theory and evidence that such a theory is A: abides by all the rules of the scientific method (and is thus scientific) and B: that the theory accurately predicts existing and future phenomena. If you cannot at least provide that, there is no point to this discussion (which may very well be case).

  10. John C. Dvorak says:

    Dear Elijah, you say:”Marvinski is obviously talking about Equidistant Letter Sequence (ELS) Codes not EDL. So far nobody has been able to refute it. ” Obviously? to whom? Refute what? Are you guys all nuts? Why are you disappointed in my “lack of objectivity?” I’m objective, but nobody wants to tell what is even being debated!!!! I’m getting the impression you and a bunch of others are putting me on in some weird way. A drinking club or something.

  11. Rob McEwen says:

    Thomas,

    You are wrong about statistics. Certainly, there are limits and this is but one discipline of science… but when an event is determined to be more rare then 1 over a number with over a hundred and twenty zeros after it, we are then talking about the number that is larger than (the number of seconds the universe existed) X (number of atoms in the universe) X (the number of metabolic processes a cell can have per second). If you want to belief that things this rare can actually happen, go right ahead. But it is simply laughable that you would try to call this “not science”… the fact that you so easily disregard statistics and probability as a part of science is what proved Marvinski correct… basically, it shows that you will do anything to hold onto your belief system.

    …also…

    Scientists create models of what they think might have happened. These can get quite elaborate, but there are definite and measurable consequences to acts and events where the model can be tested against reality.

    For example, if a model were created to try to determine what would happen if a Category 5 Hurricane hit New Orleans head on, reasonable scientists would disagree on the details and extent of the damage. However, these disagreements would be order of magnitudes smaller than the difference between any possible result from a direct hit by a tropical storm in comparison to any possible result from a direct hit by a Category 5 hurricane.

    In the same way, suppose that we had the theory of Evolution and Creationism, but had done no digging for fossils yet… Scores of world-famous scientists then sat around a room for hours speculatating for hours about what the fossil record would (or should) look like under a number of scenarios.

    They might have numerous disagreements about the scale and magnitude and variations of what the fossil record would look like if Evolution occurred… and likewise for Creation. However, no model for Evolution would look anything remotely like any model for Creationism.

    With me so far… do you agree so far?

    Now, consider the following quotes from Stephen Jay Gould, professor of Geology and Zoology at Harvard University. (deceased in 2002) Gould was one of the few Evolutionist willing to talk candidly about these problems I’ve mentioned.

    ***************************
    “Indeed, it is the chief frustration of the fossil record that we do not have empirical evidence for sustained trends in the evolution of most complex morphological adaptations.”
    ********************
    “But how do you get from nothing to such an elaborate something if evolution must proceed through a long sequence of intermediate stages, each favored by natural selection? You can’t fly with 2% of a wing or gain much protection from an iota’s similarity with a potentially concealing piece of vegetation. How, in other words, can natural selection explain these incipient stages of structures that can only be used (as we now observe them) in much more elaborated form?”
    (this point is now championed by Michael Behe in his book, “Darwin’s Black Box”)
    ********************
    …and most devastating of all because this is exactly what would be expected from the evidence left behind by Creationism:

    The history of most fossil species include two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:

    1) Stasis – most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless;

    2) Sudden appearance – in any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
    ********************

    Let me ask you, do you now consider Gould a religious fanatic?

    Is Gould now a non-scientist?

    Have I given you more “non-science”?

    Also, you might want to take a look at the charts regarding the fossil record (and additional quotes) found here.

  12. Elijah Blackoak says:

    Drinking club? Do you have one you recommend? Debate? What debate? Just kidding. My point is that most people are only willing to look at one side of issues that they hold near and dear as is exemplified quite clearly in the responses to this blog. People that search for truth generally find it, people that are narrow minded usually don’t. I won’t mention names, but this thread has proven my point. I think the most important thing brought out in this whole discussion was from one of the excerpts posted by Marvinski:

    “What standard of proof would you accept as an indication that the phenomenon might be genuine?” The most frequent answer by far is “There is no standard. I will not believe it regardless.”

    The sad thing is, I’ve met many of these folks in my lifetime, and I agree, they are to be pitied.

  13. Thomas says:

    Using statistics as part of a theory’s predicative value (like with a weather system) is completely different than claiming that a theory is or is not true because of the odds it is true. Can you not see the vast difference between those statements?

    Your entire post completely misses the point. Again, all of your statements are disproving evolution. Stop. Put evolution aside for the moment. State in clear, concise terms the creationist theory in purely scientific terms. Next, provide proof that creationist theory is valid and scientific. Without that, all of your statements are specious. Everything you have provided is anecdotal, meaning the general opinion of some guy. Anecdotal evidence cannot be used as a basis for a scientific theory. Where is the evidence that substantiates the creationist theory (whatever it may be), making it a scientific theory irrespective of evolutionary theory?

    The problem with the Evolution v. Creationism debate is that evolution is science and creationism is not as illustrated by the lack of a clear statement of theory nor any scientific evidence to substantiate creationism. All of the creationism claims, so far, are purely attempts to disprove evolution. I have no problem with people believing in creationism. However, I, like John, have a serious problem with government and schools wanting to teach it as science. The goal of this sort of debate is help people see that belief in a creationist theory is a personal, spiritual choice and is not, in any way, science.

  14. Rob McEwen says:

    Thomas,

    It is very obvious from your comments that you are have ruled out any possibility of creationism because you have determined that any explanations which are outside your philosophy of naturalism should be ruled out. You give no room for any explanation that might have the tiniest hint of a supernatural cause.

    Fair enough.

    But it is simply not scientific to declar a theory as true or respectible just because it is the best theory which conformed to naturalists philosophy.

    I have never claimed that proving neo-Darwinism impossible proves creationism… however, many prominent Evolutionists have stated that only one or the other can be true and there are no other alternatives. (I think there is a valid point here… but I don’t demand such). Nevertheless, I have only proven that Evolution is impossible. Nothing more. Nothing less.

    You state that proving evolution impossible doesn’t prove Creationism true? Fine. But this works both ways.

    You seem to think that, (1) because you have pre-deciding that Creationism is not possible because of its lack of adhering to your naturalists philosophy… (2) therefore Evolution is true. This is totally anti-science and anti-logic.

    Furthermore, scientism theories are supposed to be based on facts and evidence. Therefore, it is anti-science to demand that a particular theory get a certain amount of respect if (a) the facts and evidence don’t support it ..and.. (b) you decide to ignore such just because you can’t find a better theory.

    Another way to put it… it is more scientific to let the facts and evidence speak for themselves and simply say “we don’t know” than it is to elevate a flawed theory beyond its evidence.

    In fact, we should refer to the “theory of evolution” as the “hypothesis of evolution” because that is where the evidence for/against leads.

  15. Elijah Blackoak says:

    You’re the one missing the point. I couldn’t care less about creation and evolution. I’m neither defending the creationist theory nor attacking darwinism. I’m asking for answers to valid questions. Why can’t scientists with all their knowlege and resources create life from non organic materials today? Why does the rate of cancer keep increasing instead of decreasing? What real problems has science solved? I need some credible evidence that science has any answers to anything.

  16. Thomas says:

    Science deals soley with the natural phenomena. Primarily, my claim is that evolution theory is scientific and creationism is not. Since the supernatural cannot be proven scientifically with tangible evidence, it is not considered scientific. That does not preclude the possibility that it is true, but it does preclude the possibility that it is scientific and thus should preclude it from being taught as and treated as science.

    Evolution has been elevated to a scientific theory because there is substantial scientific (unbiased, repeatable) evidence from numerous different fields of studies that substantiate the theory. Until clear evidence is provided that explains the current phenomena from all the numerous fields of study with evidence that substantiates evolution, it will stand as a scientific theory. Even with that being the case, it still means that the mechanisms that caused evolution, the amount time it took to occur in various species and other refinements will continue to be debated.

    Elijah, science has solved so many problems, there are too many count. Let’s take a couple: smallpox vaccine, aircraft, nuclear power, oh and the Internet. All of those are possible because of science.

  17. M. Marvinski says:

    Rob is right, it’s still a theory. If evolution is a fact, and you can prove it, then you should be able to reproduce it. Science bases it’s proof on replicatable results. Until you do, it’s only a theory. How hard can it be to make a simple one celled organic organism? Nothing in any of the arguments or links prove evolution. I’m not trying to prove creation, only pointing out that one idea is as valid as the next.

  18. Thomas says:

    Regardless of whether you accept evolution as truth, is it clear to everyone that creationism is not science? Accepting that premise, in and of itself is a significant break through. It means that creationism should never be allowed to be taught as science.

    Regarding evolution, TalkOrigins.com provides extensive explanations supported by bibliographic sources about most claims against evolution. It does address the question of reproducing evolution. Keep in mind that if all elements of a theory are scientifically verifiable, then logical extensions of those theories can also be considered scientific. For example, no one has physically measured the time it takes for light to get from nearest star to earth. However, we can infer the amount of time based on what we know of the speed of light, the star’s brightness and other theories of physics. It does not explicitly address Rob’s petrified tree, however I’ll see what I can find.

  19. M. Marvinski says:

    The speed of light can be measured. Evolution or evidence for evolution cannot be measured. If so. show me how you measure evolution. There is as much evidence for ID as there is for evolution. Anyone that is dogmatic about either is blind and/or ignorant.

  20. M. Marvinski says:

    Science has created many more problems than it has solved. Study the history of the aborigines. They lacked nothing, had no war, no crime, disease was virtually unknown, injuries were attended to by thier healers with better results than our doctors and they lived to be 120 – 130 years old on a regular basis…. at least until they were civilized by people that rely on science. What do we need aircraft or nuclear power for? Any thing you point to as a solution to a problem is a solution to a problem that was created by science.

  21. Thomas says:

    Once again M, go to TalkOrigins.com before you throw out questions or statements about evolution. The answer to your evolution question, for example can be found there.

    Claiming that science has created more problems that it solved is putting your head in the sand. **Any** solution to a problem has the potential for creating new problems. For example, when someone invented the plow, it made it easier to sow more land and create more food. However, it also made it easy to over use land. Just because new challenges arise from knowing more and better ways of solving problems does not mean we should simply make like an Ostrich and keep ourselves in perpetual ignorance.

    Furthermore, don’t you realize that only through science would we be able to determine why the aborigine lived longer. Perhaps it is genetic. Perhaps it is food. Perhaps it is lifestyle. Perhaps it is climate. Science provides a methodology for finding the answers to these types of questions.

    So, to take your challenge, science created paper. Through trial and error (part of the scientific method) someone developed the idea of paper. If you think this invention has created problems you are right. Included in those problems would be the ability to transcribe nonsense.


0

Bad Behavior has blocked 9435 access attempts in the last 7 days.