ScienceInTheBible.Net - From Cal

[The Cysko Kid]

Do I have to go back and quote every post that led me to throw my hat in the ring here on the subject? I thought I made it clear I was on the side of evolution.

[The Cysko Kid]

 

In the US, however, it's probably the most important religious issue the country needs to face.

Yeah, I'm not sure about that.. I think using religion as a crutch against homosexuality is maybe a bigger problem. The religious are allowed to have their own schools that can have any curriculum they want. Catholic school and the like. So far as I know most employers don't ask you how you feel humans got from primitive to modern as a prerequisite for hire.

[LogicIsForSquares]

Glad to see the house contrarian is here.

[The Cysko Kid]

I am a Gemini. It's my nature.

[MLD Woody]

I know you are

 

 

Can't we all just get along and laugh at cal's source?

[calfoxwc]

You're the only coward that can't keep up, and just

goes after links. Look up "content".

 

"In addition to their beaks being attached to their skulls by impact-dampening material, and the skulls being shaped and attached to transmit, rather than absorb forces, the entire skull of woodpeckers is surrounded by their tongue, like an internal cushion."

[MLD Woody]

What an ingenious trait acquired through natural selection....

 

 

 

I am still waiting to hear what point you think you made from the "answers in genesis" link. You seem to do that a lot. Post something idiotic that you think makes sense, duck out for a few pages, then come back and insult me to hope your last post disappears.

 

So, what point did you think you made? What do polls from 20+ years show us? How does the fact that the more educated you are the less you believe in creationism support creationism?

[calfoxwc]

[gftChris]

Cal, at this point it seems like all you're doing is:

 

[calfoxwc]

Seems wrong. What I'm doing is, telling woodpeckerhead that he doesn't

add much to this forum, except personal attacks and little whiney beech

comments.

 

He can't keep up on a board. And I try to only respond in reminding him of that,

when he does it to my posts, although, I have slipped here and there....

[calfoxwc]

How sad. Libs on this board, especially whiney bitchy woodypeckerhead and

Chris prove what I've often said.

 

Looks to me like avoiding the content of a link, just to go.."eh....haha I can ignore the entire site

for "x" reason".

 

What a waste of time. So, here's the CONTENT of that last link:

************************************************************************************

http://www.sfgate.com/opinion/article/Teaching-evolution-as-theory-not-fact-2665452.php

Teaching evolution as theory not fact / Intelligent design booster speaks out

Charles Burress, Chronicle Staff Writer

Published 4:00 am, Sunday, December 12, 2004

Why isn't Phillip Johnson celebrating?

Followers of the battles over evolution know Johnson, an emeritus law professor at UC Berkeley, as an intellectual godfather of intelligent design. The movement, whose advocates dismiss Darwinism in favor of a guiding intelligence behind the complexity of life, seems to have won a landmark victory. In an apparent national first, the school board in the small town of Dover, Penn., mandated in October that intelligent design be taught in the classroom.

The board's action came 13 years after Johnson published his seminal "Darwin on Trial," a book that launched the intelligent-design movement and caused Nobel-winning physicist Steven Weinberg to label Johnson "the most respectable academic critic of evolution."

But sitting in his cozy North Berkeley bungalow on a sunny December morning, the avuncular 64-year-old legal scholar in an argyle sweater and glasses hardly resembled a gladiator savoring the fruit of long-sought vindication.

"What the Dover board did is not what I'd recommend," said Johnson. He thinks it was ill-advised to mandate teaching intelligent design, the idea to which he has dedicated a second career of writing and lecturing.

In fact, he does not oppose teaching evolution, but he says it should be presented as a theory not supported by scientific evidence.

"Just teach evolution with a recognition that it's controversial," he said. "A huge percentage of the American public is skeptical of it. This is a problem that education ought to address."

The best teaching guide, he said, is a resolution he drafted that was passed 91-to-8 in the U.S. Senate in 2001 called the "Santorum Amendment," sponsored by Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. It said evolution instruction should prepare students to understand the controversy about it, to distinguish verifiable scientific theories, and "to be informed participants in public discussions regarding the subject."

Requiring intelligent design to be taught raises "the buzzword problem," he said. "It's the problem of stirring up the automatic reaction from the lobbies that exist to protect Darwinism and have great influence with the media. You get this 'religious fanatics are trying to censor science again' kind of coverage."

Johnson chuckled at "mandarins of science" who claim intelligent design is the camel of religion trying to stick its nose under the tent of public education and thereby violate the separation of church and state.

"It's the Darwinists who are religious dogmatists," he said. "The Darwinian revolution allowed the professional scientists to replace the clergy as the priesthood of society. Every society has a priesthood. The priesthood is the body of experts which has exclusive license to tell the creation story to that culture."

Believers in intelligent design acknowledge what is sometimes called "micro evolution," adaptations within a species to changes in environment, but they resolutely dispute "macro evolution" explanations of how new species are created. They engage in extensive debates with evolution scientists over missing intermediate forms and whether natural processes such as random mutation and natural selection could ever have produced so complex an organ as the human eye or even a single cell.

"The cell is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity that makes a spaceship or super computer look rather low-tech by comparison," Johnson said. "From this we know it is not reasonable to believe that you can produce this quantity and quality of information from random means. Complex, specified information is something which in our experience is produced only by intelligence.

"You don't produce the front page of The Chronicle by taking Scrabble letters in a cup and spilling them out on this table."

[calfoxwc]

Now, consider that the CONTENT of the article is about Professor Emeritus Phillip Johnson. In Berkeley, California.

 

Note: Neither Berkeley nor California is a conservative place.

 

Note: Johnson's accomplishments are serious:

********************************************************************

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

 

Or, do I have to post that entire site's content here as well? For woodypeckerhead and somebody else? requests?

[calfoxwc]

I thought this was interesting:

****************************************

Believers in intelligent design acknowledge what is sometimes called "micro evolution," adaptations within a species to changes in environment, but they resolutely dispute "macro evolution" explanations of how new species are created. They engage in extensive debates with evolution scientists over missing intermediate forms and whether natural processes such as random mutation and natural selection could ever have produced so complex an organ as the human eye or even a single cell.

"The cell is a masterpiece of miniaturized complexity that makes a spaceship or super computer look rather low-tech by comparison," Johnson said. "From this we know it is not reasonable to believe that you can produce this quantity and quality of information from random means. Complex, specified information is something which in our experience is produced only by intelligence.

"You don't produce the front page of The Chronicle by taking Scrabble letters in a cup and spilling them out on this table."

[calfoxwc]

So, how many times, liberals, do you think you can replicate the front page of a newspaper by taking scrabble letters

in a big cup, and spilling them out on a table?

 

Trillions? Trillions x trillions?

[calfoxwc]

Chris and Woodypeckerhead can't handle the truth. And woodypeckerhead pukes on it.

 

All this whining and bitching about "source" and refusing to discuss the points made.

 

Okay, there is this:

***************************

The first recent national scientific public opinion poll on teaching origins was completed in 1972 by George Gallup, a respected polling corporation with years of experience perfecting its methods. The poll asked a representative sample of 1,518 adults if they agreed with the statement: ‘God created Adam and Eve, which was the start of human life.’ Presumably, this question would separate those who conclude Adam and Eve were distinct creations from those who believe that humans evolved from a ‘lower’ life form by natural selection acting on mutations.

Of the total sample, 91 % were creationists of some form, and 44 % (25 % of them college graduates) agreed with the statement that ‘God created man pretty much in his present form … within the past 10,000 years.’ 3 Fully 81 % of those who labelled themselves Evangelicals believed that humans descended from Adam and Eve, compared with 58 % of the non-Evangelical Protestants (Table 1, below). The lowest percent of agreement was among Roman Catholics (only 47 % agreed). Gallup found that close to 50 % of the population rejected both atheistic and theistic evolution, at least of humans.

Table 1. Percent who agreed with: ‘God created Adam and Eve, which was the start of human life’ grouped by age, education and religion.

Age 38 %

(18–29) 51 %

(30–49) 58 %

(50 and older)

Education 33 %

(college) 55 %

(High School) 66 %

(Grade School)

Religion 50 %

(General Public) 81 %

(Evangelicals) 47 %

(Roman Catholic) 58 %

(Protestants)

Gallup also found that agreement with creationism was inversely related to both education and age—the more educated and the younger the respondent, the less likely they were to believe that God created the first humans. The likely reason is that younger persons are better educated and more influenced by new secular ideas in the society around them. Only 33 % of college graduates agreed with the creation worldview compared with 66 % of grade school graduates. In a 1993 follow-up, Gallup found 82 % believe in some form of creationism, a drop of 10 %, and fully 47 % believe God created man pretty much in his present form within the past 10,000 years.4 A similar 1986 University of Texas study found that fully 60 % of students (N = 1,000) believe that ‘Adam and Eve were created by God as the first two people.’5

[calfoxwc]

Then, there's this:

**************************

A more focused poll was completed by Research Associates under the direction of Professor Gerald Goldhabar of the State University of New York in Buffalo. Commissioned by the atheistic organization Council for Secular Humanism, the poll found 90.7 % of Americans identified with a specific religion. A large majority (83.8 %) was either Protestant (55.2 %) or Catholic (28.6 %). The sampling frame consisted of 1,512 randomly selected U.S. households, and the sampling error was ± 2.3 % at the 95 % confidence level.6 Education was found to be influential only at the extremes, i.e., those with a high school education or less were more likely to believe in ‘a personal God who can answer prayer’ (93.9 %), but of respondents with a graduate or professional degree, only 80.2 % agreed. Fully 91.2 % of all people expressed a belief in God, and 6.1 % claim they once did not believe in God but do so now.

This humanist survey that was designed to assess evolution beliefs found that the creationist position that rejects evolution is the most dominant position on origins in America. Fully 46.4 % disagreed with the statement that ‘evolution is the best possible explanation of human existence.’ Education was negatively related to belief in creationism—fully 69.4 % of those with high school education or less did not believe that evolution was the best possible explanation for life, as did 46 % of those with graduate or professional degrees. The majority of all persons sampled (52.7 %) disagreed with the theistic evolution world view, and 19.1 % of all people surveyed stated they believed that God created the cosmos from 5 to 10 thousand years ago (13.2 % of professionals agreed with this position). Also, 44.5 % with a high school education or less believe the Bible is the ‘Word of God’ and fully 63.3 % of the college graduates believe the Bible is ‘the inspired word of God,’ but only 14.8 % who have graduate or professional degrees agreed with this statement.

[calfoxwc]

So, woodypeckerhead and Chris...did you notice the sentence words in red and really large font?

 

So, you missed it, due to ....what?

 

Do.....you.....understand.......that.....

 

"A more focused poll was completed by Research Associates under the direction of Professor Gerald Goldhabar of the State University of New York in Buffalo. Commissioned by the atheistic organization....

 

means that it wasn't a poll done by Fox News, etc?

 

What a cowardly way to cop out on a discussion. Serious points were made by

the Professor, and serious points were made by Research Associates (commissioned

by the atheist org), and all I get from Chris and Woodypeckerhead is bitching

about haha source something.

 

Really? If you can't carry the bucket of water, pour the water out, and try again.

 

No,wait, don't do it. Geez, I was only kidding. @@

 

I mean, what does it matter that a point was made years ago? It is still

a freakin point.

 

Stop the grabbing at straws to avoid the content, it's terribly liberal weinie-ish.

[calfoxwc]

Or, do I need a bigger font to intellectually stoned libs on the board

who refuse honest discussion that threatens their righteous bitching?

[gftChris]

I can do big red font too! Look, magic!

 

Shouting is not going to make your point more valid. Let's look at big red sentence number one, shall we?

 

 

The first recent national scientific public opinion poll on teaching origins was completed in 1972 by George Gallup, a respected polling corporation with years of experience perfecting its methods. The poll asked a representative sample of 1,518 adults if they agreed with the statement: ‘God created Adam and Eve, which was the start of human life.’ Presumably, this question would separate those who conclude Adam and Eve were distinct creations from those who believe that humans evolved from a ‘lower’ life form by natural selection acting on mutations.

 

this poll is over 40 years old - so to start with it's basically irrelevant. But let's even if it were from 2012, it's still an opinion poll, it's still not even remotely useful as anything related to science. If you look back, you'll find Woody commenting on this quote:

 

Gallup also found that agreement with creationism was inversely related to both education and age—the more educated and the younger the respondent, the less likely they were to believe that God created the first humans. The likely reason is that younger persons are better educated and more influenced by new secular ideas in the society around them.

So even the source you're using to support your argument is saying that the better educated you are, the more likely you are to believe in evolution? Does that not tell you something? Or is it that everyone is being brainwashed by scientists because...?

 

I suspect that the age point is biased towards younger people having higher standards of education in general, so stands with the point about education.

 

 

The second poll you have is a touch more recent, dating from 1996, but even back then we find results like:

"The majority of all persons sampled (52.7 %) disagreed with the theistic evolution world view"

Again, it shows the trend that the more education you have, the less likely you are to accept religious teachings in general.

 

So the question remains, what point are you trying to make? That 40 years ago the majority of americans did not accept evolution as the explanation of how the species came to be? That more recently, opinion was basically split? I can see that - I can do numbers, me. But what is the ultimate point? That public opinion should determine what is taught in school?

[gftChris]

You can find polls supporting basically anything you want to say. For example, here's one that obviously claims to be unbiased (I don't know much about the source, so can't comment), figures from which were posted previously:

http://www.people-press.org/2009/07/09/section-5-evolution-climate-change-and-other-issues/

 

 

A majority of the public (61%) says that human and other living things have evolved over time, though when probed only about a third (32%) say this evolution is “due to natural processes such as natural selection” while 22% say “a supreme being guided the evolution of living things for the purpose of creating humans and other life in the form it exists today.” Another 31% reject evolution and say that “humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time.”

Nearly all scientists (97%) say humans and other living things have evolved over time – 87% say evolution is due to natural processes, such as natural selection. The dominant position among scientists – that living things have evolved due to natural processes – is shared by only about third (32%) of the public.

 

I'm more inclined to listen to the 'scientists' they interviewed - although I couldn't find any source detailing which type of scientists were asked - who are more likely to have a working understanding of the concepts and evidence involved than a generic member of the public.

[gftChris]

The evidence for evolution really is overwhelming. If you want to claim that evolution happened because it was god's will, then that's really quite difficult to prove either way, obviously. That's a different point, and one that could perhaps be open to debate, along the lines of "is there a god?" But suggesting that the earth is only 6000 years old, or that god created humans in their current form, is by the vast majority of evidence incorrect.

[MLD Woody]

Wow Cal you're a child. Your defense mechanism is throwing a tantrum and calling anyone that disagrees with you a liberal.

 

I already commented on half the shit you just posted dumbass. Pull you head out of your own ass. Chris has now basically said the same thing too. What POINT do you think you are making by posting opinion polls from the 70s? I have still yet to hear that you just keep posting more or the same shit without adding anything worthwhile to this thread

 

This thread and the gay marriage thread is you competing with yourself to see how pathetic you can be...

[gftChris]

Wow Cal you're a child. Your defense mechanism is throwing a tantrum and calling anyone that disagrees with you a liberal.

 

I already commented on half the shit you just posted dumbass. Pull you head out of your own ass. Chris has now basically said the same thing too. What POINT do you think you are making by posting opinion polls from the 70s? I have still yet to hear that you just keep posting more or the same shit without adding anything worthwhile to this thread

 

This thread and the gay marriage thread is you competing with yourself to see how pathetic you can be...

Goddammit woody, if you hadn't said anything, Cal might have responded to me and we might have furthered the conversation. Now we're just back to insults being thrown from both sides

[MLD Woody]

Cal, I read the stupid shit you post, that's how I know its stupid shit. You think we acting your "source" (40 year old polls) instead of acknowledging your point. Tell me then, Wtf is your point? There isn't a general consensus in the general public? Well know shit. Not as long as some choose to be blinded by their religion.

 

 

 

Her is the first paragraph of the wiki article on that Prof (a law professor mind you) that you posted

 

Phillip E. Johnson (born June 18, 1940) is a retired UC Berkeley law professor and author. He became a born-again Christian while a tenured professor and is considered the father of the intelligent design movement. A critic of what he calls "Darwinism" and "scientific materialism," Johnson rejects evolution in favor of neo-creationist views known as intelligent design (ID). He was a co-founder of the Discovery Institute's Center for Science and Culture (CSC) and is credited with establishing the wedge strategy, which aims to change public opinion and scientific consensus, and seeks to convince the scientific community to allow a role for God in scientific theory.[1] As a member of The Group for the Scientific Reappraisal of the HIV/AIDS Hypothesis, a prominent AIDS denialist group,[2] Johnson has argued that HIV does not cause AIDS.[3][4][5][6] The clear consensus of the scientific community considers Johnson's opinions on evolution and AIDS to be pseudoscience.[5][7][8][9]

 

 

 

Yeah... amazing stuff. Much accomplishment. Such genius.

[MLD Woody]

Goddammit woody, if you hadn't said anything, Cal might have responded to me and we might have furthered the conversation. Now we're just back to insults being thrown from both sides

I am looking for an answer, a response to what he actually posted. I won't get it though. This grown man will insult me with his woodpecker shit and then still completely ignore what is going on. Idk of he is just stupid or he is realizing he has no leg to stand on in this debate so he's just trying to distract everyone from his own ignorance. I mean, who honestly posts a 40 year old opinion poll and then shouts "ah ha! Got you!"

[calfoxwc]

History. Combined with reasoning by a brilliant professor at a liberal college.

 

I know the polls were old. But look where they came from.

 

It isn't without meaning, regardless of age. There is something there, that people

can and do look to, as more than science can explain. I keep waiting for Chris or

anybody else but assho woodypeckerhead to talk about - that the miracle

of life is far more than a chance lightning bolt in the primordial swamp.

 

That's all. Liberals also tend to the old "well, that author doesn't even have a degree"...

then you post an article by a professor emeritus from a very major university, and the liberal

woodypeckerhead liberals ignore every bit of content....because "well, it is referred to by a newspaper" even though it's

about the professor, and then the woodypeckerhead ignores the content by looking to see how old it is,

so then I post a recent article of the same message, and if the woodypeckerhead can't find fault with

the link, how old the article is, or with the education of the author, or any source, or anything else,

they ignore the content, all reasoning, and they start a personal namecalling bunch of chda because

the woodypeckerhead can't hold up to a simple conversation, and being a pseudo-intellectual contrarian is all he is.

[calfoxwc]

I knew you'd bitch about how old the polls were. The joke is on woodypeckerhead. Maybe it should be

"woodypeckerasshead" because his every post is smoke blowing stupidly out of his rear.

 

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

 

[gftChris]

Again, you're talking public opinion - what bearing should that have on science? Other than a study in mass psychology, of course, and how people can be influenced by various media with agendas.

 

As for the 'miracle of life' - synthetic life has already been created in labs. We can show the process involved, that no great creator was required. This obviously can't prove that one wasn't involved, so I doubt it's going to have much impact on those who hold the creationism/intelligent design viewpoints so staunchly.

[calfoxwc]

hahahahahahaha. Lookee, lookee, lookee. From Jan1982, 38% felt "Humans evolved, with God guiding. THEN,

in 2012, May...why, lookee at what we have here, stupid shit woodypeckerbutthead !!!!

 

WOW !!! It's still 32 percent !!!!! And, during that time, "Humans evolved, but God had no part in process" climbed

6 percent, from 9 to 15.

 

But wait, there's more. Oh, yeah. During that time, JAN 82 - MAY 2012 - holy mackeral !

 

LOOK ! "GOD CREATED HUMANS IN PRESENT FORM". The percentage actually increased from 44% to 46%.

 

So, woodypeckerwoodbutthead bitched, and now has to go crawl back into his hole. It didn't matter about the year.

 

30 years old, to 2012. My, my, my. Woodypeckerbutthead is way to ignorant to avoid traps like these. I KNEW he'd

jump on the age of the poll thing.

 

SO, in conclusion, Oh, yes, woodypeckerbutthead, I got you, hook, line, and sinker, sucker. I've done it before,

and I did it again. But do go ahead and bitch about something else. Color of the screen or color of the fonts

in the site make all the content invalid?

 

Woodypeckerbutthead translation: "LOOK, EVERYBODY, I'M RACING CAL WITH NO HANDS AND...."

 

online crash, explode into virtual flames.

[calfoxwc]

Again, you're talking public opinion - what bearing should that have on science? Other than a study in mass psychology, of course, and how people can be influenced by various media with agendas.

As for the 'miracle of life' - synthetic life has already been created in labs. We can show the process involved, that no great creator was required. This obviously can't prove that one wasn't involved, so I doubt it's going to have much impact on those who hold the creationism/intelligent design viewpoints so staunchly. Chris

*******************************************************

Yes, but you're the character that dissed the poll earlier as being old. I wasn't trying to catch you. Sorry about that.

But woodypeckerbutthead does it again and again, so he just fell on his virtual online face again. There's far more media

now, but as I've shown, over decades, the beliefs haven't changed all that much.

But I believe you mean "artificial life", and not "synthetic life". A lot of people experience an appreciation

for understanding that God exists. I've explained a few things in my life that made my belief and wonder,

far more concrete and real. Scientists can duplicate natural processes... trust me, they have to go

to a huge amount of trouble over many decades and expense to accomplish it....

But who made the nature before there were scientists? No labs. No technology. That's my question to you, Chris.

I understand how folks don't believe. That's okay, and I never once call them names or denigrate them.

I simply understand and believe what I believe.

It's the other side, the anti-our beliefs about God that does that. The ridicule always comes

from the hateful other side of the whole discussion.