Poll: Creationism Trumps Evolution

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: wirelessenabled

Originally posted by: daveshel
I'm not so sure this proves anything about ignorance, since the theory of evolution is still a theory. Moreover, it seems to me the most telling statistic would be the percentage that believes that God created the human race through the forces of evolution.

EVERYTHING in science is a theory! We have this theory about how electrons behave in a semiconductor. We use the theory to design and build CPUs to power a computer. Does this make the theory a truth? No, it is still a theory. The theory fits the facts well enough to allow us to harness its power but it still does not make it a truth.

Same holds true for evolution. It will never be a fact no matter how much evidence we gather or how well it fits and explains and predicts the evidence.

The evangelicals stating that evolution is "only a theory" just means one more level of ignorance to me.

The clear words of one who has neither studied evolution nor come to understand the basics of its operations.

The claim "All science is just a theory!" is just the desperate cries of ignorant fops trying to put FAITH on the same standing as REASON.

Let's try a little exercise, though: We'll drop you out of an airplane at 30,000 feet with no parachute and you can explain on the way down how Gravity is, after all, "just a theory."

Jason

 

[DragonMasterAlex]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior
Yeah, funny. But at the very least, you can dig down and find things to theorize about. Press a religous person for substance and all you'll get ultimately is "I just BELIEVE!", and\or that sullen hatred they can have for those who question.

It's really rooted in a hatred for REASON. They just want the EASY answers, they don't want to WORK for it. "It's so because the Bible says so!" is at it's root an admission of intellectual impotence.

Jason

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: kage69

I'm not bashing anyone, just pointing out the absurdity of calling someone stupid and close-minded because they refuse to agree with your opinion

It's not absurd to call someone stupid or closeminded if they stick their nose up at the overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves evolution via natural selection. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Anyone who states otherwise is delusional, stupid, or both. Sorry. Darwin was largely right, people just need to deal with it. If that's going to prove destructive to their fragile belief system, oh well. But hey, it's a free country - you can choose to live in a fairytale if you wish, no skin off my back (unless of course you insist on imposing your dogma on me or my government, then we have a problem).

Look, even if I concede your argument, it only applies to natural selection, which occurs when life exists in a struggle to survive. But how did the first cell even come to be created?? By a random pile of crap? Maybe, but highly improbable. It's hard enough to create amino acids and the like from random muck, but to create cells out of that is highly improbable. I also believe that while evolution refines different creatures, such as long beaks, short feet, A multi-celled microorganism growing an eye seems absurd to me. How in the world did it become sensitive to light? Just randomly? Darwin may have been largely right in some aspects, but not totally right. There is no reason why they have to be mutually exclusive.

At the same time, I'm amazed that you can call it a fact that we all evolved from nothing. While there may be evidence that suggests that evolution occurs, there isn't much evidence that specifically says that we were evolved from nothing. Scientists, as they learn more of the complexity of cells, keep pushing back the date of the beginning of time, realizing that it requires much more time to create something so complex from nothing. Is it really so hard to believe that a supreme being created most of what is here today? I find it easier to believe than your alternative

I think it really makes you look like a fool to call other people stupid and morons because they believe in creationism.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.

3) God created men to be perfect, whose perfection was marred by Satan.

 

[IAteYourMother]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.

Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?

Of course everyone has their own take on this.

I've read some of those arguments but they address only our imperfect thoughts, not our imperfect physical being. Babies are born deformed and retarded every single day in this world. Does a benevolent God intentionally cripple people or start them and not even allow them to be born? Or did God screw up genetics?

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

Why can't God intentionally create an imperfect being? What's the logic behind #2, just out of curiosity?

The thinking behind it is that in order to be able to create imperfection you have to be able to think and/or act imperfectly. If a being can think or act imperfectly it is, by definition, an imperfect being itself.

Unless you are omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent

 

[imported_Leaf]

If you believe the "Big Bang" was coincidence then creationism has equal credibility as evolution.

I believe god started evolution. Too bad the scientists fvcked up by including a Coelacanth.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Leaf
Too bad the scientists fvcked up when a living Coelacanth was dicovered.

Why was discovering that coelacanths weren't extinct "fvcked up?"

 

[biostud]

3) God created men to be perfect, whose perfection was marred by Satan.

LOL! I read it as: "God created men to be perfect, whose perfection was married by Satan."

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

But you can wonder which persons who doesn't want evolution to be tought..........

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: alexruiz
Guys, science work base on FACTs. It can explains how thing work or why they are. It can even reproduce them IF the EXACT conditions are given (scientific method, laws of science generation) Religion work on belif, and they are trying to beat science using science reasons: It is not fully proven yet, so it is false......

What "they" are you talking about? Has anyone said anything along the lines of "It is not fully proven yet, so it is false......."?
Nope.
In general, don't use strawmen to support your arguements, it weakens your arguement.

Well, for those of you who learned how the scientific method works ( a generic model used here) you have phenomenom, observation, hypothesis, experimentation, theory, comprobation and law. Hypothesis is an explanation of something after you have observed the phenomenom. You are making a guess basically based on knowledge you have. Theory is a partially proven hypothesis. Law is stament that describes the phenomenom, fully proven and applies to all the cases that match the frame of reference (someone said that all in science is theory. Sorry, that is wrong. Universal gravitation law is an example. Try to find a case where it doesn't apply... How about you jump from a building to disprove it?)

You lecture us about science, then you spit out that nonsense? "Try to find a case where it doesn't apply"? What about the Law of Conservation of Mass? What's that, it doesn't hold for all cases? Nuclear fission what? But before research into nuclear physics we couldn't find a case where it didn't apply.

So, our bible thumping friends, don't get excited. Evolution is partially proven, has an explanation and can even be reproduced in some conditions (mutations). Creationism is not even a hypothesis

Hold on, didn't you just define hypothesis as 'an explaination of something after you have observed the phenom', and as 'you are making a guess basically based on knowledge you have'? According to your definition creationism is a hypothesis!

According to the real definition of hypothesis with regard to the scientific method though, creationism is indeed not a hypothesis, for it can't be tested through further investigation.

There are no fact other than a bok that claims to be "sacred" (same as many others)

There are no 'fact' other than a 'bok' that claims to be sacred? So the 'bok' that claims to be sacred is a fact? I wouldn't say that anything claiming to be sacred should be taken as fact

You want to teach that God created the world, go ahead, just make sure you have enough samples. Was it Ra? Maybe Itzamna, as depicted in the Mayan Popol Vuh? How about Zeus? How about the original version of the bible genesis, the Gilgamesh epic? Was the man made of clay, corn or dust?


Alex

I fully subscribe to the notion of evolution and am against the teaching of creationism in schools. However, you pretentiously touting 'scientific principals' with condescending language does not help the cause.

If you want to support evolution, do it through the plenthora of evidence that exists, not some weak rhetoric.

Forgive me if I convey a sense of anger, that is not my intent. I also don't mean to disrespect you, as I am sure you are good at what you do in life. It just kills me to see weak arguement, especially when the arguer assumes omniscience.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

But you can wonder which persons who doesn't want evolution to be tought..........

The uneducated?

 

[biostud]

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: biostud

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

But you can wonder which persons who doesn't want evolution to be tought..........

The uneducated?

And some world we live in where the uneducated decides what should be educated

 

[imported_Leaf]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Leaf
Too bad the scientists fvcked up when a living Coelacanth was dicovered.

Why was discovering that coelacanths weren't extinct "fvcked up?"

Eh.. the fossil was part of the "evolutionary chain" let's not forget. Please don't ask me to think for you.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Gen Stonewall
Deformity came into earthly life as we know it today through Adam's selfishness through submission to temptation.

Look through the second link of my signature; I don't yet subscribe to the idea, but it seems to give answers that more poplular versions of creationism can't address.

Uh....



BTW, the Bible is NOT meant to be a resource for scientific research. It's merely about the human condition and a guide to a spiritual and righteous life. Anyone who even begins to try and use the Bible to explain how the earth, the sun, the universe itself were formed is distorting the Bible to suit their belief.

But when the Bible presents a radically different view of earth's history than what scientists have determined on their own, a person who puts faith in th Bible would necessarily need to depart from scientific orthodoxy in this manner.

I don't know. Scientists aren't sure as to the details of earth's history (some physicists' estimates put the age of the universe as being less than some biologists' estimates of the age of the earth), although all parties agree that the universe is many many times older than 6000 years or whatever the young-earth creationists are saying. Most Christians don't believe that the purpose of the Bible is to be a history.

Some new-age flat-earthers use a verse in Psalms that references "the sky being peeled back like a tent" to further their flat-earth claims. But the Psalms are freaking uplifting poetry, metaphor and whatnot, not history. Much of Genesis was written in poetry too, I'm not sure if God meant it to be taken as fact.

You should look through the website; it makes strong arguments that point to an agreement between the Bible and geology.

Considering all this, I still see evolution as a valid theory and a necessary tool in understanding biological processes that are occuring right now. But humans' similarity genetically to other primates is not enough to force me to believe in human evolution; the differences between humans and all other animals on earth are mind-numbingly extreme.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken

Originally posted by: jlmadyson

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

#1 seems highly doubtful, based on observation and, if #2 is true and he is flawed, it wouldn't seem that God is much of an actual God.

Some from the Great Books have argued something called Free Will?

Of course everyone has their own take on this.

I've read some of those arguments but they address only our imperfect thoughts, not our imperfect physical being. Babies are born deformed and retarded every single day in this world. Does a benevolent God intentionally cripple people or start them and not even allow them to be born? Or did God screw up genetics?

Originally posted by: cKGunslinger

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I don't see how anyone can believe in creationism. If you think about it, particularly those who believe in God, the mere existence of God rules out his creating man. According to religious credo God is a perfect being. Man is an imperfect being. If God did create man, it means that either:

1) Man is perfect, or

2) God is not perfect as God could not create an imperfect being and maintain perfection, even willingly. If he did create imperfection he would himself have to be flawed in some way.

Why can't God intentionally create an imperfect being? What's the logic behind #2, just out of curiosity?

The thinking behind it is that in order to be able to create imperfection you have to be able to think and/or act imperfectly. If a being can think or act imperfectly it is, by definition, an imperfect being itself.

Interesting. It took me a second read to get this. Ah crap, just lost it It's too late in the evening.

I'm no scholar. Does it say anywhere in the Bible that God is perfect or omniscient?

 

[biostud]

Who made the snake that lured Eve into eating the apple?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Leaf

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Leaf
Too bad the scientists fvcked up when a living Coelacanth was dicovered.

Why was discovering that coelacanths weren't extinct "fvcked up?"

Eh.. the fossil was part of the "evolutionary chain" let's not forget. Please don't ask me to think for you.

Why would I ask you to think for me when you're obviously having problems thinking for yourself? That a small colony of was found in no way destroys the progression of an evolutionary strain leading to more complex types. These living treasures being discovered is an oddity yes, but it doesn't come close to proving there's a "God" orchestrating things.

 

[stratman]

Originally posted by: kage69

I'm not bashing anyone, just pointing out the absurdity of calling someone stupid and close-minded because they refuse to agree with your opinion

It's not absurd to call someone stupid or closeminded if they stick their nose up at the overwhelming mountain of evidence that proves evolution via natural selection. This isn't opinion, it's fact. Anyone who states otherwise is delusional, stupid, or both. Sorry. Darwin was largely right, people just need to deal with it. If that's going to prove destructive to their fragile belief system, oh well. But hey, it's a free country - you can choose to live in a fairytale if you wish, no skin off my back (unless of course you insist on imposing your dogma on me or my government, then we have a problem).

Some scientists have suggested that the majority of evolution happens not though natural selection but through --forget the name, gene-sharing or something (it's the same reason why GM plants are such a threat to natural species, genes from the genetically modified plants attach themselves to those of regular plants, so the regular plants become like the GM plants)--.

Some scientists suggest that evolution has been influenced by 'artificial selection', where mates choose each other based on a superfluous characteristic, and so that characteristic evolves larger or whatever, like with peacocks.

Point is, while we know evolution has certainly occurred, we aren't sure it has all occurred through natural selection, and the scientists who suggest this are neither delusional or stupid. The problem with natural selection is (in most cases) it takes so bloody long. Some biologists estimate that the age of the earth (based purely on the time required purely for natural selection to have caused every evolution and mutation) is greater than some physicists estimates of the age of the universe (based on background radiation from the big bang and whatnot).

So you are calling others stupid and closeminded even when you don't know (or ignore in order to make a point) all the facts involved. I agree with you that creationism should not be taught in schools. But tone down on your freaking rhetoric, you make it sound so offensive.

EDIT: and on that note, I'm going to bed.

 

[Siddhartha]

Awhile back the Indiana State legislature passed a law making PI equal to 3.0. Eventually they saw how stupid it was to legislate science.

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: earthman
Evolution is just a theory and religeon is just superstition.

Evolution as to modern science, religion as to ancient science. What people don't get is that one is more advanced then the other. People long ago based their theory on a belief system rather a proven fact like we have today such as the atomic bomb possible because of intelligent design, us.

Religion is an emotional concept, if it feels right then it must be right without doing any research like wishful thoughts. Since most people are emotional, religion pretty much wins over and convince them that theirs got to be someone superior to us, unseen, naked to the eye, all great, perfect only in their imagination thought.
People like to live in the past and cling onto whatever makes them feel right, whatever makes them happy. Prozac will be just as effective at curing this ailment

 

[wchou]

Originally posted by: stratman

Originally posted by: DragonMasterAlex
Imagine, people who actually have enough education to *Understand* evolution see how it works and why, whereas ignorant clucks with nothin' but daddy's swaggerins' for the Lord can't wrap their brains around it.

Surprise, surprise.

Jason

Can you repeat this without a slant and/or accent?

I agree if you are saying uneducated people don't know as much about evolution, but disagree if you are saying educated people don't believe in God.

For example, the percentage of people who believe in God in the American Astronomical Society (a highly educated group) is statistically the same as people who believe in God in the general public.

You might have a look at those "intelligent design" fellows, who are generally well educated, but believe in some form of creation.

so theres got to be someone more intelligent then we are where he/she cannot be seen, touch, smell or even hear?
It has nothing to do with well educated some are but rather any average person can be brainwashed to believe anything due to his or her low intelligent. he/she cannot be intelligent if the minds are being conditioned to act certain way and not to question the author who wrote it with the intention of having the reader agree with it.
Again believing in creation does not make a person more intelligent then those who do not, actually quite the opposite to the contrary.
You can say whatever you want but it does not change the fact that their are very few who are gifted in this world. Just because most think the world is flat does not make it a proven fact.
Believe whatever you want to believe, people are like herds of follower of popular opinions where their facts are often proven wrong.

Instead of going to the doctor when you're sick, why don't you pray to god instead? hmm maybe he/she can do more wonders then what science can?

:roll:

 

[shrumpage]

Originally posted by: wchou
Instead of going to the doctor when you're sick, why don't you pray to god instead? hmm maybe he/she can do more wonders then what science can?

:roll:

I'd recommend both.

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: stratman
What "they" are you talking about? Has anyone said anything along the lines of "It is not fully proven yet, so it is false......."?
Nope.
In general, don't use strawmen to support your arguements, it weakens your arguement.

HOW this weaken the arguements? THEY, yes, they, the fenatic zealost claim that evolution is not fully proven, so this means it is not proven, which equals to false. Pick any newspaper, or pick a number of "Nature" and see the "reasons" the church gives..... They, yes, they have stated that the theory is not fully proven. Evidence abunds.

Originally posted by: stratman
You lecture us about science, then you spit out that nonsense? "Try to find a case where it doesn't apply"? What about the Law of Conservation of Mass? What's that, it doesn't hold for all cases? Nuclear fission what? But before research into nuclear physics we couldn't find a case where it didn't apply.

What nonsense? That the law applies always. someone said that all in science is still theory. I just wanted to make a point about laws in science. By the way, the law of conservation of mass AND energyapplies EVEN in the nuclear reactions. E=mc^2 becomes aterm in original law Ep = Ek + Et, and is still valid.

Originally posted by: stratman
So, our bible thumping friends, don't get excited. Evolution is partially proven, has an explanation and can even be reproduced in some conditions (mutations). Creationism is not even a hypothesis

Hold on, didn't you just define hypothesis as 'an explaination of something after you have observed the phenom', and as 'you are making a guess basically based on knowledge you have'? According to your definition creationism is a hypothesis!

You already gave yourself the answer. Thanks Anyone can claim that a suposition is a hypothesis, so you caught my omission.

Originally posted by: stratman
There are no 'fact' other than a 'bok' that claims to be sacred? So the 'bok' that claims to be sacred is a fact? I wouldn't say that anything claiming to be sacred should be taken as fact

My mistake, it should have said "BOOK". It still applies, as that is a FACT for millions of religious zealots. I just asked them to prove me that their "fact" is closer to truth than other "facts", understanding other facts as the sacred books of other religions..... No one brought the evidence.

Originally posted by: stratman
I fully subscribe to the notion of evolution and am against the teaching of creationism in schools. However, you pretentiously touting 'scientific principals' with condescending language does not help the cause.

If you want to support evolution, do it through the plenthora of evidence that exists, not some weak rhetoric.

Forgive me if I convey a sense of anger, that is not my intent. I also don't mean to disrespect you, as I am sure you are good at what you do in life. It just kills me to see weak arguement, especially when the arguer assumes omniscience.

I have no defense against this one, an you have a totally valid point. I just think that AFTER all the evidence that exists supporting evolution, rational people would be convinced. Those who still refuse to accept the evidence have to be talked in a harsh coarse way, using even degrading rethorics. Radical problems demand radical solutions.

Alex

 

[alexruiz]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Leaf

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Leaf
Too bad the scientists fvcked up when a living Coelacanth was dicovered.

Why was discovering that coelacanths weren't extinct "fvcked up?"

Eh.. the fossil was part of the "evolutionary chain" let's not forget. Please don't ask me to think for you.

Why would I ask you to think for me when you're obviously having problems thinking for yourself? That a small colony of was found in no way destroys the progression of an evolutionary strain leading to more complex types. These living treasures being discovered is an oddity yes, but it doesn't come close to proving there's a "God" orchestrating things.

I think this fact works in favor of evolution rather than agaist it: Organism will evolve and ADAPT to the environment (part of Lamark's proposal). A living colony of those organisms means that they were living in a place where the conditions remained stable, so no need to change (Think Australia and New Zealand) . Evolution doesn't mean that you have to evolve or you die. In some cases, as in this one, without evolving they didn't die. Unless you kniow EXACTLY all the conditions involved you can't be sure of "this goes against evolution" That is the beauty of science.