Majority of Republicans Doubt Theory of Evolution
More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution
by Frank Newport
GALLUP NEWS SERVICE
PRINCETON, NJ -- The majority of Republicans in the United States do not believe the theory of evolution is true and do not believe that humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced forms of life. This suggests that when three Republican presidential candidates at a May debate stated they did not believe in evolution, they were generally in sync with the bulk of the rank-and-file Republicans whose nomination they are seeking to obtain.
Independents and Democrats are more likely than Republicans to believe in the theory of evolution. But even among non-Republicans there appears to be a significant minority who doubt that evolution adequately explains where humans came from.
The data from several recent Gallup studies suggest that Americans' religious behavior is highly correlated with beliefs about evolution. Those who attend church frequently are much less likely to believe in evolution than are those who seldom or never attend. That Republicans tend to be frequent churchgoers helps explain their doubts about evolution.
The data indicate some seeming confusion on the part of Americans on this issue. About a quarter of Americans say they believe both in evolution's explanation that humans evolved over millions of years and in the creationist explanation that humans were created as is about 10,000 years ago.
Broad Patterns of Belief in Evolution
The theory of evolution as an explanation for the origin and development of life has been controversial for centuries, and, in particular, since the 1859 publication of Charles Darwin's famous The Origin of Species. Although many scientists accept evolution as the best theoretical explanation for diversity in forms of life on Earth, the issue of its validity has risen again as an important issue in the current 2008 presidential campaign. Two recent Republican debates have included questions to the candidates about evolution. Three candidates -- Sam Brownback, Mike Huckabee, and Tom Tancredo -- indicated in response to a question during the May 3 debate that they did not believe in the theory of evolution, although they have attempted to clarify their positions in the weeks since.
Several recent Gallup Polls conducted in May and June indicate that a significant number of Americans have doubts about the theory of evolution".
I also found a nice chart of a survey presented by national geographic comparing the acceptance of evolution theory in different countries. The chart is a little less in depth than the Gallup poll but its gives an illustration of the broad trends between countries.
question: does it occur to anyone that most people might actually believe in both? are we allowed to have that discussion? that most normal people have faith but also believe in science and aren't literalists...
seriously, "stories" like this is why talk radio exists.
but to hell with what we all actually have in common, so long as we distort the point b/c it's so fun to pile on those heyseed hillbilly bible thumpin' sister-marryin' low life racists in the south.
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Higher than at any point in human history...but we can still do better
And you ask me what I want this year
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Can't evolution simply be the "tool" or method by which a creator did his/her creating?
Not if god created evolution with 'us' in mind. Evolution does not have a direction- it occurs due to random mutations which are acted on by selecting presures. So if you are saying that god created the universe, then put evolving life onto this planet to end up with us, and that he had humans in mind when he created life, then that is 'guided evolution', which is fundamentally different to the theory of evolution that is based upon a huge accumulation of solid scientific evidence.
"God" is the easy answer for those questions. If god was accepted as the answer to everything, the little date on your stone tablet computer would read "dark ages" instead of June 14. People who are told to believe that God is responsible for everything in the world (except the bad stuff) for their whole lives tend to believe just that. Not too many people who say they believe in god actually do believe in god. They just say it because they have been told that it is bad to say that you don't.
God says your stone tablet computer is 10 days off, because today is June 24. I don't even know what your point is with that, you trying to say that all the great inventions throughout time were made by people too "smart" to believe in God? that would be a silly assumption.
did you take a poll of all the people who say they believe in God? because it's a very very very high percentage of people who say they do. and that's not just the US, that's throughout the entire world.
bake me a cake without any ingredients, utensils, stove. bake a cake for me out of thin air, and then you'll have proven for me that there is no God. because SOMETHING existed in the beginning to create the universe. no answer? no theories?
The "universe" or "all that is" just was.... there can be no "point of creation", or creation of everything observable out of thin air (or from nothing)
....it's a hopelessly flawed scenario.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
there are scientific explanations that can't be denied. but there are things that science can't deny either. you can't bake a birthday cake out of nothing. and the universe cannot be created out of nothing except by a greater intelligence. the universe may stem from a million trillion gazillion years of evolution. but at some point, there was nothing. and somehow, that nothing came into being and set into motion the things that we see today. and that was a plan. and science cannot disprove that.
You are completely correct- the universe did not evolve from nothing, for even a 'thought' of a universe is a 'something'. But to use god to fill this gap does not answer the question- it is just a guess that has some attractive qualities (the after-life and a big granddad that loves us all living up in the sky) that people have become very attached to. It is no more valid then the flying spag monster or any other random idea that we might create to explain it.
But this idea of a higher power has one major flaw. It transfers the question of our origins and in the process makes the question harder to answer. God, as the creator, must inherintly be more complex then what he or she or it has created. So now we still have a question about where something comes from, only now the something is even more complex and thus harder to explain.
An alternative to procalaiming god as the creator is to suggest that this universe is just a continuation of eternal physical existance. When god's origins are questioned the most common answer is that god is eternal. Why not extend this privelage to the universe, or to some form of physical existence? As you have already acknowledged a physical universe cannot be created out of nothing. So why not just eliminate the 'nothing'?
We have no evidence of a state of non-existence. Even the purest of vaccums are hives of quantum excitement. So if we abondon this idea of 'nothing' we are left with a universe that is part of eternal existence. A universe that began with a 'big bang', but with a 'big bang' that was not the begining of all physical exitence. Maybe the form of this existence changes, maybe we are even more insignificant then we could have imagined and our share of existence is a tiny part of a tiny part. But eternal existence in one shape or form is as parsimoneous an answer as I think you will get to this question of where we came from.
I am not arguing that this is really where our origins lie. Also, as an atheist and a scientist I am the first to acknowledge that it is not possible to disprove the existence of god. Maybe god does exist and maybe god is the answer to this question. It is certainly a possability, albeit with a very similar probability as the flying spag monster et al. For me, God is simply not yet relevant to this question, and for him, her or it to attain relevance many, many other more parsimoneous ideas would first have to be disproved.
The "universe or "all that is" just was.... there can be no point of creation, or creation of "all that is" out of thin air (or nothing)....it's a hopelessly flawed scenario.
saying something "just was" is the flawed theory. matter doesn't pop out of nothing.
saying something "just was" is the flawed theory. matter doesn't pop out of nothing.
I doesn't have to pop out of nothing if "it" (i.e. energy everywhere) was already here in the first place...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You are completely correct- the universe did not evolve from nothing, for even a 'thought' of a universe is a 'something'. But to use god to fill this gap does not answer the question- it is just a guess that has some attractive qualities (the after-life and a big granddad that loves us all living up in the sky) that people have become very attached to. It is no more valid then the flying spag monster or any other random idea that we might create to explain it.
But this idea of a higher power has one major flaw. It transfers the question of our origins and in the process makes the question harder to answer. God, as the creator, must inherintly be more complex then what he or she or it has created. So now we still have a question about where something comes from, only now the something is even more complex and thus harder to explain.
An alternative to procalaiming god as the creator is to suggest that this universe is just a continuation of eternal physical existance. When god's origins are questioned the most common answer is that god is eternal. Why not extend this privelage to the universe, or to some form of physical existence? As you have already acknowledged a physical universe cannot be created out of nothing. So why not just eliminate the 'nothing'?
We have no evidence of a state of non-existence. Even the purest of vaccums are hives of quantum excitement. So if we abondon this idea of 'nothing' we are left with a universe that is part of eternal existence. A universe that began with a 'big bang', but with a 'big bang' that was not the begining of all physical exitence. Maybe the form of this existence changes, maybe we are even more insignificant then we could have imagined and our share of existence is a tiny part of a tiny part. But eternal existence in one shape or form is as parsimoneous an answer as I think you will get to this question of where we came from.
I am not arguing that this is really where our origins lie. Also, as an atheist and a scientist I am the first to acknowledge that it is not possible to disprove the existence of god. Maybe god does exist and maybe god is the answer to this question. It is certainly a possability, albeit with a very similar probability as the flying spag monster et al. For me, God is simply not yet relevant to this question, and for him, her or it to attain relevance many, many other more parsimoneous ideas would first have to be disproved.
Anyway, sorry for sidetracking the thread...
if one attributes "eternal existence" to the universe, then one can say that the universe itself is "God" as it must have a higher power of it's own. because as far as I'm concerned, nothign can have an eternal existence, unless it has a greater power than anything else. I don't think most people think of God as an old man that looks like the elderly Davinci and sits in the clouds judging people. I think most people think of God as a higher power that controls things, causes things to be.
I doesn't have to pop out of nothing if "it" (i.e. energy everywhere) was already here in the first place...
energy itself is a thing that can't exist unless something else exists. there is nothing, not energy, sounds, elements. nothing, that exists without something else existing before it, something to power it.
because as far as I'm concerned, nothign can have an eternal existence, unless it has a greater power than anything else.
Why?
You are imagining that the state of existence is somehow superior to the state of non-existence. I am simply arguing that 'nothing', or 'non-existence' is not the base state of the universe (or multiverse or whatever else we might term the entirity of existence). If we remove the concept of the universe begining out of nothing then it hardly surprising that it has existed eternally (in some shape or form) because there is no other option.
What it all means, and why it is so is not something that I think we can foreseeablely understand. But maybe I am wrong about that one...
And I know that a lot of people don't see god as a loving grandad in the sky... but I do think that that idea is very appealing to some people.
energy itself is a thing that can't exist unless something else exists. there is nothing, not energy, sounds, elements. nothing, that exists without something else existing before it, something to power it.
Everything that we are, and that exists (i.e. in this universe) is derived from hydrogen. Everything beyond the basic configuration of the hydrogen atom (one rotating around one) is evolution via the consequences of physics (gravity and motion) through time i.e. all stars, planet's, chairs, tables, tables, people, Ipods.....etc...
Energy is never lost, it just changes form...forever. Thus the notion of infinity very realistically comes into play. I believe the universe is a timeless mass of hydrogen.
Envisioning point of creation from absolutely nothing, or a creator creating something out of nothing is a paradox (not to mention seemingly impossible).
The universe existing as a state of an immense mass of hydrogen, is much more likely scenario, and reality from all scientific observation thus far.
To the best of my knowledge, gravity does not require an external power source
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Everything that we are, and that exists (i.e. in this universe) is derived from hydrogen. Everything beyond the basic configuration of the hydrogen atom (one rotating around one) is evolution via the consequences of physics (gravity and motion) through time i.e. all starts, planet's, chairs, tables, tables, people...etc...
Energy is never lost, it just changes form...forever. Thus the notion of infinity very realistically comes into play. I believe the universe is a timeless mass of hydrogen.
Envisioning point of creation from absolutely nothing, or a creator creating something out of nothing is a paradox (not to mention seemingly impossible).
The universe existing as a state of an immense mass of hydrogen, is much more likely scenario, and reality from all scientific observation thus far.
But I thought Hydrogen only composed 75% of the universe's elemental mass :P Just because something began as hydrogen does not mean it is even close to an "immense mass of hydrogen" any more. Far from it.
Everything that we are, and that exists (i.e. in this universe) is derived from hydrogen. Everything beyond the basic configuration of the hydrogen atom (one rotating around one) is evolution via the consequences of physics (gravity and motion) through time i.e. all stars, planet's, chairs, tables, tables, people, Ipods.....etc...
Energy is never lost, it just changes form...forever. Thus the notion of infinity very realistically comes into play. I believe the universe is a timeless mass of hydrogen.
Envisioning point of creation from absolutely nothing, or a creator creating something out of nothing is a paradox (not to mention seemingly impossible).
The universe existing as a state of an immense mass of hydrogen, is much more likely scenario, and reality from all scientific observation thus far.
To the best of my knowledge, gravity does not require an external power source
where does hydrogen come from? how did this hydrogen come to exist? have you ever seen anything that happened without a beginning?
I don't buy the "it existed eternally" thing. things (like elements) don't just "exist".
Why is it surprising that more American citizens believe in creationism than evolution by natural selection? Most Americans are naive and stupid about such things. Americans need to be more like Europeans and accept evolution by natural selection as a given biological fact.
"My Cadillac's sittin in the back, it isn't me, I'm going home in my Galaxy"
S. Hoon
"My body's nobody's body but mine. You run your own body, let me run mine" Chicago '95
where does hydrogen come from? how did this hydrogen come to exist? have you ever seen anything that happened without a beginning?
I don't buy the "it existed eternally" thing. things (like elements) don't just "exist".
So you believe everything came from nothing at some point and was created?
I think you're in for a pretty serious crash, because at some point something had to exist, and not come from nothing.
A "state of nature" or "phenomena" so to speak. Keep going backwards and creationism falls apart to the argument well....."God just is".
The something coming from absolutely nothing at all doesn't work...it can't work. I believe reality is bigger than what a man can put to paper and teach while exacting tithes on a Sunday afternoon pew.
I think it's very egocentric (outside of hard proven science) to believe anything of what man has come up with so far in explaining reality.
I wouldn't trust how incredibly stupid people were 50 years ago let alone 1000's of years in explaining anything important of today.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Why is it surprising that more American citizens believe in creationism than evolution by natural selection? Most Americans are naive and stupid about such things. Americans need to be more like Europeans and accept evolution by natural selection as a given biological fact.
That must be why "dumb Americans" have never made any scientific breakthroughs. Americans need to be like Americans and Europeans need to be like Europeans with the only changes to be made in trying to be the best people possible.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
where does hydrogen come from? how did this hydrogen come to exist? have you ever seen anything that happened without a beginning?
I don't buy the "it existed eternally" thing. things (like elements) don't just "exist".
Ok, so if things like elements do not exist eternally, can you envisage anything apart from god that might?
Some scientists have suggested that the universe might have begun out of a timeless virtual quantum world that exists either without time or eternally (depending on how you wish to phrase it). Therefore the big bang that created our universe did not come out of nothing. Once again, this suggests that the idea of absolute nothingness is but a human one...
Anyway, as always happens when I find discussions that i am really into- I am going climbing. So have a good day ( or night) and maybe we can continue this when I get back.
But I thought Hydrogen only composed 75% of the universe's elemental mass :P Just because something began as hydrogen does not mean it is even close to an "immense mass of hydrogen" any more. Far from it.
Holy fuck? lol...you expect me to break the composition of universe down for everyone in particular detail in passing? Ever heard of simplification for the sake of explanation?
Noone answered my statement on "does gravity require an external energy source to exist?"
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Noone answered my statement on "does gravity require an external energy source to exist?"
Yes it does. As gravity is the result of the pull between TWO objects it takes an external source. Earth's gravity is only possible because of the sun.
“One good thing about music,
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Yes it does. As gravity is the result of the pull between TWO objects it takes an external source. Earth's gravity is only possible because of the sun.
Actually, gravity is a warping of spacetime caused by matter. Earth would retain gravitational 'pull' regardless of the sun being present or not, in the sense that the spacetime around earth will be warped as long as the earth is present. If no other object is present then the warping is still present, there is just nothing else to be affected by it.
Yes it does. As gravity is the result of the pull between TWO objects it takes an external source. Earth's gravity is only possible because of the sun.
That would be great I suppose for explaining what you think to be true....but it's totally wrong. The sun has no very little to no effect on how much things weigh on earth. The sun is also not external to our universe.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
There are two camps of thought as far as I can see: The Genesis-style creationists & those that subscribe to a more sophisticated theory of intelligent design.
Basically, proponents of Genesis-style creationism hold that the universe and the Earth were created approximately 6000 years ago, based upon the lineage of people mentioned in the first few books of the Old Testament. They also hold that modern species of plants and animals were created in their present forms, as described in the book of Genesis. The fact that measurements of radioactive decay in rocks have set the age of the Earth to be over four billion years old is of no concern.
I have no problem with the idea that there are things that lie outside the scope of science. I am, however, concerned with the large number of Americans that can NOT seem to reconcile the FACT of evolution with their spiritual beliefs. I would not place all the ID folks in the category, however. According to the articles I posted in the first thread, it seems that non-Americans seem to have an easier time with this.
My question was is this primarily an American phenomena and if so, why?
Maybe it's because separation between state and church is not as extreme in the us. I mean saying "one nation under god" and having "in god we trust" on your money and having presidents that refer continously to god is a bit of a blow for the separation. I won't speak for the other countries in the survey but where I live religions have nothing to say in public matters. Religion must stay out (physically or not) of anything that is publicly funded, that includes public schools.
It may just be a matter of attitude towards god and religion. After all there only seems to be 2 opposing theories : the religious one and the other one.
talking about the universe as "eternally existing" or coming from an eternal mass of hydrogen, you're attributing some kind of super characteristic to it and proposing a theory that science can't prove or test. how is that any different from proposing the existence of a higher power?
Maybe it's because separation between state and church is not as extreme in the us. I mean saying "one nation under god" and having "in god we trust" on your money and having presidents that refer continously to god is a bit of a blow for the separation. I won't speak for the other countries in the survey but where I live religions have nothing to say in public matters. Religion must stay out (physically or not) of anything that is publicly funded, that includes public schools.
It may just be a matter of attitude towards god and religion. After all there only seems to be 2 opposing theories : the religious one and the other one.
"separation of church and state" means that the congress will not establish or sponser a religion, not that no public mention of a God can be made. the constitution has been completely distorted to make people think their skin is going to melt if they hear the word "God" in public.
"separation of church and state" means that the congress will not establish or sponser a religion, not that no public mention of a God can be made. the constitution has been completely distorted to make people think their skin is going to melt if they hear the word "God" in public.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I mean that in a society where God is mentionned in public matters and repeatedly by politicians, well members of that society may be more enclined to doubt controversial things such as evolution. I'm not american and here people do think our skin is going to melt if we hear the word god pronounced by a politician or a public representative and I suggested this difference may have something to do with what Baraka asked.
Comments
touche.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
question: does it occur to anyone that most people might actually believe in both? are we allowed to have that discussion? that most normal people have faith but also believe in science and aren't literalists...
seriously, "stories" like this is why talk radio exists.
but to hell with what we all actually have in common, so long as we distort the point b/c it's so fun to pile on those heyseed hillbilly bible thumpin' sister-marryin' low life racists in the south.
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
It was intelligent in design, of that I'm sure.
Where that intelligence is now, I'm not so sure.
Out to lunch perhaps.
Or perhaps, it had to get a day job.
www.myspace.com/jensvad
Higher than at any point in human history...but we can still do better
And I try to make this kind and clear
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Cuz I don't need boxes wrapped in strings
And desire and love and empty things
Just a chance that maybe we'll find better days
Not if god created evolution with 'us' in mind. Evolution does not have a direction- it occurs due to random mutations which are acted on by selecting presures. So if you are saying that god created the universe, then put evolving life onto this planet to end up with us, and that he had humans in mind when he created life, then that is 'guided evolution', which is fundamentally different to the theory of evolution that is based upon a huge accumulation of solid scientific evidence.
God says your stone tablet computer is 10 days off, because today is June 24. I don't even know what your point is with that, you trying to say that all the great inventions throughout time were made by people too "smart" to believe in God? that would be a silly assumption.
did you take a poll of all the people who say they believe in God? because it's a very very very high percentage of people who say they do. and that's not just the US, that's throughout the entire world.
bake me a cake without any ingredients, utensils, stove. bake a cake for me out of thin air, and then you'll have proven for me that there is no God. because SOMETHING existed in the beginning to create the universe. no answer? no theories?
....it's a hopelessly flawed scenario.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
You are completely correct- the universe did not evolve from nothing, for even a 'thought' of a universe is a 'something'. But to use god to fill this gap does not answer the question- it is just a guess that has some attractive qualities (the after-life and a big granddad that loves us all living up in the sky) that people have become very attached to. It is no more valid then the flying spag monster or any other random idea that we might create to explain it.
But this idea of a higher power has one major flaw. It transfers the question of our origins and in the process makes the question harder to answer. God, as the creator, must inherintly be more complex then what he or she or it has created. So now we still have a question about where something comes from, only now the something is even more complex and thus harder to explain.
An alternative to procalaiming god as the creator is to suggest that this universe is just a continuation of eternal physical existance. When god's origins are questioned the most common answer is that god is eternal. Why not extend this privelage to the universe, or to some form of physical existence? As you have already acknowledged a physical universe cannot be created out of nothing. So why not just eliminate the 'nothing'?
We have no evidence of a state of non-existence. Even the purest of vaccums are hives of quantum excitement. So if we abondon this idea of 'nothing' we are left with a universe that is part of eternal existence. A universe that began with a 'big bang', but with a 'big bang' that was not the begining of all physical exitence. Maybe the form of this existence changes, maybe we are even more insignificant then we could have imagined and our share of existence is a tiny part of a tiny part. But eternal existence in one shape or form is as parsimoneous an answer as I think you will get to this question of where we came from.
I am not arguing that this is really where our origins lie. Also, as an atheist and a scientist I am the first to acknowledge that it is not possible to disprove the existence of god. Maybe god does exist and maybe god is the answer to this question. It is certainly a possability, albeit with a very similar probability as the flying spag monster et al. For me, God is simply not yet relevant to this question, and for him, her or it to attain relevance many, many other more parsimoneous ideas would first have to be disproved.
Anyway, sorry for sidetracking the thread...
saying something "just was" is the flawed theory. matter doesn't pop out of nothing.
I doesn't have to pop out of nothing if "it" (i.e. energy everywhere) was already here in the first place...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
if one attributes "eternal existence" to the universe, then one can say that the universe itself is "God" as it must have a higher power of it's own. because as far as I'm concerned, nothign can have an eternal existence, unless it has a greater power than anything else. I don't think most people think of God as an old man that looks like the elderly Davinci and sits in the clouds judging people. I think most people think of God as a higher power that controls things, causes things to be.
energy itself is a thing that can't exist unless something else exists. there is nothing, not energy, sounds, elements. nothing, that exists without something else existing before it, something to power it.
Why?
You are imagining that the state of existence is somehow superior to the state of non-existence. I am simply arguing that 'nothing', or 'non-existence' is not the base state of the universe (or multiverse or whatever else we might term the entirity of existence). If we remove the concept of the universe begining out of nothing then it hardly surprising that it has existed eternally (in some shape or form) because there is no other option.
What it all means, and why it is so is not something that I think we can foreseeablely understand. But maybe I am wrong about that one...
And I know that a lot of people don't see god as a loving grandad in the sky... but I do think that that idea is very appealing to some people.
Everything that we are, and that exists (i.e. in this universe) is derived from hydrogen. Everything beyond the basic configuration of the hydrogen atom (one rotating around one) is evolution via the consequences of physics (gravity and motion) through time i.e. all stars, planet's, chairs, tables, tables, people, Ipods.....etc...
Energy is never lost, it just changes form...forever. Thus the notion of infinity very realistically comes into play. I believe the universe is a timeless mass of hydrogen.
Envisioning point of creation from absolutely nothing, or a creator creating something out of nothing is a paradox (not to mention seemingly impossible).
The universe existing as a state of an immense mass of hydrogen, is much more likely scenario, and reality from all scientific observation thus far.
To the best of my knowledge, gravity does not require an external power source
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
where does hydrogen come from? how did this hydrogen come to exist? have you ever seen anything that happened without a beginning?
I don't buy the "it existed eternally" thing. things (like elements) don't just "exist".
S. Hoon
"My body's nobody's body but mine. You run your own body, let me run mine" Chicago '95
Franken '08
So you believe everything came from nothing at some point and was created?
I think you're in for a pretty serious crash, because at some point something had to exist, and not come from nothing.
A "state of nature" or "phenomena" so to speak. Keep going backwards and creationism falls apart to the argument well....."God just is".
The something coming from absolutely nothing at all doesn't work...it can't work. I believe reality is bigger than what a man can put to paper and teach while exacting tithes on a Sunday afternoon pew.
I think it's very egocentric (outside of hard proven science) to believe anything of what man has come up with so far in explaining reality.
I wouldn't trust how incredibly stupid people were 50 years ago let alone 1000's of years in explaining anything important of today.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Ok, so if things like elements do not exist eternally, can you envisage anything apart from god that might?
Some scientists have suggested that the universe might have begun out of a timeless virtual quantum world that exists either without time or eternally (depending on how you wish to phrase it). Therefore the big bang that created our universe did not come out of nothing. Once again, this suggests that the idea of absolute nothingness is but a human one...
Anyway, as always happens when I find discussions that i am really into- I am going climbing. So have a good day ( or night) and maybe we can continue this when I get back.
Holy fuck? lol...you expect me to break the composition of universe down for everyone in particular detail in passing? Ever heard of simplification for the sake of explanation?
Noone answered my statement on "does gravity require an external energy source to exist?"
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
when it hits you, you feel to pain.
So brutalize me with music.”
~ Bob Marley
Actually, gravity is a warping of spacetime caused by matter. Earth would retain gravitational 'pull' regardless of the sun being present or not, in the sense that the spacetime around earth will be warped as long as the earth is present. If no other object is present then the warping is still present, there is just nothing else to be affected by it.
That would be great I suppose for explaining what you think to be true....but it's totally wrong. The sun has no very little to no effect on how much things weigh on earth. The sun is also not external to our universe.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Maybe it's because separation between state and church is not as extreme in the us. I mean saying "one nation under god" and having "in god we trust" on your money and having presidents that refer continously to god is a bit of a blow for the separation. I won't speak for the other countries in the survey but where I live religions have nothing to say in public matters. Religion must stay out (physically or not) of anything that is publicly funded, that includes public schools.
It may just be a matter of attitude towards god and religion. After all there only seems to be 2 opposing theories : the religious one and the other one.
"separation of church and state" means that the congress will not establish or sponser a religion, not that no public mention of a God can be made. the constitution has been completely distorted to make people think their skin is going to melt if they hear the word "God" in public.
I think you misinterpreted what I said. I mean that in a society where God is mentionned in public matters and repeatedly by politicians, well members of that society may be more enclined to doubt controversial things such as evolution. I'm not american and here people do think our skin is going to melt if we hear the word god pronounced by a politician or a public representative and I suggested this difference may have something to do with what Baraka asked.