More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

MLC2006

Kann wrote:

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.

the politicians here play to people's heartstrings, period. if McCain thinks he can win religious votes, he'll invoke the name of God and say that he's anti-abortion and all of that. but I don't think politicians mentioning God has anything to do with citizens not wanting to hear about evolution. like I said earlier, I think most religious people don't want to hear about evolution because they see it as an attack against religion, when it's really not.

if people are really that offended by hearing "God" mentioned in public, then I think they are weak minded people. just like people think everybody may turn gay if a gay pride parade comes to town.

cornnifer

MLC2006 wrote:

"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.

No, no, no, no, no...
You apparently havn't been reading this forum long enough to have learned that Separation of church and state means that theists need to have their tongues out and be quarantined from the rest of the public having absolutely no say in public matters or no contribution to public discourse. C'mom man. You really need to pay closer attention.

cornnifer

MLC2006 wrote:

polar bears evolved from grizzly bears. that's fact. it's not deniable. but that's not to say that there was not intelligence. afterall, the grizzly in very cold climates had to change in order to adapt. that in itself is "intelligent". and to me, that points to God as much as it points to science.

For the designer to include in his design the ability to adapt to drastic variance and change in climate, environment etc. points to the breathtaking brilliance of said designer.

cornnifer

ClimberInOz wrote:

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'?



quote]

Its called singularity, and not even stephen hawking has been able to realistically and effectively remove it.

cornnifer

Galaxie2X4 wrote:

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.

Yeah all of those "naive and stupid" theists. A list of individuals that includes very many doctors, biologists, physicists, etc. There are a great many very intelligent, very educated, and very wise theists.
To make blanket reference to theists as "naive and stupid" is, well... pretty fucking naive and stupid.

Kann

MLC2006 wrote:

the politicians here play to people's heartstrings, period. if McCain thinks he can win religious votes, he'll invoke the name of God and say that he's anti-abortion and all of that. but I don't think politicians mentioning God has anything to do with citizens not wanting to hear about evolution. like I said earlier, I think most religious people don't want to hear about evolution because they see it as an attack against religion, when it's really not.

if people are really that offended by hearing "God" mentioned in public, then I think they are weak minded people. just like people think everybody may turn gay if a gay pride parade comes to town.

Our cultures are not radically different, surely you will understand what I'm saying : politics and religion DO NOT EVER mix here. Generally at least. Religion is left at home = there is no argument against teaching evolution in school (I can't remember this being even discussed in public).
The fact that in america religion seems to be a part (big or small, it's all a matter of opinion) of the public and political life may reflect in the society and the beliefs held by members of said society.

cornnifer wrote:

No, no, no, no, no...
You apparently havn't been reading this forum long enough to have learned that Separation of church and state means that theists need to have their tongues out and be quarantined from the rest of the public having absolutely no say in public matters or no contribution to public discourse. C'mom man. You really need to pay closer attention.

That's unfair for people here. Religions are welcome to contribute to the public discourse, but separation between state and church is necessary to give equality to all beliefs, including atheism. I would be pretty pissed off if my congressman were to speak of God during his public work, he must represent all the people who voted for him, not just the believers (and I'm not even atheist). That's why politicians need to stay away from religion while they speak in public, they represent the people not their beliefs. People representing the church (the pope and such) are the ones supposed to give religions point of view. But religion should not interfere with public decisions.

RainDog

cornnifer wrote:

Yeah all of those "naive and stupid" theists. A list of individuals that includes very many doctors, biologists, physicists, etc. There are a great many very intelligent, very educated, and very wise theists.
To make blanket reference to theists as "naive and stupid" is, well... pretty fucking naive and stupid.

You're equating "creationist" with "theist." Many people, including those doctors, biologists, physicists, etc. that believe in God (i.e. "theist") also believe in evolution. So, while the post you quoted was being antagonistic, it wasn't calling theists "naive and stupid" - it was calling creationists that.

cornnifer

RainDog wrote:

You're equating "creationist" with "theist." Many people, including those doctors, biologists, physicists, etc. that believe in God (i.e. "theist") also believe in evolution. So, while the post you quoted was being antagonistic, it wasn't calling theists "naive and stupid" - it was calling creationists that.

Its my contention that there is no difference between "creation" and "ID". Do not "design" and "create" mean the same thing? When a person speaks of an intelligent designer they are quite obviously not talking about Bob in his garage with a chemistry set. The only difference is between the literal, Genesis crowd, and the "by whatever means" school.

Furthermore, by whatever definition you use, even if you separate the "creationists" from the "ID" guys, they obviously both believe in God and offer a theistic take on universal and human origins.
How many theists do you know who claim that "God exists, but he had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the universe and thee emergence of man"?

my post was fair and valid

ClimberInOz

cornnifer wrote:

ClimberInOz wrote:

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'?



quote]

Its called singularity, and not even stephen hawking has been able to realistically and effectively remove it.

A singularity contains matter though... lots of it in fact. And a singularity can also be created by other matter. So suggesting that a universe born from a singularity is a universe born from nothing is incorrect (if that was indeed what you were suggesting).

RainDog

cornnifer wrote:

Its my contention that there is no difference between "creation" and "ID". Do not "design" and "create" mean the same thing? When a person speaks of an intelligent designer they are quite obviously not talking about Bob in his garage with a chemistry set. The only difference is between the literal, Genesis crowd, and the "by whatever means" school.

Furthermore, by whatever definition you use, even if you separate the "creationists" from the "ID" guys, they obviously both believe in God and offer a theistic take on universal and human origins.
How many theists do you know who claim that "God exists, but he had absolutely nothing to do with the development of the universe and thee emergence of man"?

my post was fair and valid

You're right, as a concerted movement, there is no difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. "Intelligent Design" is a recasting of Creationism and used as a means to get a literal Adam and Eve taught as fact. It should be kept out of all serious discussions in regards to evolution. There is simply no place for it. If a person doesn't believe in evolution - a literal Genesis-type person - then there is no need for that person in the evolutionary sciences, and it's probably best they stay away. For a person who believes in God and evolution, there is still no need in a scientific environment to inject mentions of God, as He cannot be proven scientifically, and really has no bearing on how we factually study the world. If a person claims to be a scientist but is promoting "intelligent design" that person is simply trying to muddle the debate by declaring certain things "off limits" by claiming "god did it." Irreducible complexity is one of these arguments, and does nothing but build walls around areas requiring further study. Basically, "we don't know the answer. So therefore there is no answer to know. Unless the answer is God. Praise Jesus." That, also, has no place in evolutionary science.

So, I guess, it is naive and stupid to try and prove the existence of God through scientific means. "God" has as much stated that there is no way to prove His existence - that it is through "faith" that He should be approached. Therefore, since God is God, and God is capable of all things, and God has stated that the way to Him is through faith, any attempts to prove His existence will fail. God will make sure of that.

Basically, I'm saying that Intelligent Design and a belief that the world was designed by an intelligence are not the same thing. One is an attempt to prove God scientifically (naive and stupid) while the other is simply an expression of belief in divinity (theist).

searchlightsoul

edit

Cosmo

Maybe the answer why they believe in Creation over Evolution is that there are no tests in Creation... every answer you give is the right one.
...
That, or they are lying in order to get the Noah herding the teenaged, vegaterian T.Rexs onto the Ark vote.

MLC2006

Cosmo wrote:

Maybe the answer why they believe in Creation over Evolution is that there are no tests in Creation... every answer you give is the right one.
...
That, or they are lying in order to get the Noah herding the teenaged, vegaterian T.Rexs onto the Ark vote.

there are no tests in evolution either. we just to assume through educated guessing that life evolved from point A to point B. we have never actually seen caveman evolve into modern man or grizzly bear evolve into polar bear. never actually saw the continents split apart with man going into all corners of the earth. this is all theory, it can't be tested. but it makes sense so people role with it. but science takes faith just as believing in God takes faith.

Cosmo

MLC2006 wrote:

there are no tests in evolution either. we just to assume through educated guessing that life evolved from point A to point B. we have never actually seen caveman evolve into modern man or grizzly bear evolve into polar bear. never actually saw the continents split apart with man going into all corners of the earth. this is all theory, it can't be tested. but it makes sense so people role with it. but science takes faith just as believing in God takes faith.

...
So... why did I get a 'C' on that test about evolution in Biology class? In Bible Study... the 'Because I believe it's so' answer got me an 'A' every time.

MLC2006

Cosmo wrote:

...
So... why did I get a 'C' on that test about evolution in Biology class? In Bible Study... the 'Because I believe it's so' answer got me an 'A' every time.

obviously because you had professors who believed that there are right and wrong answers in such things. and if you got a C, it's because you were only average at studying the questions/answers that the evolution teacher gave you.

gue_barium

RainDog wrote:

You're right, as a concerted movement, there is no difference between Intelligent Design and Creationism. "Intelligent Design" is a recasting of Creationism and used as a means to get a literal Adam and Eve taught as fact. It should be kept out of all serious discussions in regards to evolution. There is simply no place for it. If a person doesn't believe in evolution - a literal Genesis-type person - then there is no need for that person in the evolutionary sciences, and it's probably best they stay away. For a person who believes in God and evolution, there is still no need in a scientific environment to inject mentions of God, as He cannot be proven scientifically, and really has no bearing on how we factually study the world. If a person claims to be a scientist but is promoting "intelligent design" that person is simply trying to muddle the debate by declaring certain things "off limits" by claiming "god did it." Irreducible complexity is one of these arguments, and does nothing but build walls around areas requiring further study. Basically, "we don't know the answer. So therefore there is no answer to know. Unless the answer is God. Praise Jesus." That, also, has no place in evolutionary science.

So, I guess, it is naive and stupid to try and prove the existence of God through scientific means. "God" has as much stated that there is no way to prove His existence - that it is through "faith" that He should be approached. Therefore, since God is God, and God is capable of all things, and God has stated that the way to Him is through faith, any attempts to prove His existence will fail. God will make sure of that.

Basically, I'm saying that Intelligent Design and a belief that the world was designed by an intelligence are not the same thing. One is an attempt to prove God scientifically (naive and stupid) while the other is simply an expression of belief in divinity (theist).

Brilliant.

Although, I think you cut out cornifer's tongue in the process.

Cosmo

MLC2006 wrote:

obviously because you had professors who believed that there are right and wrong answers in such things. and if you got a C, it's because you were only average at studying the questions/answers that the evolution teacher gave you.

...
Yeah... never was that interested in Biology. Religion, either. But, at least I got all the answers right in Religion.
...
P.S. I never knew that Polar Bears evolved from Grizzly Bears... I always thought they were just related in the Canine Family. I guess you really DO learn something every day.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

MLC2006 wrote:

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?

Actually hydrogen is the most basic configuration of matter that we can observe in our reality. Everything above that is extremely complex in comparison. Nothing is super or extraordinary about it. It's just here and very simple. Remember....something has to exist at some point. Be it god, or what what we can actually see just by observing. I would say the latter is plain and right there in our face.

If you ask me whether I trust extremely superstitious simpleton farmers from thousands of years ago v.s. my own eyes to observe....plus modern science and technology to back it up.....well...given the countless flaws and inconsistencies in the written word of "biased government" and "law of the land set forth to control society of the time" i.e. The church. It's really, to me, quite simple which choice makes more sense.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

ClimberInOz wrote:

cornnifer wrote:

A singularity contains matter though... lots of it in fact. And a singularity can also be created by other matter. So suggesting that a universe born from a singularity is a universe born from nothing is incorrect (if that was indeed what you were suggesting).

It appears during your moments of ascension (the ropes and sweat kind) you have achieved a particular level of clarity in this matter

Cosmo

The Bottom Line... we don't know. We don't know the origins of the Universe or the existance of God or the reason why we're here. Instead of trying to convert everyone else to believe as you do... including those whom believe in nothing... and just try to get through the only thing you DO know... your life right her and right now. Who cares what others believe? Does it change your belief? If it works for you, GREAT! How 'bout just dropping the arrogance that tells you that if it works for you, it'll work for me?