More Americans accept theory of creationism than evolution

Abookamongstthemany

Cosmo wrote:

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?

Wouldn't that be nice and so peaceful?

surferdude

Cosmo wrote:

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?

A religious person telling yo how they live their life and why it works for them is no different with what you have done telling us how you live your life environmentally and why it works for you.

Every time you vote you are telling other people how to live their lives. To think only religious people do this is arrogance and should be dropped as well.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

A religious person telling yo how they live their life and why it works for them is no different with what you have done telling us how you live your life environmentally and why it works for you.

Every time you vote you are telling other people how to live their lives. To think only religious people do this is arrogance and should be dropped as well.

...
A little defensive there, aren't we?
I do my part for the environnment... just because. I don't care if you choose to trash the place and waste... no one put me in charge of you. It works for me and I don't think everyone should do as I do.
As for voting... come on... that is a stretch. Voting is participating in the Democratic process.
And it is YOU that associates arrogance with religious people, not me. I included everyone who is arrogant to believe their view applies for everyone... including those who do not believe in God. That's your pronblem, not mine.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

God is really a giant Marijuana plant in the sky...

surferdude

Cosmo wrote:

...
A little defensive there, aren't we?
I do my part for the environnment... just because. I don't care if you choose to trash the place and waste... no one put me in charge of you. It works for me and I don't think everyone should do as I do.
As for voting... come on... that is a stretch. Voting is participating in the Democratic process.
And it is YOU that associates arrogance with religious people, not me. I included everyone who is arrogant to believe their view applies for everyone... including those who do not believe in God. That's your pronblem, not mine.

Touche! Well played. Are you fine with people who expound on how their lifestyle works for them and invite you to join their ways because it works for them? Or do you just think people shut just shut up about everything they do in life? Or somewhere in between, depending on the respect the person has to shut up when you tell them you're not buying.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

Touche! Well played. Are you fine with people who expound on how their lifestyle works for them and invite you to join their ways because it works for them? Or do you just think people shut just shut up about everything they do in life? Or somewhere in between, depending on the respect the person has to shut up when you tell them you're not buying.

...
People tell me what works for them... great, I'm happy they're happy. If they invite me in.. and I decline... and they are STILL okay with that, great... no problem.
People who try to convince me my life will be better if I believed what they believe... do as they do... not so much.
I'm open to listen to what works for you... are you open enough to hear, "Thanx... but, no thanx"?

surferdude

Cosmo wrote:

....are you open enough to hear, "Thanx... but, no thanx"?

I am and can appreciate the annoyance/aggravation/want-to-ring-your-neck factor when people can't accept this and have respect enough for the other person to just shut up at that point. This annoyance/aggravation/want-to-ring-your-neck factor is multiplied many times over if they are also telling you that you are "going to hell", "have no morals", "the world is going to end", "don't you care about the dolphins, whales, koala bears", etc.... I've always thought that the speaker without respect for the listener always does more harm than good.

Cosmo

surferdude wrote:

I am and can appreciate the annoyance/aggravation/want-to-ring-your-neck factor when people can't accept this and have respect enough for the other person to just shut up at that point. This annoyance/aggravation/want-to-ring-your-neck factor is multiplied many times over if they are also telling you that you are "going to hell", "have no morals", "the world is going to end", "don't you care about the dolphins, whales, koala bears", etc.... I've always thought that the speaker without respect for the listener always does more harm than good.

...
That's exactly how I feel... except the part about ringing their necks.
If you believe in God or don't believe in God... fine, for you. Same goes if you care about dolphins and otters or you don't give a shit about them, you are not an idiot or good or evil either way. I just happen to like the dolphins and otters so I contribute to those people who are out to save, not destroy them. Just like i believe there is a God... or higher power... only because I cannot believe that we are it... and if we are... boy, did someone really screw up. I think there HAS to be a reason... but, we are just too primative to know what it is.
I listen to other people regarding opinions or viewpoints... I may not agree with them... but, I do not insist that I am right.

know1

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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

Hydrogen is a concept invented by humans to fit what they've observed in their eye-blink of an existence.

Cosmo

know1 wrote:

Hydrogen is a concept invented by humans to fit what they've observed in their eye-blink of an existence.

...
Can't you replace the term, 'God' with the term 'hydrogen' in your comment?

Songburst

MLC2006 wrote:

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?

My point was that when god was the defacto answer that was used to explain everything, we had the Dark Ages. You say that SOMETHING existed to create the universe? The mundane response is "what existed to create that SOMETHING"? My response is that I'm sure that we will never truly understand how everything came to be, but I know for damn sure that it had nothing to do with gods, angels and demons. The baking a cake analogy is as used up as Kirk Cameron himself.

Songburst

know1 wrote:

Hydrogen is a concept invented by humans to fit what they've observed in their eye-blink of an existence.

I thought that was entropy. At least it is in thermodynamics. If I remember a little bit of my thermo classes from university, entropy was a variable that was used to keep the 2nd law (energy can neither be created nor destroyed) equations in equilibrium.

MLC2006

Songburst wrote:

My point was that when god was the defacto answer that was used to explain everything, we had the Dark Ages. You say that SOMETHING existed to create the universe? The mundane response is "what existed to create that SOMETHING"? My response is that I'm sure that we will never truly understand how everything came to be, but I know for damn sure that it had nothing to do with gods, angels and demons. The baking a cake analogy is as used up as Kirk Cameron himself.

lol, you "know" it had nothing to do with gods, angels, and demons. so you have faith in that? because I KNOW that you don't have any proof to back your statements anymore than some dark ages guy like me. and the baking a cake thing, I made up on the fly, so how's it "used up"?

RolandTD20Kdrummer

know1 wrote:

Hydrogen is a concept invented by humans to fit what they've observed in their eye-blink of an existence.

Tell that to the Hindenburg...

I think the same for all written scriptures...

Songburst

MLC2006 wrote:

lol, you "know" it had nothing to do with gods, angels, and demons. so you have faith in that? because I KNOW that you don't have any proof to back your statements anymore than some dark ages guy like me. and the baking a cake thing, I made up on the fly, so how's it "used up"?

You did not make up the baking a cake analogy. In fact, it is a very popular creationist analogy. It was recently used by Kirk Cameron in a debate with some athiests in an amazing attempt to prove that god existed using science, and hence the Kirk Cameron barb in my last post.

As for me needing proof to back up my statement, the burden of proof in this case lies solely with the "god" side of this argument. I can show you no evidence of god all day long, but how do I show you evidence of something that does not exist? If there were evidence that something did not exist, then it must exist and therefore there can not be evidence that it does not exist. Aren't loops fun? We need Angelica to come and straighten this out with some string theory.

69charger

Sorry if this has already been posted...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/06/25/id_not_science/

UK Gov boots intelligent design back into 'religious' margins
By Lucy Sherriff
Published Monday 25th June 2007 12:35 GMT

"The government has announced that it will publish guidance for schools on how creationism and intelligent design relate to science teaching, and has reiterated that it sees no place for either on the science curriculum.

It has also defined "Intelligent Design", the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without the guiding hand of a greater intelligence, as a religion, along with "creationism"."...

ClimberInOz

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.

Back on track...

The study of evolution is based on the same scientific method that other areas of science use. A hypothesis is formed and evidence is sourced to either support that hypothesis or disprove it.

You give the example of polar bears... In this case the hypothesis was that a population of early brown bears was isolated due to the movement of glaciers. And isolated as they were, they were subject to differing selecting pressures, and gradually evolved into the modern polar bear.

We may not have seen the evolution of polar bears from an early species of brown bear directly, but a series of transitional species have been identified from the fossil record. These transition fossils include species as young as 10 000 years (that retained brown bear molars but had a modern polar bear skull and body size). See Kurten (1976), The Evolution of Polar Bears, for more detail.

This is the evidence that is used to either change the hypothesis, discard it completely or support it. In this case the evidence supports the hypothesis.

Evolution can be tested through the prediction of transition fossils and subsequent location of them. Evolution can also be tested trough direct observation of micro-evolution. Evolution can be tested through the analysis of DNA, and the prediction of and location of shared common traits. The theory of evolution cannot be compared to a belief in god (in terms of faith)- the two are very different.

I know there is a degree of faith in science, as there is in absolutely anything. But it is a faith based on repeated observation and evidence collected over time. It is a faith that says, provided the fundamental laws of the universe that have been the same for as long as we have observed them do not change today... this is what we can conclude based on the evidence we have available. That evidence available may change, but good science always reaches the conclusions that have the highest probability of being true given what we know at that time.

Creationism, ID and belief in god are all matters of absolute faith. Believe them by all means... but they are distinct from science.

Taft

The science section of today's NY Times is devoted to the analysis of evolution.

RolandTD20Kdrummer

The reason a lot of non religious type see religious types as naive is because the argument always ends in God.. just god...well god...god this...god that....god is the answer to every question you can ever think of....and every question you could never possibly imagine. I'm sure a lot can see where this is going already.

Really what they are saying is well "just because". Just because.

"Just because" never really cut it for me, and stopped working in my head altogether somewhere around 12yrs of age.

cornnifer

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).

In all sincere respect, you've seemed to lose grip on your usually unbiased approach. How is it that an intelligent, credentialed, educated and experienced biologist, physicist, or scientist from any other discipline, whose research, study and interepretation of the current data leads them to support an intelligent design belief simply trying to "muddle the debate" and declare certain things "off limits"? How is it any different than some other scientist who says "we have no idea right now... but some day we will" while declaring the possibility of an intelligent design "off limits"?
Just as any attempt to scientifically PROVE God will fail, so will any attempt to scientifically DISPROVE God. Such (proof or disproof) should not be the goal of any scientist. If one is "naive and stupid" then so is the other.
ID is not an attempt to prove God through science any more than evolution as an origin of the species is a scientific attempt to disprove God.
The last part i simply do not get at all. How are ID and the belief that the world was designed by an intelligence not the same thing? They are exactly the same thing. The former is simply a term used to describe those whose interpretation of current scientific data supports their belief.