Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: whereislogic

More questions about this subject (and the implications for those producing drawing A to give a certain impression related to the myth that birds evolved from dinosaurs, reptiles basically, and make the claim that therapod dinosaurs have "hollow bones" in the context that they are just like the hollow bones of birds, for which they use that drawing to further cement that impression in people's minds) can be found in these comments

Do you really think there is a conspiracy theory behind the scientific theory of evolution that wants to distract us from the truth?

And what evidence do you you have or what information you have used to come to the conclusion birds didn't evolve from dinosaurs.

a reply to: whereislogic

You claimed birds did not evolve from dinosaurs but it is a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs and that's not because it is said in certain websites but because of the evidence we have.

www.birdlife.org...

There’s no longer really any doubt that birds are a type of dinosaur. These days, the debate is about details. The strong evidence doesn’t just come from fossilised bones and similarities found across the skeleton, but from fossilised soft tissue – especially feathers. Many dinosaurs had not just some kind of body covering, but distinctive bird-like feathers. Rare fossils also give us glimpses of the behaviour of bird-like dinosaurs, such as Mei long, a small, duck-sized bipedal dinosaur from the Cretaceous era. It was found preserved in volcanic ash falls – a bit like Pompeii – captured curled up in a sleeping position very similar to how a lot of birds roost today.

I am astonished by the level of denialism seen in creationists who will argue all kind of nonsense to make their points.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: whereislogic

... it is a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs ...

I was wondering, how much are you up to now? 30-50 times? At least once per page? I was told by Degradation33 that birds are now classified as dinosaurs, i.e. birds are dinosaurs (supposedly). That's convenient, they don't need to evolve from dinosaurs (reptiles, which birds are not) anymore if you re-classify them like that. The way some people claim that humans are apes. Wonderful argument.

Let's be vague about the term "therapod" as well and claim that therapoda "is a dinosaur clade that is characterized by hollow bones and three toes and claws on each limb." (wikipedia) Then classify T.Rex and Velociraptor as therapods, even though they so clearly do not have "hollow bones" as the term is applied to birds by those not buying into the myth that reptiles (such as dinosaurs) evolved into birds. Then start a debate about what can be appropiately termed "hollow bones" or mix birds and reptiles (such as dinosaurs) into the group "therapoda" and capitalize on the ambiguity of language. Maybe no one will notice what you're doing, and if someone does mention something about this propagandistic behaviour, just paint the 'conspiracy theorist' label on them so people can put them in the prepared box with that label.

Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Whatever you do, just never answer the question I asked. Do everything you can to distract from it. Who needs honesty in this world anyway, it's an outdated concept. (pardon the sarcasm, I'm not actually encouraging any of this behaviour, everything after "let's be vague", just relaying the instructions from your spiritual father as described at John 8:42-47, for other reasons; "I" is referring to me though, and "you" is referring to every actual human here that is determined to remain dishonest about these subjects, as per their programming/conditioning, the least you can do is be honest with yourself and admit to yourself, in private, that you've been duped, but whatever, guess that's wishful thinking on my part)

Now for some honesty...

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Degradation33

Before reading the information below, keep in mind that unsubstantiated claims about dinosaurs with feathers (feathered dinosaurs) do not equal "evidence" for this claim, no matter who is making the claim, or how many 'scientists' are making that claim (argument from authority, argumentum ad populum/appeal to the majority/argument from consensus/authority of the many/bandwagon fallacy/common belief fallacy).

Reptiles are cold-blooded animals, meaning that their internal temperature will either increase or decrease depending upon the outside temperature. Birds, on the other hand, are warm-blooded; their bodies maintain a relatively constant internal temperature regardless of the temperature outside. To solve the puzzle of how warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles, some evolutionists now say that some of the dinosaurs (which were reptiles) were warm-blooded.[edit: how convenient again. "Certainly, the handiest trick of the propagandist is the use of outright lies." Quoted from the same article as before.] But the general view is still as Robert Jastrow observes: “Dinosaurs, like all reptiles, were cold-blooded animals.” (Red Giants and White Dwarfs, by Robert Jastrow, 1979, p. 253.)

Lecomte du Noüy, the French evolutionist, said concerning the belief that warm-blooded birds came from cold-blooded reptiles: “This stands out today as one of the greatest puzzles of evolution.” He also made the admission that birds have “all the unsatisfactory characteristics of absolute creation”⁠​—unsatisfactory, that is, to the theory of evolution. (Human Destiny, by Lecomte du Noüy, 1947, p. 72.)

While it is true that both reptiles and birds lay eggs, only birds must incubate theirs. They are designed for it. Many birds have a brood spot on their breast, an area that does not have any feathers and that contains a network of blood vessels, to give warmth for the eggs. Some birds have no brood patch but they pull out the feathers from their breast. Also, for birds to incubate the eggs would require evolution to provide them with new instincts​—for building the nest, for hatching the eggs and for feeding the young—​very selfless, altruistic, considerate behaviors involving skill, hard work and deliberate exposure to danger. All of this represents a wide gap between reptiles (such as dinosaurs) and birds. But there is much more.

Feathers are unique to birds. Supposedly, reptilian scales just happened to become these amazing structures. Out from the shaft of a feather are rows of barbs. Each barb has many barbules, and each barbule has hundreds of barbicels and hooklets. After a microscopic examination of one pigeon feather, it was revealed that it had “several hundred thousand barbules and millions of barbicels and hooklets.”⁠ (The Birds, by Roger Tory Peterson, 1963, p. 34.) These hooks hold all the parts of a feather together to make flat surfaces or vanes. Nothing excels the feather as an airfoil, and few substances equal it as an insulator. A bird the size of a swan has some 25,000 feathers.

If the barbs of these feathers become separated, they are combed with the beak. The beak applies pressure as the barbs pass through it, and the hooks on the barbules link together like the teeth of a zipper. Most birds have an oil gland at the base of the tail from which they take oil to condition each feather. Some birds have no oil gland but instead have special feathers that fray at their tips to produce a fine talclike dust for conditioning their feathers. And feathers usually are renewed by molting once a year.

Knowing all of this about the feather, consider this rather astonishing effort to explain its development: “How did this structural marvel evolve? It takes no great stretch of imagination to envisage a feather as a modified scale, basically like that of a reptile​—a longish scale loosely attached, whose outer edges frayed and spread out until it evolved into the highly complex structure that it is today.”⁠ But do you think such an explanation is truly scientific? Or does it read more like science fiction? (The Birds, by Roger Tory Peterson, 1963, p. 34.)

Consider further the design of the bird for flight. The bird’s bones are thin and hollow, unlike the reptile’s solid ones. Yet strength is required for flight, so inside the bird’s bones there are struts, like the braces inside of airplane wings. This design of the bones serves another purpose: It helps to explain another exclusive marvel of birds​—their respiratory system.

Muscular wings beating for hours or even days in flight generate much heat, yet, without sweat glands for cooling, the bird copes with the problem​—it has an air-cooled “engine.” A system of air sacs reach into almost every important part of the body, even into the hollow bones, and body heat is relieved by this internal circulation of air. Also, because of these air sacs, birds extract oxygen from air much more efficiently than any other vertebrate. How is this done?

In reptiles and mammals, the lungs take in and give out air, like bellows that alternately fill and empty. But in birds there is a constant flow of fresh air going through the lungs, during both inhaling and exhaling. Simply put, the system works like this: When the bird inhales, the air goes to certain air sacs; these serve as bellows to push the air into the lungs. From the lungs the air goes into other air sacs, and these eventually expel it. This means that there is a stream of fresh air constantly going through the lungs in one direction, much like water flowing through a sponge. The blood in the capillaries of the lungs is flowing in the opposite direction. It is this countercurrent between air and blood that makes the bird’s respiratory system exceptional. Because of it, birds can breathe the thin air of high altitudes, flying at over 20,000 feet for days on end as they migrate thousands of miles.

Other features widen the gulf between bird and reptile. Eyesight is one. From eagles to warblers, there are eyes like telescopes and eyes like magnifying glasses. Birds have more sensory cells in their eyes than have any other living things. Also, the feet of birds are different. When they come down to roost, tendons automatically lock their toes around the branch. And they have only four toes instead of the reptile’s five. Additionally, they have no vocal cords, but they have a syrinx out of which come melodious songs like those of the nightingales and mockingbirds. Consider too, that reptiles have a three-chambered heart; a bird’s heart has four chambers. Beaks also set birds apart from reptiles: beaks that serve as nutcrackers, beaks that filter food from muddy water, beaks that hammer out holes in trees, crossbill beaks that open up pinecones​—the variety seems endless. And yet the beak, with such specialized design, is said to have evolved by chance from the nose of a reptile! Does such an explanation seem credible to you?

At one time evolutionists believed that Archaeopteryx, meaning “ancient wing” or “ancient bird,” was a link between reptile and bird. But now, many do not. Its fossilized remains reveal perfectly formed feathers on aerodynamically designed wings capable of flight. Its wing and leg bones were thin and hollow. Its supposed reptilian features are found in birds today. And it does not predate birds, because fossils of other birds have been found in rocks of the same period as Archaeopteryx. (The Neck of the Giraffe, pp. 34, 35; Science, “Feathers of Archaeopteryx: Asymmetric Vanes Indicate Aerodynamic Function,” by Alan Feduccia and Harrison B. Tordoff, March 9, 1979, pp. 1021, 1022.)

a reply to: whereislogic

Therapods is a larger group and yes some therapods had hollow bones others did not. This is what happens when you use wiki as a source it gets things wrong.Theropods, any member of the dinosaur subgroup Theropoda, which includes all the flesh-eating dinosaurs. Theropods were the most diverse group of saurischian .

Saurischiams are classified by having lozard hips.
Hollow bones is not a requirement in fact therapods has 3 different sub groups only 1 of which has hollow bones. archosaurs is the sub classification that birds evolved from. The true archosaurs are divided into two branches. The Pseudosuchia branch includes crocodiles and all other archosaurs. While birds came from Ornithosuchia which includes birds and all archosaurs more closely related to birds than to crocodiles.

The way evolution works is the further down the chain you go the more specific features a sub group has. We don't get hollow bones until ornithosuchians (“bird crocodiles”).

Also stop using old text it is now known that dinosaurs were warm blooded. It was a misconception that they were cold blooded based off crocodiles. Science figured this out in the 50s . Sobif you see anything about cold blooded it's based on a scientific misconception.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: whereislogic

... it is a fact that birds evolved from dinosaurs ...

I was wondering, how much are you up to now? 30-50 times? At least once per page?

Counting all variations of the slogan, whether it's for the whole set of evolutionary myths implied by the usage of the term "evolution" (even though the meaning would quickly change if I were to debate the slogan, suddenly the following ideas are no longer included in the definition for "evolution": 1. that fish are thought to have evolved from the invertebrates, creatures without a backbone. 2. that fish became amphibians, 3. some amphibians became reptiles, 4 and 5. from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and 6. eventually some mammals became men. No mention of any of these myths in the definition given for "evolution" by evolutionists, how convenient again.) or any of the individual myths. It's all factual, supposedly. Repeat ad nauseam.

“Propaganda will not lead to success unless a fundamental principle is considered with continually sharp attention: it has to confine itself to little and to repeat this eternally. Here, too, persistency, as in so many other things in this world, is the first and the most important condition for success. . . . The masses . . . will lend their memories only to the thousandfold repetition of the most simple ideas. A change must never alter the content of what is being brought forth by propaganda, but in the end it always has to say the same. Thus the slogan has to be illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection has always and again to be the slogan itself.”​—Mein Kampf, by Adolf Hitler.

Some people are really good at following instructions, unless someone asks for a simple, honest and reasonable answer to a question which has a rather obvious correct answer that is rather inconvenient for the propaganda routine, or belief in the myths promoted by propaganda (and otherwise not to bother responding with a form of preaching to the choir). Those are not the type of 'instructions' (it was actually a plea) that they want to follow.

“For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the wholesome* [Or “healthful; beneficial.”] teaching, but according to their own desires, they will surround themselves with teachers to have their ears tickled.* [Or “to tell them what they want to hear.”] They will turn away from listening to the truth and give attention to false stories.” (2 Timothy 4:3,4)

a reply to: whereislogic

What slogan?
You understand what happens when you denying science and facts? What sources and research are you referencing?

It's a fact that birds have descended from dinosaurs and this is nothing new no matter how 'surprised' you pretend to be.

www.nhm.ac.uk...

It's an unlikely relationship, but the humble pigeon is a descendant of the group of dinosaurs that also includes the mighty Tyrannosaurus rex.

The two species share a remarkable biological past. Our palaeontologist Professor Paul Barrett explains how this understanding of dinosaur evolution is transforming the way scientists think.

Birds that fill the world’s skies today are living dinosaurs, reminders of a distant and strange past.

Decades of major new discoveries and studies have convinced researchers that there’s a direct link between modern bird species and theropod dinosaurs

I recommend some reading on the subject. What is it with creationists and their lack of reading of the basics and dismissing science like it doesn't exist and no research has ever happened in the area.

Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

What do you care? You aren't American and you don't live here. If 37% of Americans
want to believe that God had a hand in creating everything, that's their business.
It doesn't effect you. What percentage of people in your country believe in God?
Tell us what country you are in .... England? That seems most likely.

30% of people in UK Believe in God

It was also speculated that you are in Australia. I doubt it but here you go ....

60% of People in Australia Believe in God

So ... which country? And again .. SO WHAT if 37% of Americans believe in God.
It's not your country. What do you care? Why so obsessed with America and not your own country?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

What do you care? You aren't American and you don't live here. If 37% of Americans
want to believe that God had a hand in creating everything, that's their business.
It doesn't effect you. What percentage of people in your country believe in God?
Tell us what country you are in .... England? That seems most likely.

30% of people in UK Believe in God

It was also speculated that you are in Australia. I doubt it but here you go ....

60% of People in Australia Believe in God

So ... which country? And again .. SO WHAT if 37% of Americans believe in God.
It's not your country. What do you care? Why so obsessed with America and not your own country?

Deflection!

Does it matter where I come from?
I don't think so.

Your two links describe the percentage of people who believe in God in two different countries. But that's not the topic of the thread.

My point is clear: It's shocking for adults to accept creationism when there is overwhelming evidence that species evolved. Evolution is a fact not just a speculation or hypothesis.

It shows the failure of the educational system tin which students (now adults) cannot differentiate fact and fiction.

It's very unlikely people in the UK and Australia to accept creationism. There could be but they are few and we can all understand the differences in the different educational systems.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Deflection!
Does it matter where I come from?
I don't think so.

It's an on topic question. WHY do you care if 37% of Americans believe God had a hand in creating humans, when your own country has similar numbers? WHY do you point at the American education system as failing when your own country has the same numbers? WHY don't you look at your own country and complain about that instead of pointing at America? And the side question ... why the deflection, denial, and attempts to deceive about what country you are from? Is that some of the 'morally superior' behavior that you claim atheists have?

originally posted by: FlyersFan

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Deflection!
Does it matter where I come from?
I don't think so.

It's an on topic question. WHY do you care if 37% of Americans believe God had a hand in creating humans, when your own country has similar numbers? WHY do you point at the American education system as failing when your own country has the same numbers? WHY don't you look at your own country and complain about that instead of pointing at America? And the side question ... why the deflection, denial, and attempts to deceive about what country you are from? Is that some of the 'morally superior' behavior that you claim atheists have?

Which is my 'own country'?
Let's not reflect from the main topic of this thread and that's not where I come from and why do I care but the shocking number of adults who dismiss science and facts in favour of bronze age beliefs.

If a large number of adults have there views means the educational system has failed to do what it is supposed to be doing.

There are posters on this site who think there is a conspiracy theory with the purpose of deceiving the public and not revealing the truth as described in the Bible.

It looks as if these threads make you very upset.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
It looks as if these threads make you very upset.

False accusations of being emotional/upset.
Alienborg/Leviathan4/CaptainX etc etc.
Knew it.

a reply to: whereislogic

Ah, but do not forget Exodus 21:7 or 1 Samuel 15:3. I find these passages just as evidence-supporting as your bible quotes.

originally posted by: NoOneButMeAgain
a reply to: whereislogic

Ah, but do not forget Exodus 21:7 or 1 Samuel 15:3. I find these passages just as evidence-supporting as your bible quotes.

You can't use the Bible as supporting evidence or anything else related to religion and scriptures.