Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: Venkuish1

One thing that has always bugged me about creationists is they take explanations, measurements, conclusions, etc as evidence for a creator because of the common language used to describe how certain ways our cells and DNA ans such work for example. An operation of how proteins are sent around our body:

Correctly folded and assembled proteins in the ER are packaged into COPII-coated transport vesicles that pinch off from the ER membrane. Shortly thereafter the coat is shed and the vesicles fuse with one another to form vesicular tubular clusters, which move on microtubule tracks to the Golgi apparatus

They see the words "folded", "tracks", "assembled", "transported", etc, and think some thing, literally designed a microscopic robot like thing to carry out that operation.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism is an unsubstantiated belief with no merits at all.

You started the OP so I believe the burden of proof is on you.
Good luck 👌

Everything evolves, making evolution a scientific fact. The rub happens because scientists have yet to figure out who/what created 'everything' in the first place.

I'm just surprised that it's only 37%?

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism is an unsubstantiated belief with no merits at all.

You started the OP so I believe the burden of proof is on you.
Good luck 👌

I started the OP by staying facts and not by making any claims.

You need to be able to distinguish between these two.

Evolution is a fact.
Creationism is a false belief (fact).

The burden of proof are on those who claim humans are not a product of the evolutionary process but have fine to exist via supernatural interference and design.

The progress of science has shown creationism to be false.

It was never based on facts but beliefs anyway and like I said I'd we hadn't program si much scientifically it made no difference as to how valid creationism is.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
a reply to: Venkuish1

I believe your math is wrong....

37% of non evolution, and 24% of God-directed evolution is 61%.

And that's right in line with how many people worldwide believe in a God.

I don't see what's shocking about that.

My math is right. I don't know how did you get the idea I was wrong.

It's precisely what I have said in my OP

37% don't accept evolution at all
24% accept evolution but they attributed to supernatural intervention.... (bizarre)

It's really shocking that a large number of adults are at odds with basic science.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: Venkuish1

One thing that has always bugged me about creationists is they take explanations, measurements, conclusions, etc as evidence for a creator because of the common language used to describe how certain ways our cells and DNA ans such work for example. An operation of how proteins are sent around our body:

Correctly folded and assembled proteins in the ER are packaged into COPII-coated transport vesicles that pinch off from the ER membrane. Shortly thereafter the coat is shed and the vesicles fuse with one another to form vesicular tubular clusters, which move on microtubule tracks to the Golgi apparatus

They see the words "folded", "tracks", "assembled", "transported", etc, and think some thing, literally designed a microscopic robot like thing to carry out that operation.

Wishful thinking and confirmation bias + confusion and total lack of understanding of even the most basic scientific concepts.

Since we evolved from the monkeys why then monkeys don't evolve to become humans? That kind of arguments.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
I'm just surprised that it's only 37%?

Another 24% accepts evolution but attributes it to supernatural forces. See my OP

GOD Vs Evolution! - Science Vs Creationism - LINK

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
I'm just surprised that it's only 37%?

That was my thinking as well. I think its a lot more than 37% this is a very Christian religious country.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: Vermilion
a reply to: Venkuish1

Creationism is an unsubstantiated belief with no merits at all.

You started the OP so I believe the burden of proof is on you.
Good luck 👌

I started the OP by staying facts and not by making any claims.

You need to be able to distinguish between these two.

Evolution is a fact.
Creationism is a false belief (fact).

The burden of proof are on those who claim humans are not a product of the evolutionary process but have fine to exist via supernatural interference and design.

The progress of science has shown creationism to be false.

It was never based on facts but beliefs anyway and like I said I'd we hadn't program si much scientifically it made no difference as to how valid creationism is.

First you say…
I started the OP by staying facts and not by making any claims

Then this…
The progress of science has shown creationism to be false.

Just because you say it doesn’t make it so.
You claimed it. Back it up.
Pretend we’re the math teacher and ‘show your work’.
Unless this OP is just a religion bashing pro atheist troll thread.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Creationism is a false belief (fact).

It's a belief that God, in some way, created everything.
It has not been proven false.

originally posted by: pennylane123
a reply to: LSU2018

like the theoretical missing link. Its there we just can not find it. Trust us though we could never be wrong.

Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”—What Were They?

...

Where Are the “Links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

...

References:

15. Science Digest, “Miracle Mutations,” by John Gliedman, February 1982, p. 91.

16. Newsweek, “Is Man a Subtle Accident?” by Jerry Adler and John Carey, November 3, 1980, p. 95.

17. Science 81, “Human Evolution: Smooth or Jumpy?” September 1981, p. 7.

18. Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, “Myths and Methods in Anatomy,” by Solly Zuckerman, January 1966, p. 90.

Nothing has changed about this situation in the last 50 years either.

Neanderthal man is no different from some men living today (so why invent a new species name for it?). Moreover, modern-type men are found in earth layers older than those containing these previously so-called “missing links.” (they changed their argument now) There is absolutely no proof of any missing links between man and ape. (so they changed their argument to: 'man is an ape')

Of the famous missing links evolutionist Sir Arthur Keith said: “We cannot trace modern man back to any of these extinct types.” Professor Branco of Berlin University said: “Paleontology tells us nothing on the subject—it knows no ancestors of man.” Professor Virchow declared: “The man-ape has no existence and the missing link remains a phantom.” Austin Clark of Smithsonian Institution said: “Missing links are misinterpretations.” And when their finds do not support their theory the evolutionists conceal that evidence, as evolutionist Hooton, Harvard professor of anthropology, admits: “Heretical and nonconforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed.” Incidentally, when Hooton heard of the disgrace and demise of the Piltdown man he termed it “tragic.” Little wonder, since he had staunchly defended it in his writings. (a little stroll down memory lane, these quotations are old, very old, but like I said, nothing has changed, only the rhetoric, they don't like the term "missing link" anymore)

But the evolutionists will continue parading their “links” and will propagandize for them with unabated dogmatism. From beginning to end, the evolution theory is (evolutionary philosophies and myths are) supported by assertions, not evidence. Any who argue against it are not authorities, any who criticize it are not scientific; so they say to intimidate and scare off critics and jam the theory (myths) down people’s throats by the tyranny of authority. So it is not only links that are missing, but proofs and unprejudiced approaches and scientific methods that are missing. Despite hot denials, evolution is accepted on “faith” and faith alone. (i.e. blind faith to be exact)

a reply to: Venkuish1

heres the thing.. if there is some form of creator then, by definition, it is not "supernatural" it is , in fact, just "natural"

heres another thing ...

those who insist there is a "creator" will take whatever evidence presented from "science" as proof of a creator .

heres another thing

those who insist there is no "creator " will whatever evidence presented from "science" as proof of no creator

evolution is just one reason a persons may or may not believe ....

i personally dont care about evolution .. my reason, for at least leaving open the possibility of a creator in some form, is the fine tuning problem and beginnings of the universe...

but

creator or no
manywolrds or no
whatever it is that turns out to be the truth

it will be natural

a reply to: FlyersFan

this is false.

a reply to: FlyersFan

There's more than one creationist belief. You can be atheist, and believe that an alien species planted life on this planet from their science lab.

a reply to: Another_Nut

There is a difference in believing in a creator and creationism?

The latter is the fundamentalist Noah's Ark believing type?

I'm not rabidly religious, I m more New Testament.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
this is false.

Belief that God, in some way, created everything has not been debunked.
God could have used evolution, or alien intervention, or anything else.
God creating everything has not been proven. But it also has not been debunked.
The claim by the OP is that it has been debunked. That is false.

This guy explains so well

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: pennylane123
a reply to: Venkuish1

Just like you dismiss simulation theory,

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

I am glad you make that distinction....

Then you can honestly admit that Evolution is a theory. A theory written around what we see and think happened. Nothing is proven.

Nothing.

It's yobs like you that are making me question the logic of the earth being a sphere.

I think you misrepresented me...

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

That we live in a simulation is speculation and not a fact. Evolution on the other hand is a fact. It's also described as a scientific theory but I understand that you are not able to make the distinction between scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, speculation, and so on.

I haven't admitted anything, only stated facts. But every creationist in every thread around here makes exactly the same erroneous arguments.

You are not worth trying to have a logical conversation with.

As you know, we once were the center of the universe...oops, the sun....ooops, we are on the outskirts of the galaxy.

Point is, the science will change again.

I wish more Christians had the faith in Christ, that you have in mortal man(scientists). This world would be a much kinder place.

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: pennylane123
a reply to: Venkuish1

Just like you dismiss simulation theory,

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

I am glad you make that distinction....

Then you can honestly admit that Evolution is a theory. A theory written around what we see and think happened. Nothing is proven.

Nothing.

It's yobs like you that are making me question the logic of the earth being a sphere.

I think you misrepresented me...

Is not a scientific theory but a speculation. No evidence exists we live in a simulation. On the other hand evolution is both a scientific theory and a fact.

That we live in a simulation is speculation and not a fact. Evolution on the other hand is a fact. It's also described as a scientific theory but I understand that you are not able to make the distinction between scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, speculation, and so on.

I haven't admitted anything, only stated facts. But every creationist in every thread around here makes exactly the same erroneous arguments.

You are not worth trying to have a logical conversation with.

As you know, we once were the center of the universe...oops, the sun....ooops, we are on the outskirts of the galaxy.

I wish more Christians had the faith in Christ, that you have in mortal man(scientists). This world would be a much kinder place.

It was false belief devoid of any facts propagated mainly by religious circles and the church.