Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: Xtrozero

There was a god for everything until year 0 with Jesus. Before Him, time was measured by moons and harvests.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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.

Aristotle was a christian?
Was Galileo a Christian?

No. Those beliefs came from many places.

Scientists are not God. They make mistakes. They make bad decisions. They succumb to peer pressure. They will say their bias' do not play a part. But they do, you are proof.

You do not have an open mind, you will believe what you are told because you will not think for yourself. I'll bet you don't even change your own blinker fluid because it is easier to have the shop do it. I mean after all, they are the experts, you aren't and blinker fluid is a real thing...a scientist (mechanic) said so.

In reality, from the tone of your replies, you are seriously questioning your beliefs. I will add you to my prayers, may you find the spiritual peace you are looking for.

Still false beliefs in the case of scientists who may have accepted the geocentric system. Now we have evidence about not being the center of the universe.

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

Excellent!! Bolding mine!

Then you, YES YOU, can solve this once and for all. YOU can end it for all time...

When you do, I will stream live on ATS, and admit you were right.

So, all you have to do is reproduce the big bang. Create all the life, and physics, etc. And, here is the catch, it has to able to self perpetuate and exist on it's on forever more.

Now, get to it, I can wait for you to reproduce it and prove us wrong. (re read what i highlighted in your reply)

CERN has been trying to reproduce the conditions of the first moments of our baby universe. Have you missed that out?

Well, according to your post:

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

And then I just bolded the word in your latest reply:

TRYING

So they have been trying to reproduce it, but they haven't.

So, therefore, from your posts and words, Evolution is not fact, it is theory. Because you have NOT been able to reproduce it yet.

CERN isn't dealing with evolution....
Is dealing with the universe, particles, and a number of other things.

My answer to your question about the big bang.

Clearly the universe and the earth were not created in six days or whatever the claims are. Do you see why these claims are debunked?

They just naturally fall apart because there is no evidence to support them.

I am sorry for the confusion, i thought evolution started when the process of creating everything began. Which you haven't been able to reproduce...therefore, you can't know if evolution is what happened.

And as to my bolding in your reply,

No, i do not see how the earth being created in six days has been debunked. I see where you don't believe it.

And I can see that CERN and man can't even START the process.

So yeah, my Creator can do it in 6 days...and your Gods can't even reproduce the beginning, much less finish the whole thing.

But there is no evidence of the creator to have been talking about and no evidence he create the universe. This is a religious belief.

It is claimed in the Bible the world was created in six days but that's false. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.8 billion years old.

You said your creator can do it in six days. But there is nothing to support this idea. On the contrary the six day creation has been debunked long time ago.

So where did you get 4.5 billion years? Rock that formed when Mt. St. Helens erupted in the 80's, carbon dates over 2 million years old....but we can definitely know when the rock formed. And that, my friend, is what is known as a fact. It is documented and provable.

So maybe your gods got the dating wrong.

Basic school knowledge that you probably missed at school or you didn't pay much attention. I have already linked a number of articles from National Geographic, NASA, and other sources. Do you think they somehow have it wrong and don't really know the age of the planet and the solar system?

What year are you in right now?

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: randomuser2034

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: randomuser2034

What is scientifically accurate?
That the planet and its inhabitants were created in six days or all the other claims made about life, different species, the planet and the 'heavens'...

Many Christians don't even accept the claims made in the Bible just like another poster who has replied to me in the last page.

There are no heavens by the way.
The works wasn't created in six days. These are false and debunked religious beliefs.

I debunked everything you just said in my post above. You didn't even take the time to give it a cursory glance. As your question was already answered before you asked.

And that is how sincere you are.

The world wasn't created in six days... That's what we mean a debunked claim.

Evidence?

2nd

Evidence for what?

The world wasn't created in six days together with its inhabitants (humans and animals). By world we mean earth and the 'heavens'

What evidence is there the world was created in six days. Who believes in these stories in the 21st century??

Earth is 4.5 billion years old and the Universe 13.8 billion years old. Did you miss your science lessons at school or you didn't attend at all?

You think that just because the Earth and universe are that old that they couldn't have been created in 6 days?

What do you think happens to you after you die?

We know the world wasn't created in six days. It's factual unless you want to stick to religious outdated and debunked ideas. The Universe is 13.7 billion years old.

imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov...#:~:text=According%20to%20their%20estimates%20the,uncertainty%20of%20200%20mill ion%20years.

According to their estimates the universe is 13.7 billion years old with an uncertainty of 200 million years. The WMAP value of Ho is 71 ± 4 km/s/Mpc which is in agreement with the HST key project.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xtrozero

There was a god for everything until year 0 with Jesus. Before Him, time was measured by moons and harvests.

Unsubstantiated claims that lack evidence. Actually there is not a shred of evidence for what you just claimed.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Did they get up there with a time measuring stick to figure that one out?

LOL

What year is it, Venkuish1?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xtrozero

There was a god for everything until year 0 with Jesus. Before Him, time was measured by moons and harvests.

Unsubstantiated claims that lack evidence. Actually there is not a shred of evidence for what you just claimed.

Get in the time machine your scientists use to measure time and go tell the Greeks that they don't pray to Jupiter, Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, etc. as their gods.

ETA: While you're there, ask them what year it is...

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: theatreboy

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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.

Aristotle was a christian?
Was Galileo a Christian?

No. Those beliefs came from many places.

Scientists are not God. They make mistakes. They make bad decisions. They succumb to peer pressure. They will say their bias' do not play a part. But they do, you are proof.

You do not have an open mind, you will believe what you are told because you will not think for yourself. I'll bet you don't even change your own blinker fluid because it is easier to have the shop do it. I mean after all, they are the experts, you aren't and blinker fluid is a real thing...a scientist (mechanic) said so.

In reality, from the tone of your replies, you are seriously questioning your beliefs. I will add you to my prayers, may you find the spiritual peace you are looking for.

Still false beliefs in the case of scientists who may have accepted the geocentric system. Now we have evidence about not being the center of the universe.

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

Excellent!! Bolding mine!

Then you, YES YOU, can solve this once and for all. YOU can end it for all time...

When you do, I will stream live on ATS, and admit you were right.

So, all you have to do is reproduce the big bang. Create all the life, and physics, etc. And, here is the catch, it has to able to self perpetuate and exist on it's on forever more.

Now, get to it, I can wait for you to reproduce it and prove us wrong. (re read what i highlighted in your reply)

CERN has been trying to reproduce the conditions of the first moments of our baby universe. Have you missed that out?

Well, according to your post:

I rather open a book and I don't just 'believe' in science. In science we can independently verify and reproduce claims, observations, experiments and measurements.

And then I just bolded the word in your latest reply:

TRYING

So they have been trying to reproduce it, but they haven't.

So, therefore, from your posts and words, Evolution is not fact, it is theory. Because you have NOT been able to reproduce it yet.

CERN isn't dealing with evolution....
Is dealing with the universe, particles, and a number of other things.

My answer to your question about the big bang.

Clearly the universe and the earth were not created in six days or whatever the claims are. Do you see why these claims are debunked?

They just naturally fall apart because there is no evidence to support them.

I am sorry for the confusion, i thought evolution started when the process of creating everything began. Which you haven't been able to reproduce...therefore, you can't know if evolution is what happened.

And as to my bolding in your reply,

No, i do not see how the earth being created in six days has been debunked. I see where you don't believe it.

And I can see that CERN and man can't even START the process.

So yeah, my Creator can do it in 6 days...and your Gods can't even reproduce the beginning, much less finish the whole thing.

But there is no evidence of the creator to have been talking about and no evidence he create the universe. This is a religious belief.

It is claimed in the Bible the world was created in six days but that's false. Earth is around 4.5 billion years old and the universe around 13.8 billion years old.

You said your creator can do it in six days. But there is nothing to support this idea. On the contrary the six day creation has been debunked long time ago.

And there is no evidence nothing existed and then 2 things collided and created everything, either. Actually, intellectually those events in that order make no sense.

You don't make much sense in this post.

The religious claim in the Bible is false. The world wasn't created in six days. Start with this basis information and then we can discuss other things. You seem confused.

science.nasa.gov...#:~:text=When%20the%20solar%20system%20settled,third%20planet%20from%20the%20Sun.

When the solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago, Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun. Like its fellow terrestrial planets, Earth has a central core, a rocky mantle, and a solid crust.

Do you honestly think gravity pulled in swirling gas and dust to make the Earth?

science.nasa.gov...

When the solar system settled into its current layout about 4.5 billion years ago, Earth formed when gravity pulled swirling gas and dust in to become the third planet from the Sun.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xtrozero

There was a god for everything until year 0 with Jesus. Before Him, time was measured by moons and harvests.

Unsubstantiated claims that lack evidence. Actually there is not a shred of evidence for what you just claimed.

Get in the time machine your scientists use to measure time and go tell the Greeks that they don't pray to Jupiter, Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, etc. as their gods.

ETA: While you're there, ask them what year it is...

Anyone can pray as they wish and they can believe in whatever Gods they want. It doesn't make the beliefs true though.

According to the facts the age of the planet is approximately 4.5billion years. That is the age of the planet.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Did they get up there with a time measuring stick to figure that one out?

LOL

What year is it, Venkuish1?

Better start reading basic science rather than making these statements.

You can Google it. How is the age of the earth determined?

The websites above give very good insights for the people who have missed their school education. There is no place for religious paranoia in science.

a reply to: Venkuish1

You rely too heavily on NASA lol.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Xtrozero

There was a god for everything until year 0 with Jesus. Before Him, time was measured by moons and harvests.

Unsubstantiated claims that lack evidence. Actually there is not a shred of evidence for what you just claimed.

Get in the time machine your scientists use to measure time and go tell the Greeks that they don't pray to Jupiter, Zeus, Poseidon, Hades, etc. as their gods.

ETA: While you're there, ask them what year it is...

Anyone can pray as they wish and they can believe in whatever Gods they want. It doesn't make the beliefs true though.

According to the facts the age of the planet is approximately 4.5billion years. That is the age of the planet.

Listen to yourself... According to the "facts", this planet is 4.5 billion years old. You're not even trying anymore and it's getting boring. What "facts" tell you how old this planet is? It could be 13 billion years old and nobody will ever know for certain. Don't try to tell me it's 4.5 billion years old and state that as a fact.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Did they get up there with a time measuring stick to figure that one out?

LOL

What year is it, Venkuish1?

Better start reading basic science rather than making these statements.

You can Google it. How is the age of the earth determined?

The websites above give very good insights for the people who have missed their school education. There is no place for religious paranoia in science.

I didn't figure you could answer that one.

You lose, bro.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Thanks for your input but this is nothing more than a further attempt to justify the religious views in favour of creationism.

It could be irritating but facts don't care about someone's feelings.

The world wasn't created in six days. All these claims are false and devoid of any science.

Again. Science does not deal in facts. Science deals in explanations that best fit observations.
I have, at no point, made any claims about creationism. Your quotations mean as much to me as a quotation from the bible would mean to you.

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
In the video below he addresses a news article in Science magazine entitled "Biologists create the most lifelike artificial cells yet" at 24:20 (another joke):

Oh the quote was "hype out the wazoo" (37:32), lol.

a reply to: Xtrozero

I love seeing people add things to my comments that I never said. I love it.
Facts do not change. Truth does not change. Science changes. Science does not deal in facts. Science deals in explanations that best fit observations. If a 'fact' changes, then it was never a fact to begin with.

You'll notice I never made a claim about the validity of religion. You'll notice I never even mentioned religion. So why are you arguing the validity of religion with me?

originally posted by: whereislogic
...
Even though I tried to correct that sentence by adding an "r" to it, it may still give the wrong impression if you put it like that (the key point is actually that diversity increases, according to the order things were created described in Genesis ch. 1, plants and trees first in "the third day"; which aren't much simpler than dinosaurs for example, if "simpler" is an appropiate term at all). ...

“The problem for biology is to reach a simple beginning,” say astronomers Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe. “Fossil residues of ancient life-forms discovered in the rocks do not reveal a simple beginning. . . . so the evolutionary theory lacks a proper foundation.” (Evolution From Space, by Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, 1981, p. 8.)

I don't know if you can call a small fish "simpler" than a huge dinosaur. Sure, it's "smaller", but that's about the limit of what I would say about it in the context of the idea of "progressive evolution from simple to complex" (quoting Zoologist Harold Coffin there at the end).

That idea is a key component of Darwin's promotion of his evolutionary philosophies/ideas. I could quote him on it but it seems a bit superfluous now that Zoologist Harols Coffin has already spelled it out that it's a part of so-called "evolutionary theory". You can't just switch your argument to "evolution has no direction" (which has already been done by many evolutionists relying on people already believing it). Like I said:

It is this whole idea that was supposed to make Darwin's speculations sound more plausible, more scientific, to improve 'sales'.

This is why the person in the video below says at some point (when summing up the deliberately deceptive behaviour of evolutionists): "contradict their own statements". The phrase "evolution has no direction" is contradictory to the idea of "progressive evolution from simple to complex" (the original argument and storyline for marketing reasons). 2:42 (just one example discussed by me now, it happens a lot, I've also said things about "gradual evolution" vs "punctuated equilibrium"):

The behaviour in the example of changing the original argument and storyline I used relates to what the man below discusses (it also says something about the "definition of an eye", similar to what has been going on with the definition for "life", or "information", or "nothing" for that matter):

here you go. straight from UC Berkeley

and, because i know you'll quote some random wikipedia page, UC Berkeley is is a top 10 school in the US for pretty much all STEM related subjects.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.


Which means the "medieval" beliefs of God are not incompatible with the THEORY of evolution.

Now shut the f up.

originally posted by: MrGashler

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Thanks for your input but this is nothing more than a further attempt to justify the religious views in favour of creationism.

It could be irritating but facts don't care about someone's feelings.

The world wasn't created in six days. All these claims are false and devoid of any science.

Again. Science does not deal in facts. Science deals in explanations that best fit observations.
I have, at no point, made any claims about creationism. Your quotations mean as much to me as a quotation from the bible would mean to you.

You remind me of these creationists who try to argue there are no facts or the evidence based research is flawed and doesn't lead nowhere when they offer religious beliefs and dogma in exchange which is devoid of science and for which there is no evidence to support their claims.

Part of the scientific process is observations. We have experiments, measurements, mathematics and mathematical models often with the help of very powerful computers.

Here is a peer reviewed scientific publication. Another poster said it doesn't trust it but his religious dogma and belief in creationism is much better. That proves the point of this thread.


Anyway here it is for once more

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics

First line of the abstract: Evolution is both a theory and a fact.

For clarification theory means scientific theory in this case which is different to speculation or scientific hypothesis.

a reply to: Venkuish1

This paper was written by an activist LoL
Here’s the TL;dr…

‘Admission policies for biology professionals, particularly teachers, to promote evolution must be made.’ 🤡

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
here you go. straight from UC Berkeley

and, because i know you'll quote some random wikipedia page, UC Berkeley is is a top 10 school in the US for pretty much all STEM related subjects.

evolution.berkeley.edu...

MISCONCEPTION: Evolution is a theory about the origin of life.
CORRECTION: Evolutionary theory does encompass ideas and evidence regarding life’s origins (e.g., whether or not it happened near a deep-sea vent, which organic molecules came first, etc.), but this is not the central focus of evolutionary theory. Most of evolutionary biology deals with how life changed after its origin. Regardless of how life started, afterwards it branched and diversified, and most studies of evolution are focused on those processes.


Which means the "medieval" beliefs of God are not incompatible with the THEORY of evolution.

Now shut the f up.

The medieval beliefs of God not once are mentioned in the theory of evolution or anywhere in science. There is a reason for it though because of the complete absence of evidence for their existence. There is not a single physical or biochemical process that has supernatural causes. None that we know of. All of them so far have natural causes.