Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: LSU2018

Name one thing in science that is known with absolute certainty.

1+1=2

Where did you get those numbers from?

Where do they exist in reality?

Show me the physical form of the number one, please.

You can't. Because numbers are not real. They are representations of an abstract concept that we use to communicate with each other.

That they accurately describe things within our reality is interesting, but a one can just as easily be a three...

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: LSU2018

Name one thing in science that is known with absolute certainty.

1+1=2

Where did you get those numbers from?

Where do they exist in reality?

Show me the physical form of the number one, please.

You can't. Because numbers are not real. They are representations of an abstract concept that we use to communicate with each other.

That they accurately describe things within our reality is interesting, but a one can just as easily be a three...

Imagine at what lengths creationists have to go to argue about their beliefs. Nothing is real,everything is subjective, there are no facts, and so on. Denialism of everything.

a reply to: whereislogic

Richard Dawkins and propaganda??

These two words don't go together.

Perhaps you should be looking on the guys who offer first class creationist propaganda online.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

"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."

This. I am no Creationist and have often decided their nonsense but, I do have some problems with evolution in its widest application.

Apparently fish developed lungs over millions of years or whatever when their ponds or lakes dried up.

But, if a pond or lake dries up, the fish all die?

And, can anyone explain the life cycle of dragonflies , that spend years under water as something that looks like something out of Alien, before morphing into a completely different creature that flies, brilliantly?

Sorry, but this has always puzzled me, and no, I don't have any answers.

I dunno.

What I do know is it is just as dangerous to be so single-mindedly blind for science as is to be so single-mindedly for creationism.

Especially when creationism is not incompatible with science.

If evolution is true then creationism cannot be true. We know that evolution is true and hence incompatible with science.

The new tendency of guided evolution when people understand that their religious views are not true and that evolution is true is an attempt to agree with science but keep their belief in God.

We discussed this earlier.

Creationism doesn't involve evolution either guided or unguided.

One thing I've learned from this thread is that you're as close-minded as the hyper-religious people who tell you that you're going to hell for getting a tattoo.

Hmmm... you mean I am closed minded because I don't accept creationism?!

Can you tell me which science degree offers creationism as part of the programme of studies.

a reply to: Lumenari

It's a theory, not a theory. DUH

(I know, I've been SMH the whole time too)

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Lumenari

It's a theory, not a theory. DUH

(I know, I've been SMH the whole time too)

Evolution is a scientific theory hence it's factual. If you are a creationist you try to hold onto something by using this false argument as if nobody has ever attended school or university and everyone is oblivious to the facts and terminology.

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.

a reply to: LSU2018

Do you still think there is no evidence Jupiter is a gas planet? What do you think the Sun is?

And do you think earth is not 4.54 billion years old but whatever is argued in the bible (I suppose a few thousand years old - 5,000 maybe 10,000)

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Degradation33

I have my doubts about Jupiter. Has anyone ever sent a craft to its surface to see that most of the planet is made of gases? For all we know, the surface is normal.

Based on?
Your creationist and religious views?
Do you consider start reading science even at the basic level?

Planets and their makeup aren't mentioned in religion, you wanna try again? Where's the proof of the makeup of Jupiter, a satellite picture?

Is this a genuine question or you are trying to troll the entire universe?

So you are denying further some basic science? This is basic information children learn at school.

Asking for proof for established facts when you offer religious faith in exchange. Do you see the irony?

Oh I see irony alright....

Show me some pictures of Jupiter's surface, hot shot.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: LSU2018

Name one thing in science that is known with absolute certainty.

1+1=2

Where did you get those numbers from?

Where do they exist in reality?

Show me the physical form of the number one, please.

You can't. Because numbers are not real. They are representations of an abstract concept that we use to communicate with each other.

That they accurately describe things within our reality is interesting, but a one can just as easily be a three...

Imagine at what lengths creationists have to go to argue about their beliefs. Nothing is real,everything is subjective, there are no facts, and so on. Denialism of everything.

I was being facetious, dumbass.

You'd think someone so steeped in scientism would also understand philosophy and emojis, being that you're so much smarter than all of us religious zealots.

originally posted by: LSU2018

... What I don't believe, is that scientists have proven that a human can eventually evolve out of an organism that began as an amoeba. They haven't even scratched the surface of proving that. ...

Note that this remark does not really 'concern' (as in that's not the focus) the topic of "how life began on this planet" (quoting strongfp below). So anyone bringing up that topic in response, is not only possibly using a red herring, but also potentially steering the conversation to the point where they or someone else can bring up the slogan: 'evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life', or abiogenesis, or '(the theory of) evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of life', or any variations of those slogans that 'capitalize on the ambiguity of language' and conveniently leave out the fact that Haldane and Oparin used the following label for their ideas/philosophies concerning the "evolution" of life from non-living material(s): "the chemical evolution theory of life", or "chemical evolution" for short as many have used that term since then to refer to these philosophies/ideas and proven false stories/myths (primarily by mathematics, but also common sense; which in truth, is very uncommon, but that's a bit besides the point now).

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: LSU2018

I don't think anyone who is serious about attempting to explain how life began on this planet will tell you for sure come from an amoeba, or a pile of goo or slime on a rock.

But, they can give a good hypothesis, based on the piles of scientific evidence- facts - that life could have started off as something similar to that.
Now you as the individual can either take it as a scientific fact, based on evidence. Or you can not accept it.

It's up to you really.

“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.

Thank you for your demonstration of what I was just talking about a few comments before yours on the same page, page 10. Link to that comment, which includes the propagandistic slogan repeated so many times already in this thread.

...

Coming back to the quotation from Hitler's Mein Kampf. This four-​word propaganda line, ‘Evolution is a fact,’ is little (little in content), is a simple sentence (easily said), and is repeated persistently (even 12 times in one short essay).

...

The essay being referred to was Stephen Jay Gould's essay that was intent on overkill, as mentioned earlier in the comment.

...

Slogans and Symbols

Slogans are vague statements that are typically used to express positions or goals. Because of their vagueness, they are easy to agree with.

...

Or fall for. Especially when they 'capitalize on the ambiguity of language', 'bend rules of logic', 'exploit insecurites', 'agitate the emotions', such as "a reverse appeal to pride that plays on our fear of seeming stupid" (that's 2 emotions at once, and even a third, "vanity", quoting Bob Marley who is quoting from the Bible in his song "Stiff-Necked Fools", embedded on page 10, top comment, same comment I was referring to earlier), "sift the facts, exploiting the useful ones and concealing the others", "distort and twist facts, specializing in lies and half-truths." All discussed in the following 2 sources (the 1st source concerns the page quoted from above, and the first half of the quotations and paraphrases just used):

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)
Do Not Be a Victim of Propaganda!

You are right on one thing though (or one I specifically agree with, I'm using the expression, not to say you were only right on one thing and nothing else), it's up to each of us to decide whether we favor fact over fiction, true science/knowledge over propaganda and proven false stories/myths, i.e. mythology. Understanding over folly. Wisdom over foolishness (extreme or otherwise; see previous commentary concerning corruptions of the mind, mental diseases, I think it's page 22). "Beneficial teaching" over falsehood, deceptive "lies" and propagandistic spin, "the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes."

“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)

“So we should no longer be children, tossed about as by waves and carried here and there by every wind of teaching by means of the trickery of men, by means of cunning in deceptive schemes.” (Ephesians 4:14)

“However, the inspired word clearly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to misleading inspired statements and teachings of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of men who speak lies, whose conscience is seared as with a branding iron.”(1 Timothy 4:1,2).

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Degradation33

I have my doubts about Jupiter. Has anyone ever sent a craft to its surface to see that most of the planet is made of gases? For all we know, the surface is normal.

Based on?
Your creationist and religious views?
Do you consider start reading science even at the basic level?

Planets and their makeup aren't mentioned in religion, you wanna try again? Where's the proof of the makeup of Jupiter, a satellite picture?

Is this a genuine question or you are trying to troll the entire universe?

So you are denying further some basic science? This is basic information children learn at school.

Asking for proof for established facts when you offer religious faith in exchange. Do you see the irony?

Oh I see irony alright....

Show me some pictures of Jupiter's surface, hot shot.

Why don't you ask Harvard or Princeton.
Is this a new low? ---Show me pictures of Jupiter's surface.

Why don't you ask NASA or easier to visit their website.

How does this support your view of creationism?

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: LSU2018

Name one thing in science that is known with absolute certainty.

1+1=2

Where did you get those numbers from?

Where do they exist in reality?

Show me the physical form of the number one, please.

You can't. Because numbers are not real. They are representations of an abstract concept that we use to communicate with each other.

That they accurately describe things within our reality is interesting, but a one can just as easily be a three...

Imagine at what lengths creationists have to go to argue about their beliefs. Nothing is real,everything is subjective, there are no facts, and so on. Denialism of everything.

I was being facetious, dumbass.

You'd think someone so steeped in scientism would also understand philosophy and emojis, being that you're so much smarter than all of us religious zealots.

Creationism isn't philosophy but an outdated and debunked view of the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction. In the United States, intelligent design (ID) has been represented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: whereislogic

originally posted by: Phantom42338
a reply to: LSU2018

Name one thing in science that is known with absolute certainty.

1+1=2

Where did you get those numbers from?

Where do they exist in reality?

Show me the physical form of the number one, please.

You can't. Because numbers are not real. They are representations of an abstract concept that we use to communicate with each other.

That they accurately describe things within our reality is interesting, but a one can just as easily be a three...

Imagine at what lengths creationists have to go to argue about their beliefs. Nothing is real,everything is subjective, there are no facts, and so on. Denialism of everything.

I was being facetious, dumbass.

You'd think someone so steeped in scientism would also understand philosophy and emojis, being that you're so much smarter than all of us religious zealots.

Creationism isn't philosophy but an outdated and debunked view of the world.

en.wikipedia.org...

In the United States, the Supreme Court has ruled the teaching of creationism as science in public schools to be unconstitutional, irrespective of how it may be purveyed in theological or religious instruction. In the United States, intelligent design (ID) has been represented as an alternative explanation to evolution in recent decades, but its "demonstrably religious, cultural, and legal missions" have been ruled unconstitutional by a lower court

You were responding to my comment about numbers, genius.

And still waiting for you to tell us "who" debunked God.

And we'll be waiting forever, because nobody did...

The Supreme Court ruled its unconstitutional to teach creationism in schools because of separation of church and state, not because it's debunked.

You have a problem with logic.

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm not following, what did I say was propoganda?

How is observing scientific facts propoganda? How many times do I have to drop a ball in front of you to tell you that gravity makes it fall to the ground, and how many times would I have to do it, with the same outcome for you to accept that scientific fact, that the ball will keep dropping because of gravity.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Lumenari

It's a theory, not a theory. DUH

(I know, I've been SMH the whole time too)

Evolution is a scientific theory hence it's factual. If you are a creationist you try to hold onto something by using this false argument as if nobody has ever attended school or university and everyone is oblivious to the facts and terminology.

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.

No.

Theory means it's widely accepted within the scientific community to be the explanation for something.

That doesn't mean it is fact. Unless you accept fact to be something widely accepted to be an explanation for something...

Fact by consensus, in other words.

Which means God is fact.

Since more than 2/3 of the world population believes in God.

That means you think you're smarter than ~5-6 billion people.

this needs to be on the front page.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
a reply to: LSU2018

Do you still think there is no evidence Jupiter is a gas planet? What do you think the Sun is?

And do you think earth is not 4.54 billion years old but whatever is argued in the bible (I suppose a few thousand years old - 5,000 maybe 10,000)

I never understood the people who think the world is only 6,000 years old. They overanalyze the Bible like you overanalyze how we got here.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Degradation33

I have my doubts about Jupiter. Has anyone ever sent a craft to its surface to see that most of the planet is made of gases? For all we know, the surface is normal.

Based on?
Your creationist and religious views?
Do you consider start reading science even at the basic level?

Planets and their makeup aren't mentioned in religion, you wanna try again? Where's the proof of the makeup of Jupiter, a satellite picture?

Is this a genuine question or you are trying to troll the entire universe?

So you are denying further some basic science? This is basic information children learn at school.

Asking for proof for established facts when you offer religious faith in exchange. Do you see the irony?

Oh I see irony alright....

Show me some pictures of Jupiter's surface, hot shot.

Why don't you ask Harvard or Princeton.
Is this a new low? ---Show me pictures of Jupiter's surface.

Why don't you ask NASA or easier to visit their website.

How does this support your view of creationism?

NASA has shots of Jupiter's atmosphere from orbit, nothing on the surface and therefore no idea what it's made of. Do better.

The only person here who has been obsessed with creationism and talking about it over and over is you. I don't have to prove it, I'm not 25 pages deep calling you uneducated for not believing in it, nor do I care if you believe in it. You're 25 pages deep still trying to pass off a theory as an absolute because some peer reviewed article said so. Do I think science and education has failed you? Absolutely, and made you think you're smarter than everyone else, I just don't care enough to try to push it in your face.

originally posted by: nugget1
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.

"Capitalizing on the ambiguity of language" (concerning the term "evolution", which to some people refers to and includes the idea that fish evolved from the invertebrates, that fish evolved into amphibians, some amphibians evolved into reptiles, from the reptiles came both mammals and birds, and eventually some mammals became men, all by means of the process of evolution, driven by mutations, or slight changes in subsequent generations, acted upon by so-called "natural selection", which performs no willful "selection" based on preferences because that would require a mind and accompanying will and preferences; as per the original meaning of the word "selection"). Leading to the use of "half-truths" in the manner things are phrased or stated. In the vague slogan 'illuminated from various sides, but the end of every reflection being always and again the slogan itself.' (paraphrasing Adolf Hitler from Mein Kampf about the use of propaganda). I'm referring to the things mentioned in my commentary so far, and in particular my last comment (which in turn refers to the more detailed comment of mine at the top of page 10, overflooded or drowned out by numerous other posts in this thread so far, as per the "information overload" mentioned in the first paragraph of the article "The Manipulation of Information" linked in my previous comment).

As I said to strongfp, thank you for the demonstration.* It could be very helpful to those willing to "listen" as the term is used by Jesus at John 8:42-47 (see footnote below), and who are not "dull in their hearing" (Heb 5:11; see quotation of Heb 5:11-14 in my previous commentary) and who are not burdened by an inability to see as described by Jesus at Matthew 13:13-15, and quoted from the prophecy of Isaiah at Isaiah 6:9,10, and whose 'hearts have not grown unreceptive' yet. Don't know if they're around here, but you never know who might show up one day.

John 8:42-47

Jesus said to them: “If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I have not come of my own initiative, but that One sent me. 43 Why do you not understand what I am saying? Because you cannot listen to* [Or “accept.”] my word. 44 You are from your father the Devil, and you wish to do the desires of your father. That one was a murderer when he began, and he did not stand fast in the truth, because truth is not in him. When he speaks the lie, he speaks according to his own disposition, because he is a liar and the father of the lie. 45 Because I, on the other hand, tell you the truth, you do not believe me. 46 Who of you convicts me of sin? If I speak truth, why is it that you do not believe me? 47 The one who is from God listens to the sayings of God. This is why you do not listen, because you are not from God.”

Matthew 13:13-15

That is why I speak to them by the use of illustrations; for looking, they look in vain, and hearing, they hear in vain, nor do they get the sense of it. 14 And the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled in their case. It says: ‘You will indeed hear but by no means get the sense of it, and you will indeed look but by no means see. 15 For the heart of this people has grown unreceptive, and with their ears they have heard without response, and they have shut their eyes, so that they might never see with their eyes and hear with their ears and get the sense of it with their hearts and turn back and I heal them.’

Isaiah 6:9, 10

9 And he replied, “Go, and say to this people:

‘You will hear again and again,

But you will not understand;

You will see again and again,

But you will not get any knowledge.’

10 Make the heart of this people unreceptive,

Make their ears unresponsive,

And paste their eyes together,

So that they may not see with their eyes

And hear with their ears,

So that their heart may not understand

And they may not turn back and be healed.”

*: coming back to my remarks about demonstrations of the points I've been making and the teachings of Jehovah God that I've been quoting (as relayed through His servants, like Jesus, Paul and Isaiah) in my commentary in this thread or the articles I've been quoting from, or books (talking about those points again). It's all very nice of many of you to do that, but I am feeling a bit lonely here on ATS for being possibly the only one who really sees it that clearly, so if you see it too, please feel free to let me know. Don't let anyone hold you back ("Trembling at men is what lays a snare"; Pr 29:25).

John 3:9-12, 19-21

9 In answer Nic·o·deʹmus said to him: “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus replied: “Are you a teacher of Israel and yet do not know these things? 11 Most truly I say to you, what we know we speak, and what we have seen we bear witness to, but you do not receive the witness we give. 12 If I have told you earthly things and you still do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? . . .
. . .
19 Now this is the basis for judgment: that the light has come into the world, but men* [Or “people.”] have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked. 20 For whoever practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, so that his works may not be reproved.* [Or “exposed.”] 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that his works may be made manifest as having been done in harmony with God.”

Coming back to verse 16 (which I skipped) to introduce 2 Corinthians 4:3-9:

“For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, so that everyone exercising faith in him might not be destroyed but have everlasting life.

3 If, in fact, the good news we declare is veiled, it is veiled among those who are perishing, among whom the god of this system of things has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, so that the illumination* [Or “light.”] of the glorious good news about the Christ, who is the image of God, might not shine through. For we are preaching, not about ourselves, but about Jesus Christ as Lord and ourselves as your slaves for Jesus’ sake. For God is the one who said: “Let the light shine out of darkness,” and he has shone on our hearts to illuminate them with the glorious knowledge of God by the face of Christ.

7 However, we have this treasure in earthen vessels, so that the power beyond what is normal may be God’s and not from us. We are hard-pressed in every way, but not cramped beyond movement; we are perplexed, but not absolutely with no way out;* [Or possibly, “but not left in despair.”] we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed.

I removed some of the verse numbers for easier reading.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Good for you, not believing in God.

I said I do not believe or disbelieve as it can't be proven one way or the other.

You believe in scientific theories which realistically can't be proven either way. Which is why they're theories.

I believe that empirical evidence greatly outweighs that evolution is a thing compared to creationism which is a non-falsifiable belief. Whether intelligent design is in the mix or not is really not part of the discussion.

And, here's some new for you: even scientific "laws" are theories. And, they're subject to scrutiny and change.

Case in point: Newtonian Gravity and Einstein's Theory of Relativity. If one is correct, the other is not.

Great I agree... Darwin got a lot wrong, but it was still groundbreaking work. What does your statement have to do with evolution? Are you suggesting it is ALL wrong 100%, none of it is correct. We are lightyears ahead of Darwin today in understanding life.

I believe in a creator. Because if you do the math, it is more probable than any other explanation science can provide.

Your math is nonexistent. Your belief in God is based only on faith. Your view is the same damn thing as when we had 100 Gods to explain everything we didn't know yet, but today you just have one to fill in all gaps.

In other words, "the universe came into existence because it needed to" isn't a satisfactory answer.

Who says it needed? There could be infinite universes with infinite combinations of what they turn out to be, ours just happens to be like it is. You want to put reason to it all, and there doesn't need to be any reason.

It's like you and op think those of us who do believe in a creator have no capability of thinking and coming to this conclusion. You act as if we're mindless, brainwashed morons or something.

If there's no proof either way, why is your view correct, and mine isn't?

I didn't say mine was. I'm not going to debate whether God exists or not, and have said that many times. As to evolution that is a massive amount of empirical evidence that says it is real.