Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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)

The earth is 6000 years old, but when God made it he decided to make it look 4.5 billion years old. All those dinosaur fossils are there because God made them that way.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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)

The earth is 6000 years old, but when God made it he decided to make it look 4.5 billion years old. All those dinosaur fossils are there because God made them that way.

Actually they often claim fossils were placed here on Earth to test our faith. Some of the young earth creationists are fond of this superb idea!

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

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Creationism isn't philosophy but an outdated and debunked view of the world.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

I never made a claim that someone debunked God. You are keep using this strawman argument.

But the existence of a God isn't a fact just as the existence of a flying spaghetti monster. There is zero evidence for their existence. No sign so far. If anyone making claims about God they need to be able to prove its existence first.

You need to pay attention to what the supreme court decided to do.

n 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.

SCOTUS has decided that creationism cannot be taught as science in public schools not because of the separation of the church and state but because there is nothing scientific about an outdated and debunked ideology having its roots in the bronze age. It's unscientific and anti-scientific and devoid of any science. That's the real reason.

originally posted by: LSU2018

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.

So you keep claiming NASA has no idea of what Jupiter's surface is made of. I think NASA and the rest of the scientific world will disagree with you.

Do you think we need to go near the sun to find out what it is made of. Don't you think there are other ways we can deduce soms information?

Science is not religion and is a self correcting process. In the presence of new evidence it changes its views but religion remains trapped in unquestionable dogma. The scientific theory of evolution is not 'absolute' but it's one of the best theories around supported by mountains of evidence.

Creationism on the other hand has no leg to stand on and never had simply because it's a religious belief based on nothing. It's about time you distinguish between evidenced based research and facts and religious ideas and dogma.

Several pages of religious dogma and apology simply because some posters can't understand the difference between reality and fiction/fantasy.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: whereislogic

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

Not surprising, since your question already shows a misinterpretation of my comment, i.e. a question about a straw man interpretation of my comment, painting on my comment the notion that I claimed you said something that in itself was "propaganda" rather than the effect of propaganda (as if that was the focus of my point; regardless whether or not it itself can be counted as propaganda as well). Whereas what I actually said was something a little different, so you have been reading something in my comment that wasn't there in the way you perceived it or described it (depending on whether or not you honestly perceived it as such; still talking about what the main or primary focus of my points was), something that you perhaps prefer to talk about or ask questions about. The demonstrations I was talking about concerns primarily you and others being affected by propaganda, i.e. victims of propaganda (as per the title of the article linked in my signature). As further demonstrated by your red herrings in the rest of your comment.

By the way, it's "propaganda", not "propoganda". (it does sound funny )

Oh, and it's my comment at the top of page 10, that "includes the propagandistic slogan repeated so many times already in this thread." And "they" below the box about slogans, is referring to these slogans described in the box (from the article "The Manipulation of Information").

Also, you have hardly had enough time to read through my commentary to understand what I'm talking about before you had your answer or response rearing to go. Please take some time to listen and think about what I'm really saying, before responding with a twist or spin concerning what you wish it said or what you wish to hear. It makes for a more honest and reasonable two-way conversation, just like answering the questions I raised in my response to Phantom423, which were for everyone, before going into 'defense' mode, and demonstrating the previously quoted 1 Timothy 6:3-5, giving "rise to envy, strife, slander, wicked suspicions, constant disputes about minor matters by men who are corrupted in mind and deprived of the truth". It would be really nice if before responding to only my response to you, you also have a bit of a look at my other commentary in this thread, especially the one I was referring to in my response to you. You know, the ones quickly drowned out and overflooded with a flood of other comments by others, lost in the "information overload" described in the first paragraph of the article I just mentioned. Page 22 is also just as important as page 10 to get a better grasp of what I'm talking about in my response to you, if you're interested in that sort of thing rather than making your own comments 'without understanding' (1 Timothy 6:4). "If anyone thinks he knows something, he does not yet know it as he should know it." (1 Corinthians 8:2)

Psalm 32:9

9 Do not become like a horse or a mule, without understanding,

Whose spiritedness must be controlled with a bridle or a halter

Before it will come near to you.”

Just some friendly, well-intended, "beneficial" and loving advice from your Creator.

Education (Insight on the Scriptures, Volume 1)

The imparting or acquisition of knowledge and skill. Education is accomplished through (1) explanation and repetition; (2) discipline, training administered in love (Pr 1:7; Heb 12:5, 6); (3) personal observation (Ps 19:1-3; Ec 1:12-14); (4) reproof and rebuke (Ps 141:5; Pr 9:8; 17:10).

Jehovah God is the great Educator and Instructor, of whom there is no equal. (Job 36:22; Ps 71:17; Isa 30:20) ...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot


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.

Stephen Hawking said it. Science's Jesus felt the need to give it a reason.

And My math is wholly existent. It's called statistics.

It's pretty simple math to figure the probability of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer existing, actually. 50%. It either exists, or it doesn't.

As opposed to the probability of everything being created from nothing, and the sequence of events that led to you being able to claim being agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe in God... which is so infinitesimally small you would be laughed out of the building in ANY other situation if you weren't attacking the idea of God.

And I hate to break it to you, being agnostic is the same as not believing in God. Just because you're deferring until later doesn't give you some enlightened state that allows you to side skirt the question.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Several pages of religious dogma and apology simply because some posters can't understand the difference between reality and fiction/fantasy.

No, because YOU can't understand the the difference between reality and fiction/fantasy.

a reply to: whereislogic

Well, first off it was a typo. Don't get too hung up on it.

Let me get this straight. You think the scientific method is propaganda? Or that scientists use propaganda?

originally posted by: Venkuish1

SCOTUS has decided that creationism cannot be taught as science in public schools not because of the separation of the church and state but because there is nothing scientific about an outdated and debunked ideology having its roots in the bronze age. It's unscientific and anti-scientific and devoid of any science. That's the real reason.

Oh, the "real" reason.

Amazing.

So the reason the supreme court actually gave is wrong, according to you. You know, where they literally said “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Literally NOTHING they said had anything to do with the truthfulness of either creationism or science.

I forgot. You're smarter than 6 billion people. You must be right. Not the Supreme Court justices who actually ruled on the matter.

Several pages of you just making # up.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Stephen Hawking said it. Science's Jesus felt the need to give it a reason.

And My math is wholly existent. It's called statistics.

It's pretty simple math to figure the probability of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer existing, actually. 50%. It either exists, or it doesn't.

The actual probability is 1 / Infinite possibilities. When you want to know the probability that god exists, you simply divide the one you choose by all possible other events. Since you have no proof that indicates any one God is more likely than any other God, this gives you an infinite number of possible events.

As opposed to the probability of everything being created from nothing, and the sequence of events that led to you being able to claim being agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe in God... which is so infinitesimally small you would be laughed out of the building in ANY other situation if you weren't attacking the idea of God.

I don't think anyone is saying the universe was created from nothing. A singularly is not nothing. We are both talking about something that is infinite, one has intelligence and the other does not.

The sequence of me has zero probability to it. If we ran earth again starting let's say a billion years ago all life would be different than it is today and we would not be here. The one truth is something would be here and it just happened to be us. You are looking from the now to the past and saying all that can't happen without intelligent design involved because you are picking an end product. The problem is there is no preselected end product, so you are doing it wrong and should be looking from the past forward. As you look at each change in the evolutionary process there are infinite possibilities where only one branch will happen so on and so forth until we became a branch too. The probability of something is 100% and we just happened to end up being that something.

And I hate to break it to you, being agnostic is the same as not believing in God. Just because you're deferring until later doesn't give you some enlightened state that allows you to side skirt the question.

What question is that? Do you believe in aliens? I think they could be out there, but I don't think they visited Earth if they are. There could be a God/Gods but I do not see a need for them for the universe to function.

a reply to: Xtrozero

The actual probability is 1 / Infinite possibilities.

prove this

I don't think anyone is saying the universe was created from nothing. A singularly is not nothing.

prove this

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Stephen Hawking said it. Science's Jesus felt the need to give it a reason.

And My math is wholly existent. It's called statistics.

It's pretty simple math to figure the probability of God/Creator/Intelligent Designer existing, actually. 50%. It either exists, or it doesn't.

The actual probability is 1 / Infinite possibilities. When you want to know the probability that god exists, you simply divide the one you choose by all possible other events. Since you have no proof that indicates any one God is more likely than any other God, this gives you an infinite number of possible events.

As opposed to the probability of everything being created from nothing, and the sequence of events that led to you being able to claim being agnostic doesn't mean you don't believe in God... which is so infinitesimally small you would be laughed out of the building in ANY other situation if you weren't attacking the idea of God.

I don't think anyone is saying the universe was created from nothing. A singularly is not nothing. We are both talking about something that is infinite, one has intelligence and the other does not.

The sequence of me has zero probability to it. If we ran earth again starting let's say a billion years ago all life would be different than it is today and we would not be here. The one truth is something would be here and it just happened to be us. You are looking from the now to the past and saying all that can't happen without intelligent design involved because you are picking an end product. The problem is there is no preselected end product, so you are doing it wrong and should be looking from the past forward. As you look at each change in the evolutionary process there are infinite possibilities where only one branch will happen so on and so forth until we became a branch too. The probability of something is 100% and we just happened to end up being that something.

And I hate to break it to you, being agnostic is the same as not believing in God. Just because you're deferring until later doesn't give you some enlightened state that allows you to side skirt the question.

What question is that? Do you believe in aliens? I think they could be out there, but I don't think they visited Earth if they are. There could be a God/Gods but I do not see a need for them for the universe to function.

No, we're not asking which God is the one true God. That has nothing to do with creation, much like how evolution has nothing to do with creation, yet here we are, arguing that somehow evolution negates the concept of God.

You're trying to muddy the waters.

Intelligent design either happened or it didn't. There is no "infinite possibilities" when it comes to a creator.

You don't think anyone is saying the universe came from nothing?

That is the entire concept of the big bang theory, which is the predominant theory in science as to how we are here. Or, in the words of the OP, the Big Bang Theory is "Scientific Fact."

Which, AGAIN, I must point out, the Big Bang Theory was created by a Catholic priest. And is not incompatible with the concept of a creator.

I love how you guys just ignore the basic tenets of science when you argue that science is the answer.

I love this part especially - "The sequence of me has zero probability to it. If we ran earth again starting let's say a billion years ago all life would be different than it is today and we would not be here."

No sh!t? So if everything were to happen again, you wouldn't be here.... So you discount probability altogether?

Classic.

You've got it backwards. It's 1/infinite possibilities that you exist if there is no creator. Meaning it is a statistical impossibility that you exist if there is no intelligent design.

Don't believe me? What are the chances you were born with blue eyes?

Yep, there are probabilities for every gene in your body being passed down from your parents to you. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them. From their parents to them............



Imagine walking into a room full of scientists and screaming at the top of your lungs, "I HAVE DISCOVERED COLD FUSION, WITH A 1 IN INFINITY CHANCE OF REPRODUCTION!"

You would never do any form of science again. They'd erase you from your high school yearbook just to ensure you were never let near a lab again, and they'd laugh at you every time someone said your name.

Yet here we are...

I'm pretty sure you're the op under another handle. Because you have just as firm a grasp on reality as he does.

That is to say, you both live in a fantasy world.

a reply to: whereislogic

I'm guessing by your extensive proselytizing you're a JW? I'm not familiar with any other 'branch' that goes to such lengths.

originally posted by: Another_Nut

prove this

The probability is unknown, just as God is unknown, so there are infinite possibilities...There is nothing to prove here as in you have one selection of the unknown out of infinite possibilities.

prove this

First, what is your point outside of wasting 4 words? It would be nice to understand a little of what you are getting at. We all know that whatever is outside our universe is a non-falsifiable dilemma. The universe is expanding and if you reverse you end up with the mass of the universe at a pin point. How it got there who knows.

Why not just say we know God is non-falsifiable but our faith tells us he is real? You can't have it both ways in saying God is real, but then saying prove this to anything else.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

As always, the debate ends in either you believe the universe is eternal or there's an eternal God. Which is basically one in the same.

Trying to fathom infinity is a hard thing to do when we are seemingly finite thinkers. The chicken and the egg scenario can only get you so far until you hit a certain road block.

The big bang isn't a theory of beginning, it's a theory of the beginning of this universe we live in. A singularity. A single point in which all matter and energy started and blew up. That's the theory. And it (hypothesized) may have happened more than once.
Who knows how many singularity events have happened with completely different sets of physics and dimensions, or if there's more than one universe and one is in a fourth dimension and one is in a two dimension, etc etc. We don't really know. But what we do know, is the scientific method, and apply it to OUR universe, and each time we use that method to observe and calculate, measure etc. That method exposes scientific facts, which we build upon or set on a shelf as just an anomaly or proven false, and we move on with what we know as a fact, to prove a scientific theory.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot
No, we're not asking which God is the one true God. That has nothing to do with creation, much like how evolution has nothing to do with creation, yet here we are, arguing that somehow evolution negates the concept of God.

Evolution has nothing to do with proving or disproving God, so talking about evolution doesn't negate the concept of God. Evolution doesn't give a crap and neither do I. Creationism is non-falsifiable, there is nothing there...nothing to observe, measure, study...nothing...Evolution could be only 1% correct and that is infinitely more correct than nothing...

It is not people who talk about evolution that bring God into the conversation, it's you all. I have said 100 times I really do not want to debate how life started since we just do not know yet, we are damn close though, I could argue that part, but of course, we would get into the endless 100% proof or nothing circle jerk.

Intelligent design either happened or it didn't. There is no "infinite possibilities" when it comes to a creator.

Ok, so you want to establish a possibility of an unknown...good luck with that. Your point is meaningless unless there is a known factor. There are giants living in Middle Earth, or not.. 50/50... Let's just pass on this as you seem to either not understand it or are unwilling to see it, but anyhow...

You don't think anyone is saying the universe came from nothing?

It came from an unknown...period... Like God, it is not something anyone can debate.

That is the entire concept of the big bang theory, which is the predominant theory in science as to how we are here. Or, in the words of the OP, the Big Bang Theory is "Scientific Fact."

There is the Big Bang, God is two, and there are other theories still... God has always been the way for humans to explain the unknown...God did it...end of story. Great! using a non-falsifiable to explain a non-falsifiable. I hope you do not waste too much of your life on that.

Which, AGAIN, I must point out, the Big Bang Theory was created by a Catholic priest. And is not incompatible with the concept of a creator.

I love how you guys just ignore the basic tenets of science when you argue that science is the answer.

Using science is not disproving God.

I love this part especially - "The sequence of me has zero probability to it. If we ran earth again starting let's say a billion years ago all life would be different than it is today and we would not be here."

No sh!t? So if everything were to happen again, you wouldn't be here.... So you discount probability altogether?

Finally, in your attempt to be snarky, you get it. When there is no predetermined outcome there are no probabilities.

Don't believe me? What are the chances you were born with blue eyes?

Sure there is a probability in that, The problem is you all say humans are predetermined so either God did it or the probability of a single cell ending up at me is 10 followed by 2,685,000 zeros, and of course that proves there must be intelligent design, but as I said if you started at a single cell and said the end life results in 2024 from 3 billion years ago could be anything at all then the probability is 100% to happen. Rerun Earth a trillion times and you only get humans once because to predetermine you end up with something like our 10 followed by 2,685,000 zeros.

Yet here we are...

Once again if something would be here no matter what then we just happened to be that something, but could have been an infinite of other possibilities. Pick a number from 1 to infinity, the probability of picking a number is 100%, we just happened to be the number picked.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

SCOTUS has decided that creationism cannot be taught as science in public schools not because of the separation of the church and state but because there is nothing scientific about an outdated and debunked ideology having its roots in the bronze age. It's unscientific and anti-scientific and devoid of any science. That's the real reason.

Oh, the "real" reason.

Amazing.

So the reason the supreme court actually gave is wrong, according to you. You know, where they literally said “an excessive government entanglement with religion.”

Literally NOTHING they said had anything to do with the truthfulness of either creationism or science.

I forgot. You're smarter than 6 billion people. You must be right. Not the Supreme Court justices who actually ruled on the matter.

Several pages of you just making # up.

It's clear what the SCOTUS has done and said. Creationism cannot be taught in schools as science. It's unconstitutional !!

And why is this?!

Children at school should not learn religious theology as fact because it isn't. Creationism can only be taught as part of religious education and as part of a science lesson. There is nothing factual in creationism and everyone who is not a creationist knows it well.

Creationism should not be taught in schools anyway as children must not be subjected to this kind of misinformation.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

Creationism should not be in schools anyway as children must not be subjected to this kind of misinformation.

It's like Book banning! Books were not actually banned, just not seen as appropriate in school. Teach Creationism in Sunday school, do home schooling...religious studies are not generic.

originally posted by: Xtrozero

It is not people who talk about evolution that bring God into the conversation, it's you all. I have said 100 times I really do not want to debate how life started since we just do not know yet, we are damn close though, I could argue that part, but of course, we would get into the endless 100% proof or nothing circle jerk.

Read the op, genius.

What thread are you in?

Thanks for proving my point. You live in a fantasy world.

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Just wanted to correct something the big bang does not tell you how the universe started. You made that up the big bang tells you what happened after it started. So your arguing the wrong point.