Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

originally posted by: dragonridr
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.

I didn't make anything up.

Not only was the prevailing theory that everything came from nothing through the big bang, but Stephen Hawking also pushed M-Theory, that an entire multiverse came from nothing.

Which is what we were taught (not M-Theory, but everything came from nothing) in science class when I was in school.

www.livescience.com...

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

www.livescience.com...

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence

originally posted by: Venkuish1
ncse.ngo...

A recent Suffolk University/USA Today poll investigated U.S. public opinion about human evolution. Asked "What comes closest to your belief about humans and evolution?" 29% of respondents preferred "Humans evolved into their present form without divine intervention," 24% preferred "Humans evolved into their present form, but God directed the process," and 37% preferred "Humans did not evolve. They were created in their present form by God," while 8% were undecided and 2% refused to answer.

The survey was conducted between October 17 and October 20 of 2023 and 1,000 registered voters were asked via live telephone interviews from all 50 States plus the District of Columbia.

Anyone can argue this is a small sample and not representative but I am quite confident that a much larger sample will reveal similar results. Another poll was conducted back in 2019 producing similar results: 40% of Americans believe in creationism.

news.gallup.com...

Creationism in relation to the origin of humans is the outdated and debunked religious view that humans are not products of the evolutionary process but they were created by a supernatural force through divine creation and this is contrary to all the evidence we have and by completely dismissing and disregarding facts and science altogether.

The survey revealed that from the 1,000 adult participants around 370 answered humans were created by God and there is no evolution while another almost 240 participants (24%) answered humans evolved but God directed the process.

My understanding is that schools are not doing what they suppose to be doing by teaching kids facts and basic science and by making sure kids are able to distinguish between reality and fiction.

As prophesied. There is now a movement against Christianity. It will not be too long before it becomes nasty violent and discriminative.
You are in a sailboat and trusting where the wind takes you. But it is not visible or known that the wind blowing in your sails is not natural, and has the purpose to blow you off course, on a trajectory of demise. If you are wise and careful, you will notice this unnatural wind and maintain course. If you are careless and or hateful, the wind will seem like the answer to a prayer. And whether you are consciously aware of it or not, it is your wish to go in that direction.

Faith is not just recognizing a truth. It is wishing that truth to come true.
You just have a different goal than does a Christian. And it puts you on course for a separate reality and result.
You are not my enemy. But apparently I am yours.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: dragonridr
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.

I didn't make anything up.

Not only was the prevailing theory that everything came from nothing through the big bang, but Stephen Hawking also pushed M-Theory, that an entire multiverse came from nothing.

Which is what we were taught (not M-Theory, but everything came from nothing) in science class when I was in school.

www.livescience.com...

"I think the universe was spontaneously created out of nothing, according to the laws of science," Hawking, who died in March, wrote. "If you accept, as I do, that the laws of nature are fixed, then it doesn't take long to ask: What role is there for God?"

www.livescience.com...

He closed by outlining "M-theory," which is based partly on ideas put forward years ago by another famed physicist, Caltech’s Richard Feynman. Hawking sees that theory as the only big idea that really explains what he has observed.

M-theory posits that multiple universes are created out of nothing, Hawking explained, with many possible histories and many possible states of existence. In only a few of these states would life be possible, and in fewer still could something like humanity exist. Hawking mentioned that he felt fortunate to be living in this state of existence

From what you described so far it's very unlikely you were taught science in school (properly) and I have doubts you were taught science at all.

You misunderstand and then misrepresent entire concepts in your effort to push creationism as a valid alternative to evolution and how the universe was created.

originally posted by: dragonridr
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.

As usual, concepts are twisted and greatly misunderstood. In my conversations with another poster here who subscribes to the same creationists ideas as the poster you are replying to, everything is misunderstood and misrepresented. At the same time every effort is made to argue science is unreliable so to push creationism.

Lately is has been argued that the word fact should not exist in the vocabulary and science doesn't deal in facts (whatever this means). It has become so when it is asked where is the evidence that Jupiter is a gas planet and where is the evidence earth is 4.5 billion years old and how do I know the universe wasn't created in 6 days (world and heavens in their language).

They believe by demonstrating complete lack of understanding of basic concepts that helps their arguments that lack any evidence. The greatest irony is when they offer nothing in return other than religious dogma and bind faith.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

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.

Not at all.

Science is not done by consensus. Scientists don't get to decide in which way they will go and which path they will follow as they are guided by evidence. Science is not democratic at all and is not the majority that rules - evidence is what rules and guides everyone. Anything else and you get bad science.

The majority rules in religion (no doubt) where we observe herd mentality and group thinking which are based on religious dogma and blind faith.

Whatever consensus in science is based on evidence but it's false to state facts by consensus. The difference again is evidence and lack of evidence. Religion lacks evidence and that's why is based on blind faith.

And no, a scientific theory is not a scientific hypothesis or a speculation, this has been explained so many times. A scientific theory is factual as its based on facts.

www.amnh.org...

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: whereislogic

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

If your intention for responding to my commentary was to be honest, rather than doing your paintjob routine, you could always admit you intentionally wrote "propoganda" to lure me into saying something about it. Since that is the more likely scenario given the paintjob above regardless of what I actually said about it (people, it should be clear that I only pointed it out because I thought it sounded funny, not because I was "hung up on it"). Yes, I can see right through you. Go ahead, deny it now that you didn't do it on purpose at all (nice distraction from the things I've been talking about in this thread, steering the conversation in a direction I don't really want to go), followed by another paintjob, or a moderator helping you out to do your routine by removing my comment (such as this one) as if I'm the one doing something wrong for trying to warn other people about what you are doing. Happens again and again on this forum.

And I take back my previous comment, you are not only a victim of propaganda, you are doing your game of deception and trolling behaviour (discrediting paintjobs, the 'are you saying ...' -routine, followed by putting words in my mouth that paint a negative picture on my commentary) on purpose. Acting all innocent in the process, as if you really don't understand what my commentary is about. You are about as dishonest as it gets, and you've succeeded at me wasting 2 comments responding to you, 'good'* job, you can pat yourself on the back, distraction accomplished. (*: "good" as in efficient, not morally good)

Got more red herrings to throw, or more twisting of my commentary, more distracting stuff that causes thread drift? Or will the moderator now assist you in what you're doing? Painting that accusation on me instead (or was that already sufficiently done the last time moderators deleted my comments for trying to wake other people up to these paintjob and red herring routines? And is it sufficient to just get me to respond again to someone with no intention to be honest about anything in response to my commentary, and acting all innocent when it comes to these subjects, including the use of evolutionary propaganda, as in the first comment I responded to, where the same propagandistic slogan that I discussed on page 10 was repeated yet again in this thread; yes, I'm still on-topic; but let's see how long this comment will last, even though it's honest, calm, reasonable and no violation of any of the terms and conditions, an accusation that was only made regarding some of my previous commentary so I would talk about it again, because hardly anyone else here will catch on how the trolls are in league with at least some of the moderators on this forum, if not all; and adding that honest remark at the end there gives them another excuse to remove my comment, or for someone else to ridicule the whole notion that I may be right about what's truly going on here on ATS, and who is in control, see 1 Tim 4:1,2 quoted before). Can't say I care, it's not going to change the truth of the matter and at least I tried to let people know how they're being played.

Sigh, so dishonest, "trickery" indeed.

“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)

Don't fall for it like I did, with this response and my previous response. The wiser thing would have been to just ignore it (especially concerning this response to the 2nd paintjob comment). But I'm not that wise, just honest, with an honest desire to give other people a heads-up not to be lured in like that.

The paintjob routine I'm talking about (there are more variations, but this one will do for now):

“Woe to those who say that good is bad and bad is good,

Those who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness,

Those who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!

Woe to those wise in their own eyes

And discreet in their own sight!” (Isaiah 5:20,21)

In the words of Bob Marley: "you think you are cool."

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Read the op, genius.

What thread are you in?

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

Of course, we are trying to talk about a study, which doesn't mean I agree with it or agree with the OP 100% either. With the premise that 37% of people say they believe in Creationism, personally, I think that is way too high and seems like clickbait material, but anyhow.

I think the main question is why do people still think creationism is a thing and when did evolution become a thing to hate and fight against? We could say the same type of thing in suggesting that 37% of people think the earth is still flat even with all the proof around us, I feel it is the same argument just different topics.

We need to think about the term life in general. The universe doesn't know what that is. It just sees complex chemical reactions. Humans live in the abstract world where most of our thinking takes place. You can't even make breakfast without first creating it in your head of what you want then you make it.

Religion is a part of being human. It is an abstract thought we push into reality just like everything else. Many of our abstract thoughts become reality like the computer you are typing on, but many live in the abstract world like Star Wars that we can make close to reality but never actually be reality.

It's a fine line we dance back and forth across 24/7 and it does lead to people thinking of things that live in the abstract world, but they see it as reality...Big Foot, for example. I see religion as one of those events. I would never wish religion away because to do that would kill the thing that makes humans, human.

I'm not here to fight against religion but to think in terms of creationism is a losing battle that like a flat earth will slowly fade away without attacking the fundamentals of religion, just like medicine did at some point.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

Not only was the prevailing theory that everything came from nothing through the big bang, but Stephen Hawking also pushed M-Theory, that an entire multiverse came from nothing.

That is a simple way of saying we have no way of knowing or understanding what happens outside of our universe. The Big Bang theory talks about what happens at the point of a singularity and moving forward. What created the singularity no one can possibly know and whatever it is would be so different than our universe that we wouldn't even be able to comprehend it anyway. It is time wasted to try and prove a non-falsifiable event. Whatever it was something happened around 14 billion years ago to cause our singularity.

Some people call what is outside our universe God or intelligent design, but it is hard to also align that with the Bible's God who is based on humans being the center of everything, we are special, so special that God cares about what we do right and wrong throughout our lives, then we end up at his side if we a good enough. The two mix like oil and water...

I find it interesting that Hawking said the same thing I have been saying too in I don't see a need for intelligent design, doesn't mean it isn't there, but there really is no need. At one point the wind blowing was a God, but the wind never needed a God to blow.

a reply to: whereislogic

And this is where some people stop making posts at a record pace, cause this is the type of comment from me that they prefer to see on the last page or last few pages.

The game is up. Too bad I can't say too much about it, cause it's just playing into the cards of those who prefer to see the type of comments as the one I'm responding to now. With nothing too useful in it, and me falling victim to my own pride, vanity and foolishness. Being triggered, getting my buttons pushed.

Still not going to change anything about the situation concerning the evidence against evolution (the notion 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") and for creation/engineering (the conclusion by induction that life is the product of engineering, or to use a broader term, creation). As explained in the rest of my commentary, which is so much better than my last 4 comments, including this one.

So if anyone out there is reading this comment, please, do go back to the top of page 10 for some more useful/beneficial commentary. Guess the damage is done if you've read to this point. Or any of my last 4 comments (incl. this one). Picture painted. No, this is not the usual style of my commentary. This is just pure frustration with people not being willing to be honest or reasonable about these subjects, twisting my commentary, painting something 'dark' on it (see quotation of Isa 5:20,21), or getting me to make them more 'dark' myself out of frustration and disappointment (also with the way moderators have been treating my commentary not too long ago, so I end up complaining about that, which does no one any good, it certainly won't make them more inclined to go back to page 10 at least). You can do it real quick, just change the pagenumber on your addressbar, it's much less effort than the buttons at the bottem. And way more worth it than the last 3 pages (24, 25, and 26). Guess what I'm hoping for is unlikely to happen anyway if someone outside of the regulars clicks this thread (the regulars who definitely will not listen to the points I made on page 10, the quotations I used, and the even more important video about the pagan religious roots of evolutionary philosophies and philosophical naturalism).

Let's do that one again at least (although by now it should have less beneficial effect, because of the things I just explained, anyway, for whatever good it may do...):

The Pagan Religious Roots of Evolutionary Philosophies and Philosophical Naturalism (part 1 of 2)

Yes, evolution (as I just explained the term what that word stands for when I use it) is not a fact, but a pagan religiously rooted set of myths, proven false stories, heavily tied in with (Mother) Nature worshippers both in and out of the closet. Whereas the conclusion that life is the product of engineering is based on inductive reasoning on well-established and observed facts, hence, science/knowledge and factual/true/certain. And it should not be endlessly evaded by stories and myths that have already been proven false so many times over the centuries, that it takes some real audacity to pretend that now that Charles Darwin and his promoters have revived it and put a jacket on it that says in big letters on the back: "Science", that it actually is science, or a "fact", or a "scientific fact" (little redundant that last term, but it works great for marketing/propaganda purposes). When it's so clear that they're doing exactly what Isaac Newton said they shouldn't be doing if they want to use a proper method to discover new facts/certainties/realities/truths, i.e. new science/knowledge (see earlier commentary where I get into the origin of the meaning of the word "science", how it should be used compared to how it's used now, as well as the meaning and history concerning terms used by Newton like "experimental philosophy", related to "modern science" as explained before, and "natural philosophy", the old term for what nowadays is called "science"; I also talked about the concept of a proper scientific method in that commentary, and that there are more than one way of doing things when it comes to seeking truth that will add to our collective knowledge/science; this comment on page 22, which also has a link to a comment on page 18). For this comment, I will just quote Newton again on the matter:

“Rule I. We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.
...
Rule IV. In experimental philosophy we are to look upon propositions collected by general induction from phenomena as accurately or very nearly true, notwithstanding any contrary hypotheses that may be imagined, 'till such time as other phenomena occur, by which they may either be made more accurate, or liable to exceptions,

This rule we must follow, that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” (or worse, fantasies promoted as science, pseudoscience)

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

That should be the heart of any proper scientific method, not fanciful stories that only sound plausible to the biased and indoctrinated beholder who wants to believe these stories as per 2 Timothy 4:3,4, posing as "scientific hypotheses", "scientific theories", or just wearing the marketinglabel "Science".

“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)

At least there's something useful in this comment now. But not as well ordered or set up as before. And not complete. And at the same time not concise enough. Can't say I'm happy with it. But at least then there's less need to drown it out with the usual "information overload" by means of 12 pages of comments (one can go straight from page 10 to 22 for the key points, although there are a few more comments on the pages in between that may be of some use/benefit).

Is it possible that a divine spark started the "Big Bang"?
Calling creationism a debunked theory seems a bit premature

a reply to: whereislogic

edit (cause I'm ridiculously fast out of edit time again): oh, it was my last 3 comments I was referring to, guess it's 4 now.

Well, in that case, let me repeat a few things from page 10 and 22 then. Without using a quote box, cause that possibly discourages reading it. Apart from what I was responding to on page 10:

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

... pushing the theory of evolution as a fact. I'm not sure what your rub is with that since you're all about it.

Some people are just infatuated with ancient religious pagan mythology (especially when it's posing and marketed as "science" or "fact"*): [I'll embed the 2 part-videos now to mix it up a bit]


*: A book of popular quotations lists this one among them: “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it often enough, many will believe it.” For decades the statement has been made again and again, like some mystical chant: “Evolution is a fact.” It qualifies as effective brainwashing propaganda, and with repetition it reaches the status of a slogan​—and slogans everywhere repeated are soon programmed into brains and tripped off tongues with little critical examination or skeptical dissection. Once a theory has been sloganized into community thinking, it no longer requires proof, and any who dissent are scorned. If such dissenters present rational refutation of the slogan’s validity, they are especially irritating and subjected to the only available response, namely, ridicule.

[followed by quotations from 2 Tim 4:3,4 and Eph 4:14]

“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.

Stephen Jay Gould wrote an essay on evolution in the January 1987 issue of the science magazine Discover. Intent on overkill, in this five-​page article he proclaimed evolution to be a fact 12 times! At one point in the article, Gould said: “I don’t want to sound like a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys,’ but biologists have reached a consensus . . . about the fact of evolution.” But really, does that not sound like “a shrill dogmatist shouting ‘rally round the flag boys’”?

Molecular biologist Michael Denton referred to this glib talk about evolution’s being a fact and dismissed it with these words: “Now of course such claims are simply nonsense.” It’s much more than nonsense. It’s fraud. It deceives and misrepresents. It perverts the truth to induce another to part with something of great value—their faith in God as their Creator.​—Romans 1:25. Newspapers, radio, TV, nature series, science programs, schoolbooks from second grade on​—all drum this evolution-​is-a-fact litany into the public mind.

Fraud is defined as “an act of deceiving or misrepresenting.” It is the “intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value.”​—Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary.

So people are swept along by the repetitious mantras (a very appropiate term if you consider its Hindu roots as discussed in the video earlier) recited by evolution’s propagandizers. The theory becomes dogma, its preachers become arrogant, and dissenters reap disdainful abuse. The tactics work.

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).
[going to page 22, there was more on page 10 though]

Coming back to my previous response and wikipedia's description that "Intelligent design is a[n] ... argument for the existence of God", "pseudoscientific" or otherwise (since they're talking about what the Discovery Institute refers to as "the theory of intelligent design"). As the man below puts it: "It's a wanton distortion of our position." (after 0:30)

And just because I feel my comment is too short now, here's the "Evidence of Design from Biology" as presented by biochemist Michael Behe:

Talking about my previous comment where I quoted Isaac Newton and the Encyclopædia Britannica on the topic of inductive reasoning. He explains inductive reasoning quite well somewhere after 26:47 (to be more exact, after 30:10 with the key points after 35:24 and concerning inductive reasoning at 36:08; the first time I mentioned concerns the broader context).

Context (playlist, starting with video nr. 29, but the evidence for purposeful design in biology already starts with the 1st video, entitled: "Molecular Machinery of Life"):

Darwin VS Design Molecular Machines

Inductive reasoning is based on drawing conclusions by induction from established facts that have been discovered by means of observation and experimentation (as Isaac Newton explained it; as quoted by me in this comment on page 18). It should be at the very heart of any proper so-called "scientific method". As Newton put it: "[so] that the argument of induction may not be evaded by hypotheses.” [or worse, fanciful stories that only sound plausible to the indoctrinated and biased beholder, who have also forgotten, by means of brainwashing, indoctrination, conditioning and propaganda, how important inductive reasoning should be to any proper and historically proven effective method to discover new facts/certainties/truths/realities, the very essence of the original meaning of the word "science", which comes from the Latin scientia, meaning "knowledge"; which is also still a synonym. Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. I.e. things that are factual/certain/true/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error (all synonyms where you see a /).]

Well-established and observed fact #1: life is made up of molecular machinery.
Well-established and observed fact #2: machinery is the product of engineering (or to use a broader term, creation)

You can add more well-established facts concerning the mental requirements for performing the act of engineering (a corresponding minimum level of knowledge, intelligence, technological know-how, etc. that corresponds with the machinery and technology in question), but those are the main 2 well-established facts on which the argument of induction (and conclusion by induction) concerning life being the product of engineering or creation, is based on (design being one step in that process).

[there's also more in the comment on page 22]

a reply to: whereislogic

And this is where some people stop making posts at a record pace, cause this is the type of comment from me that they prefer to see on the last page or last few pages.

The game is up. Too bad I can't say too much about it, cause it's just playing into the cards of those who prefer to see the type of comments as the one I'm responding to now. With nothing too useful in it, and me falling victim to my own pride, vanity and foolishness. Being triggered, getting my buttons pushed.

When you start posting, I tune out. Screw The Watchtower. Just being honest.

But I think I read a challenge in there?

The "propaganda."

Which I assume is all that doesn't agree with this:

#1: life is made up of molecular machinery.
Well-established and observed fact #2: machinery is the product of engineering (or to use a broader term, creation)

I think you make god too simplistic by trying to understand it without something like evolution. In present form? So basic. Way to sell the "god beyond our understanding" short.

So in that spirit I give you a "A different version of intelligent design."

I don't even think it needs to interact. It's existence are the laws themselves.

Why aren't there thermodynamic laws applied to biology? Like an "increase in disorder"?

I can also base things on my ideas. Which I prefer to come up with on my own. Or adapt from postmodernism.

Organic life arises naturally in massive universal closed system, organic life is driven to increase in disorder. I can't think of any better way to do that (disorder yourself) then to diverge in exponential variance.

Biological life has homeostasis, equilibrium, everything one needs to look at and say, From the macro to the micro, "as above so below", we are all creatures of thermodynamic increases in disorder.

So if you look at the universe. Like molecular clouds you see the process start with amino Acids. From there it follows an exponential curve of complexity building. One that can increase orders of magnitude via microenvironments. Like the dust cloud has an equilibrium, the solar system has a heliocentric equilibrium, earth has a global equilibrium, a rainforest has an equilibrium within. All increasing in complexity towards a chaotic balance.

As the environment gets more complex (disordered) so does the life that arises with it.

But underneath that, all that divinity needs to do is press play. The energetic dissipation of the universe naturally gives rise to complexity.

I feel these "lies" have context that is otherwise unapplied because it requires you remove divine intervention.

I post this somewhat rambling, hard to understand statement, because I don't think there can even by a consensus on how "intelligent design" designs.

I don't need divine intervention, rib bones of subservience, and floods. Those natural evolutionary things happen as part of the infinite god's chaotic "just press play" program for our tiny branch of the mutiverse.

Can't get that kind of indirect intelligent evolution in Watchtower.

One more clarification regarding the length of my comments and people's conditioned length of their attention span and reluctance to read long comments:

You will learn more about this subject of evolutionary mythology vs the fact of creation (the former being pseudoscience and the latter being knowledge/science, since knowledge/science are synonyms and refer to a familiarity with facts/certainties/truths/realities, where you see a / I'm using synonyms as reminders for those who think that facts aren't certain, that truth is relative or subjective, that 1+1 isn't always 2, that numbers are just abstract concepts and therefore negate the fact/truth/reality/certainty that 1+1=2, or that therefore that statement isn't a factual/certain/true statement, that it justifies the saying that no fact is known with absolute certainty in the sciences, or as others would say "in science", as if science is something that is always evolving; all of that is intended to give a wrong impression as to what the word "science" should be used for, only things that have been verified to be true/certain/factual/conclusive/correct, without error, with no doubt about it, they don't change, and if a storyline or philosophy/idea is always changing, as it has for evolutionary philosophies, then it's not science), from reading one of my longer comments such as the one on page 10 or 22 that I've been linking, than from a 100 short comments made by others in this thread (from which you will learn nothing particularly useful, not to mention that the total length of time you can spend on reading those, will be way longer than just reading my comment on page 10 for example).

Your reluctance to read longer meaningful and informational comments over the shorter meaningless and useless comments, is something that has been conditioned into you by the one (and all his victims and pawns) who I described earlier as the one trying to destroy your thinking abilities (as well as what's going on in your figurative heart in a 2-pronged attack on both hearts and minds). Please don't let him play you like that, resist his influence. He wants you to have a short attention span, and be more interested in the "false stories" that 'tickle your ears' according to your desires (comments that cater to you) over the "beneficial teaching" mentioned at 2 Timothy 4:3,4. If you ignore his influence on you (since birth), you've got no chance to truly wake up and learn something that may benefit you. Your future life depends on it. I would so love to see him fail to drag you down with him, when his time is up, which is good news.

2 Corinthian 4:3-9

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. 8 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.”] 9 we are persecuted, but not abandoned; we are knocked down, but not destroyed.

It's a war, a spiritual one. And being on ATS is like being behind the enemy's battle lines. So I guess that makes me sort of a spy or paratrooper (special forces perhaps?). My message (see also John 8:42-47 quoted before): quit your allegiance to him, he intensily hates your guts anyway, he's just using you to accomplish his goals, join the other side (or at least, truly "listen" to them, as Jesus used the term at John 8:42-47, see footnote for the verb, as quoted before in my commentary somewhere).

Note that the people from the Discovery Insitute, including John Lennox who I have used in a video before where he accurately exposes Stephen Hawkings nonsense and contradictions when talking about the origin of the univers in his ironically entitled book The Grand Design, are also still on the wrong side of this war (as the playlist should exaplain at some point, the 2nd half). But at least they can adequately expose the flaws in philosophical naturalism and evolutionary mythology (which is like picking on the weakest kid in class). But note how all logic, reason and honesty flies out the window for them when it comes to the doctrine of the Trinity, or the philosophy that Jesus is Jehovah God. Then suddenly logical contradictions are no longer important to be pointed out, or deception, or propaganda, or flaws in the false stories/myths. Then it's not a problem all of a sudden (John Lennox for example likes to play around and confuse people about the correct meaning of the Logos, or "the Word", as Jesus is referred to at John 1:1, which just means he's Jehovah's spokesman, that's what the title is for, Justinian and Platonic philosophy is involved with how John Lennox explains that title; and this ties in with evolutionary philosophies via Plato, and both the doctrine of the Trinity and evolutionary philosophies trace back to ancient Babylon and their religious pagan philosophies/ideas and teachings, which is why the Bible talks about Babylon the Great/false religion, but it's really getting too much now at once; just to show I'm still on-topic, it's all connected).

The Apologists—Christian Defenders or Would-Be Philosophers?

...

Christianity Distorted

This new strategy led to a mixture of Christianity and pagan philosophy. Comparisons were made between Greek gods and Bible characters. Jesus was compared to Perseus; and Mary’s conception to that of Perseus’ mother, Danaë, who was said to be also a virgin.

Certain teachings were greatly modified. For example, in the Bible, Jesus is called “the Logos,” meaning God’s “Word,” or Spokesman. (John 1:1-3, 14-18; Revelation 19:11-13) Very early on, this teaching was distorted by Justin, who like a philosopher played on the two possible meanings of the Greek word logos: “word” and “reason.” [whereislogic: here's where John Lennox's teachings come into play. He does something similar, but uses "mind" instead of "reason" if I remember correctly. Connecting it to Genesis 1. To replace God with Jesus.] Christians, he said, received the word in the person of Christ himself. However, logos in the sense of reason is found in every man, including pagans. Thus, he concluded, those who live in harmony with reason are Christians, even those who claimed or were thought to be atheists, like Socrates and others.

Moreover, by forcing the tie between Jesus and the logos of Greek philosophy, which was closely linked with the person of God, the apologists, including Tertullian, embarked on a course that eventually led Christianity to the Trinity dogma.

...

I hope this comment won't be removed because it's deemed as causing thread drift, like I said, it's connected to evolutionary philosohies via Plato and Babylon (where Plato got his ideas from). And it matters.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: whereislogic

...
So in that spirit I give you a "A different version of intelligent design."
...

Actually, it's what Michael Behe explains in that video as well, just different wording. And he neglects to acknowledge that a conclusion drawn by induction, when done correctly and based on well-established facts/certainties/realities/truths, is in itself a fact/truth/certainty/reality, as Newton explained by using the word "other" in the 2nd quotation I always use from the Principia. It is not merely a hypothesis as Stephen Meyer puts it in his book The return of the God hypothesis. In his attempt to acquiesce to the favored philosophies of his contemporaries on both sides of the fence. Who also think that "science" is progressive and always changing as our understanding increases. No "knowledge/science" does not change with our understanding of it, we can only increase our familiarity with certain facts that haven't been discovered yet. So only in that sense science/knowledge is progressing. Discarding previously held beliefs/opinions (believed to be a fact) if they turn out to be wrong, at which point we can conclude that they were never facts, or science/knowledge, to begin with. We were wrong, if we were wrong about something, then it never was a fact, or science/knowledge. And if it was presented as such anyway, it was pseudoscience (the same pseudoscience spoken of at 1 Tim 6:20 as “falsely called ‘knowledge.’”).

It's important to be able to tell the difference between fact and fiction, preferrably before the advantage of 'the test of time'. So you don't waste centuries of time on unverified philosophies/ideas. And admiring those philosophers and self-marketeers promoting them. The force of gravity still works as Newton described it in his law of gravity. Those are facts that people could have already been certain of back in Newton's time, if they could follow his argument of induction.

Death to the Agnostic Code and philosophy of vagueness:

It is not the superior or more openminded position. It's as closedminded to truth/certainty as it can be. In all its variations (the philosophy of relativism is also involved). Including statements as these:

"... there is no such thing as absolute certainty in science ..." (Alexander Vilenkin)

The exact opposite usage of what the word "science" should stand for, namely knowledge (cause that's where the word came from, and it has completely lost its meaning for those not sticking to Newton's advice for "experimental philosophy", so why invent a new word from the Latin just for marketing reasons since it makes you sound smarter and more sophisticated, when "knowledge" works just fine? The same with using the term "scientist" for those who used to refer to themselves and eachother as "natural philosophers"; we don't have to go along with that sort of self-marketing, these people aren't even wise, and most of the time, not worth listening to, listen to Jesus and God, you'll learn a lot more science/knowledge, call it another scientific method if you want, it works even better than inductive reasoning, and even better alongside of it).

“Do not treat prophecies with contempt. Make sure of all things; hold fast to what is fine.” (1 Thessalonians 5:20,21)

Confirm, verify (with certainty, by making sure/certain), but study the more important things when you do so.

Phil 1:8-11

8 For God is my witness of how I am longing for all of you with such tender affection as Christ Jesus has. And this is what I continue praying, that your love may abound still more and more with accurate knowledge and full discernment; that you may make sure of the more important things, so that you may be flawless and not stumbling others up to the day of Christ; and that you may be filled with righteous fruit, which is through Jesus Christ, to God’s glory and praise.

a reply to: Degradation33

Yesterday I listened to the first 20 minutes or so from a lecture by David Berlinski called "Science after Babel", until he categorically stated: "there are no facts". Stephen Meyer introduced him to the audience, speaking very highly of him.

How come you (Stephen) hype this man so much (who is also connected to the Discovery Institute) when he's talking such nonsense, not that dissimilar to a Stephen Hawking, Lawrence Krauss or Richard Dawkins when the subject of "nothing" comes up? What kind of hypocrisy is that?

"Vanity" is his (David's) thing (and self-marketing; he's not worth listening to in such a lecture at least; I missed his shorter denouncement of evolutionary mythology and pseudoscience, or as per the title of his book Atheism and its Scientific Pretentions; but no such luck here in this lecture apart from a few short remarks that weren't all that great to begin with). Just like these others. To quote Bob Marley from his song "stiff-necked fools" and the Bible from Ecclesiastes chapter 1 (see footnote bolded below; I'm not going to do all the footnotes):

The words of the congregator,* the son of David, the king in Jerusalem.

2 “The greatest futility!”* [Or “vanity.”] says the congregator, [remember, the footnote counts for all instances of "futility" or "futile" below.]

“The greatest futility! Everything is futile!”

3 What does a person gain from all his hard work

At which he toils under the sun?

4 A generation is going, and a generation is coming,

But the earth remains* forever.

5 The sun rises,* and the sun sets;

Then it hurries back* to the place where it rises again.

6 The wind goes south and circles around to the north;

Round and round it continuously circles; the wind keeps making its rounds.

7 All the streams* flow into the sea, yet the sea is not full.

To the place from which the streams flow, there they return so as to flow again.

8 All things are wearisome;

No one can even speak of it.

The eye is not satisfied at seeing;

Nor is the ear filled from hearing.

9 What has been is what will be,

And what has been done will be done again;

There is nothing new under the sun.

10 Is there anything of which one may say, “Look at this—it is new”?

It already existed from long ago;

It already existed before our time.

11 No one remembers people of former times;

Nor will anyone remember those who come later;

Nor will they be remembered by those who come still later.

12 I, the congregator, have been king over Israel in Jerusalem. 13 I set my heart to study and explore with wisdom everything that has been done under the heavens—the miserable occupation that God has given to the sons of men that keeps them occupied.

14 I saw all the works that were done under the sun,

And look! everything was futile, a chasing after the wind.

15 What is crooked cannot be made straight,

And what is lacking cannot possibly be counted.

16 Then I said in my heart: “Look! I have acquired great wisdom, more than anyone who was before me in Jerusalem, and my heart gained a great deal of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 I applied my heart to knowing wisdom and to knowing madness* [Or “extreme foolishness.”] and to knowing folly, and this too is a chasing after the wind.

18 For an abundance of wisdom brings an abundance of frustration,

So that whoever increases knowledge increases pain.

Oh, I know all about frustration, first-hand experience. This was written by king Solomon, mentioned in my signature, who asked God for divine wisdom, and got it (the "wisdom" mentioned in verse 17 is talking about another type of wisdom, not divine wisdom, i.e. the wisdom of God, verse 13 is talking about divine wisdom it seems).

Philosophy (Reasoning From the Scriptures)

Definition: The word philosophy is derived from Greek roots that mean “love of wisdom.” As used here, philosophy is not built on acceptance of belief in God, but it tries to give people a unified view of the universe and endeavors to make them critical thinkers. [whereislogic: so they say; not that critical about the field of philosophy though, or philosophers like David Berlinski. Like the Skeptic Society is not that skeptical about unverified philosophies and philosophical naturalism either. Or the agnostic code for that matter.] It employs chiefly speculative means rather than observation in a search for truth.

...

How does God view the “wisdom” offered by human philosophy? [this is how the word “wisdom” is used in Eccl. 1:17.]

1 Cor. 1:19-25: “It is written: ‘I will make the wisdom of the wise men perish, and the intelligence of the intellectual men I will shove aside.’ Where is the wise man? Where the scribe? Where the debater of this system of things? Did not God make the wisdom of the world foolish? For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through its wisdom did not get to know God, God saw good through the foolishness [as it appears to the world] of what is preached to save those believing. . . . Because a foolish thing of God [as the world views it] is wiser than men, and a weak thing of God [as the world may see it] is stronger than men.” (Such a viewpoint on God’s part is certainly not arbitrary or unreasonable. He has provided in the Bible, the most widely circulated book in the world, a clear statement of his purpose. He has sent his witnesses to discuss it with all who will listen. How foolish for any creature to think that he has wisdom greater than that of God!)

a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Then your science teacher was wrong in your school. The big bang theory is about inflation and not how the universe was created. The big bang was an event that happened in the existing universe. What we don't know is what actually creates the universe. It is suspected one possibility may be vacuum fluctuons. However there currently is not any evidence to support this as far as i know.

So from a sci ce aspect they just don't know how the universe was created only what we can see happen after it was. And now even the standard model of cosmology is showing cracks do to the James Webb telescope we see things happened much earlier then we thought such as the formation of galaxies

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

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.

Not at all.

Science is not done by consensus. Scientists don't get to decide in which way they will go and which path they will follow as they are guided by evidence. Science is not democratic at all and is not the majority that rules - evidence is what rules and guides everyone. Anything else and you get bad science.

The majority rules in religion (no doubt) where we observe herd mentality and group thinking which are based on religious dogma and blind faith.

Whatever consensus in science is based on evidence but it's false to state facts by consensus. The difference again is evidence and lack of evidence. Religion lacks evidence and that's why is based on blind faith.

And no, a scientific theory is not a scientific hypothesis or a speculation, this has been explained so many times. A scientific theory is factual as its based on facts.

www.amnh.org...

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

Science isn't done by consensus?

Riiiiiiiiight.

That's the stupidest thing you've said in however many pages this thread is.

There's an actual term, called "Scientific Consensus."

Of which, evolution is.

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Then your science teacher was wrong in your school. The bug bang theory is about inflation and not how the universe was created. The big bang was an event that happened in the existing universe. What we don't know is what actually creates the universe. It is suspected one possibility may be vacuum fluctuons. However there currently is not any evidence to support this as far as i know.

So from a sci ce aspect they just don't know how the universe was created only what we can see happen after it was. And now even the standard model of cosmology is showing cracks do to the James Webb telescope we see things happened much earlier then we thought such as the formation of galaxies

Yep, Stephen Hawking was wrong too when he discussed the big bang, and how the universe came from nothing.

LMAO.

You guys are amazing.

Enjoy your circle jerk.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

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.

Not at all.

Science is not done by consensus. Scientists don't get to decide in which way they will go and which path they will follow as they are guided by evidence. Science is not democratic at all and is not the majority that rules - evidence is what rules and guides everyone. Anything else and you get bad science.

The majority rules in religion (no doubt) where we observe herd mentality and group thinking which are based on religious dogma and blind faith.

Whatever consensus in science is based on evidence but it's false to state facts by consensus. The difference again is evidence and lack of evidence. Religion lacks evidence and that's why is based on blind faith.

And no, a scientific theory is not a scientific hypothesis or a speculation, this has been explained so many times. A scientific theory is factual as its based on facts.

www.amnh.org...

In everyday use, the word "theory" often means an untested hunch, or a guess without supporting evidence.

But for scientists, a theory has nearly the opposite meaning. A theory is a well-substantiated explanation of an aspect of the natural world that can incorporate laws, hypotheses and facts.

Science isn't done by consensus?

Riiiiiiiiight.

That's the stupidest thing you've said in however many pages this thread is.

There's an actual term, called "Scientific Consensus."

Of which, evolution is.

The scientific consensus is a result of the evidence and so science isn't done by consensus. The scientists don't get to decide what is true and what is not true but are guided by the evidence.

Religion on the other hand depends on the majority rule which in this case is devoid of science. Science isn't democratic at all.

What is stupid are the attempts by creationists to convince about their flaws arguments and then pretend they know how science works.

Science isn't based on consensus or what the majority thinks but on evidence. I assume you didn't learn this in school either.

originally posted by: ashisnotanidiot

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: ashisnotanidiot

Then your science teacher was wrong in your school. The bug bang theory is about inflation and not how the universe was created. The big bang was an event that happened in the existing universe. What we don't know is what actually creates the universe. It is suspected one possibility may be vacuum fluctuons. However there currently is not any evidence to support this as far as i know.

So from a sci ce aspect they just don't know how the universe was created only what we can see happen after it was. And now even the standard model of cosmology is showing cracks do to the James Webb telescope we see things happened much earlier then we thought such as the formation of galaxies

Yep, Stephen Hawking was wrong too when he discussed the big bang, and how the universe came from nothing.

LMAO.

You guys are amazing.

Enjoy your circle jerk.

You are misinterpreting what he said because of the lack ulog your understanding of physics.

I find it strange you reference Stephen Hawking since you have been rejecting science and scientists all the way in this thread and disagreed with a number of them when they stated that evolution is a fact.