Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

When you say without proof what do you mean? Creationism suggests the earth is less than 10,000 years old...kind of easy to say that isn't true.

I mean there aren't facts as the OP continues to claim. Creationism that believes the Earth is only 10K years old is young Earth creationism, I don't believe that. If these people are getting that from the Bible then they're greatly misinterpreting it because it never mentions a timeline other than "In the beginning..." The Earth could be 4.5 billion years old or it could be a trillion years old. Nobody knows the accurate age of it. There's no way to prove it other than methods we think are somewhat accurate. Same goes for how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.
Only creationists believe otherwise and offer some debunked 'theories' as 'facts' in exchange.

Evolution's not a fact.

Evolution is a fact
Please stop spreading misinformation in these threads.

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.

I guess in this day and age, a theory can identify as a fact, eh?

You post is disingenuous.
It has been explained to you many times what a scientific theory is but you are still attacking the strawman.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

When you say without proof what do you mean? Creationism suggests the earth is less than 10,000 years old...kind of easy to say that isn't true.

I mean there aren't facts as the OP continues to claim. Creationism that believes the Earth is only 10K years old is young Earth creationism, I don't believe that. If these people are getting that from the Bible then they're greatly misinterpreting it because it never mentions a timeline other than "In the beginning..." The Earth could be 4.5 billion years old or it could be a trillion years old. Nobody knows the accurate age of it. There's no way to prove it other than methods we think are somewhat accurate. Same goes for how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.
Only creationists believe otherwise and offer some debunked 'theories' as 'facts' in exchange.

Evolution's not a fact.

Evolution is a fact
Please stop spreading misinformation in these threads.

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.

I guess in this day and age, a theory can identify as a fact, eh?

You post is disingenuous.
It has been explained to you many times what a scientific theory but you are still attacking the strawman.

I haven't attacked anyone lol. You just haven't provided definitive proof of your claims and a peer reviewed article won't suffice.

a reply to: LSU2018

What might "suffice"?!!!!

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

What might "suffice"?!!!!

Nothing he's already has been shown multiple times what a scientific theory is. He is very aware that the word theory in science doesn't mean what he thought it did. So now we get the disingenuous attempt to save face.

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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

When you say without proof what do you mean? Creationism suggests the earth is less than 10,000 years old...kind of easy to say that isn't true.

I mean there aren't facts as the OP continues to claim. Creationism that believes the Earth is only 10K years old is young Earth creationism, I don't believe that. If these people are getting that from the Bible then they're greatly misinterpreting it because it never mentions a timeline other than "In the beginning..." The Earth could be 4.5 billion years old or it could be a trillion years old. Nobody knows the accurate age of it. There's no way to prove it other than methods we think are somewhat accurate. Same goes for how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.
Only creationists believe otherwise and offer some debunked 'theories' as 'facts' in exchange.

Evolution's not a fact.

Evolution is a fact
Please stop spreading misinformation in these threads.

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.

I guess in this day and age, a theory can identify as a fact, eh?

You post is disingenuous.
It has been explained to you many times what a scientific theory but you are still attacking the strawman.

I haven't attacked anyone lol. You just haven't provided definitive proof of your claims and a peer reviewed article won't suffice.

Attacking the strawman is an expression but anyway...

If it was for only one peer reviewed scientific publication then you had a point. But this is an established scientific theory and hence a fact as explained to you several times

.Nobody doubts evolution for being factual apart from some creationists. But their word has no weight as it's devoid of science.

I don't have to provide 'proof' for well established facts. I think a few others have made exactly the same point. If you have evidence to go against the scientific theory of evolution then the world is waiting for you.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

What might "suffice"?!!!!

Nothing he's already has been shown multiple times what a scientific theory is. He is very aware that the word theory in science doesn't mean what he thought it did. So now we get the disingenuous attempt to save face.

Just as I said.
The post is disingenuous.

a reply to: Venkuish1

Mind you, I don't think I ever got an explanation for my question about the life cycle of dragonflies?

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

What might "suffice"?!!!!

Nothing he's already has been shown multiple times what a scientific theory is. He is very aware that the word theory in science doesn't mean what he thought it did. So now we get the disingenuous attempt to save face.

Science is always changing, that's the only fact here. Science uses findings to get their ideas that lead to their theories, I understand that. Not all of their findings are based on factual evidence so you can't say their theories are absolute proof as the OP has said all throughout this thread. What exactly do you think I'm saving face from?

a reply to: LSU2018

Not all science is changing. Some things are pretty much proven.

You are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

What might "suffice"?!!!!

Nothing he's already has been shown multiple times what a scientific theory is. He is very aware that the word theory in science doesn't mean what he thought it did. So now we get the disingenuous attempt to save face.

Science is always changing, that's the only fact here. Science uses findings to get their ideas that lead to their theories, I understand that. Not all of their findings are based on factual evidence so you can't say their theories are absolute proof as the OP has said all throughout this thread. What exactly do you think I'm saving face from?

If you claim that evolution is not factual then you are free to show how it's not rather than implying it. You need very good evidence and proof to go against established scientific facts. If you don't have any (true in your case) then you can't accuse scientists of providing false or incomplete information. Science changes its mind if better evidence comes forward but that doesn't imply we have not established any facts and there are no successful scientific theories. What an argument you have just made!

originally posted by: Venkuish1

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

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

When you say without proof what do you mean? Creationism suggests the earth is less than 10,000 years old...kind of easy to say that isn't true.

I mean there aren't facts as the OP continues to claim. Creationism that believes the Earth is only 10K years old is young Earth creationism, I don't believe that. If these people are getting that from the Bible then they're greatly misinterpreting it because it never mentions a timeline other than "In the beginning..." The Earth could be 4.5 billion years old or it could be a trillion years old. Nobody knows the accurate age of it. There's no way to prove it other than methods we think are somewhat accurate. Same goes for how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.
Only creationists believe otherwise and offer some debunked 'theories' as 'facts' in exchange.

Evolution's not a fact.

Evolution is a fact
Please stop spreading misinformation in these threads.

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.

I guess in this day and age, a theory can identify as a fact, eh?

You post is disingenuous.
It has been explained to you many times what a scientific theory but you are still attacking the strawman.

I haven't attacked anyone lol. You just haven't provided definitive proof of your claims and a peer reviewed article won't suffice.

Attacking the strawman is an expression but anyway...

If it was for only one peer reviewed scientific publication then you had a point. But this is an established scientific theory and hence a fact as explained to you several times

.Nobody doubts evolution for being factual apart from some creationists. But their word has no weight as it's devoid of science.

I don't have to provide 'proof' for well established facts. I think a few others have made exactly the same point. If you have evidence to go against the scientific theory of evolution then the world is waiting for you.

I have my own beliefs that I don't push on anyone else and not once have I told you that I'm right and you're wrong. I respect your beliefs, my debate here is that the Theory of Evolution isn't absolute, it's not a fact like you say it is. Science is ever changing.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: Venkuish1

Mind you, I don't think I ever got an explanation for my question about the life cycle of dragonflies?

You didn't ask me about dragonflies. They go from an egg to a nymph to an adult.

a reply to: LSU2018

It was a general question. Not addressed to you.

A nymph that looks like something out of Alien that spends a couple years under water and then morphs into a completely different thing that flies, brilliantly?

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

It was a general question. Not addressed to you.

A nymph that looks like something out of Alien that spends a couple years under water and then morphs into a completely different thing that flies, brilliantly?

Magnificent creatures, I wish I could have had the ability to float after I came out of the amniotic fluid.

a reply to: LSU2018

Yes. I have ponds and watch them climb up reeds and then they split open, their four wings pop out, they dry them in the sun and then they are off, flying.

Same with damselflies.

originally posted by: Oldcarpy2
a reply to: LSU2018

Not all science is changing. Some things are pretty much proven.

You are just throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Well if the Theory of Evolution is based on natural selection and adaptation, I don't know why people freak out about global warming/climate change, and I don't see how generations get weaker and more sensitive.

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

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

When you say without proof what do you mean? Creationism suggests the earth is less than 10,000 years old...kind of easy to say that isn't true.

I mean there aren't facts as the OP continues to claim. Creationism that believes the Earth is only 10K years old is young Earth creationism, I don't believe that. If these people are getting that from the Bible then they're greatly misinterpreting it because it never mentions a timeline other than "In the beginning..." The Earth could be 4.5 billion years old or it could be a trillion years old. Nobody knows the accurate age of it. There's no way to prove it other than methods we think are somewhat accurate. Same goes for how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.
Only creationists believe otherwise and offer some debunked 'theories' as 'facts' in exchange.

Evolution's not a fact.

Evolution is a fact
Please stop spreading misinformation in these threads.

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.

I guess in this day and age, a theory can identify as a fact, eh?

You post is disingenuous.
It has been explained to you many times what a scientific theory but you are still attacking the strawman.

I haven't attacked anyone lol. You just haven't provided definitive proof of your claims and a peer reviewed article won't suffice.

Attacking the strawman is an expression but anyway...

If it was for only one peer reviewed scientific publication then you had a point. But this is an established scientific theory and hence a fact as explained to you several times

.Nobody doubts evolution for being factual apart from some creationists. But their word has no weight as it's devoid of science.

I don't have to provide 'proof' for well established facts. I think a few others have made exactly the same point. If you have evidence to go against the scientific theory of evolution then the world is waiting for you.

I have my own beliefs that I don't push on anyone else and not once have I told you that I'm right and you're wrong. I respect your beliefs, my debate here is that the Theory of Evolution isn't absolute, it's not a fact like you say it is. Science is ever changing.

It's clear you are not right because you base your arguments on personal beliefs which we all know have no merits.

I find it fascinating that you call a well established fact a belief. It's like most of us subscribe to this belief and you subscribe to another belief and we are all fine in our beliefs...

Evolution is a fact regardless of whether you accept it or not. A scientific theory is a fact and not a speculation and it's not a belief just as you tried to downgrade it a little earlier.

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

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Xtrozero

originally posted by: LSU2018

You believe what science says, without proof, yet you think creationism is a lie because there's no proof.

When you say without proof what do you mean? Creationism suggests the earth is less than 10,000 years old...kind of easy to say that isn't true.

I mean there aren't facts as the OP continues to claim. Creationism that believes the Earth is only 10K years old is young Earth creationism, I don't believe that. If these people are getting that from the Bible then they're greatly misinterpreting it because it never mentions a timeline other than "In the beginning..." The Earth could be 4.5 billion years old or it could be a trillion years old. Nobody knows the accurate age of it. There's no way to prove it other than methods we think are somewhat accurate. Same goes for how we got here.

Evolution is a fact.
Only creationists believe otherwise and offer some debunked 'theories' as 'facts' in exchange.

Evolution's not a fact.

Evolution is a fact
Please stop spreading misinformation in these threads.

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.

I guess in this day and age, a theory can identify as a fact, eh?

You post is disingenuous.
It has been explained to you many times what a scientific theory but you are still attacking the strawman.

I haven't attacked anyone lol. You just haven't provided definitive proof of your claims and a peer reviewed article won't suffice.

Attacking the strawman is an expression but anyway...

If it was for only one peer reviewed scientific publication then you had a point. But this is an established scientific theory and hence a fact as explained to you several times

.Nobody doubts evolution for being factual apart from some creationists. But their word has no weight as it's devoid of science.

I don't have to provide 'proof' for well established facts. I think a few others have made exactly the same point. If you have evidence to go against the scientific theory of evolution then the world is waiting for you.

I have my own beliefs that I don't push on anyone else and not once have I told you that I'm right and you're wrong. I respect your beliefs, my debate here is that the Theory of Evolution isn't absolute, it's not a fact like you say it is. Science is ever changing.

You are keep using the words 'absolute' and 'belief'. These words don't exist in evidence based research and science.

Drawing A (presented as an accurate drawing of a therapod dinosaur bone, claimed to have "hollow bones" on the website this drawing was taken from, in the context of giving the impression that it's just like the hollow bones in birds):

Photo B (an actual photo of what a hollow bone of a bird looks like on the inside):

Photo C (implied by NovemberHemisphere to be a photo of either a therapod or sauropod dinosaur bone, although not spelled out which, let's assume it was a therapod dinosaur, since that was the topic of drawing A which was presented first by NovemberHemisphere after I responded to Degradation33, a comment in which NovemberHemisphere claimed that dinosaurs had hollow bones in response to my comment talking about bird bones bones being "thin and hollow" and where the term "hollow bones" was appropiately used to describe these bird bones):

Main (and simplest) question: Which of the 2 photos looks more like drawing A? (photo B or photo C?)

Please, an honest answer would be appreciated, so please don't lie and argue that it either doesn't matter, or you can't tell, or that there is no way to tell (unless you are a chatbot and really can't tell*).

*: to find out if chatbots can tell, would someone pose the same question to one of those glorified chatbots that they refer to as "artificial intelligence", you know, those ones who actually can't think or reason like a human? Not even the latest incarnations of glorified chatbots (ChatGPT and such). Marketed as some kind of major improvement over previous chatbots, who used all the same tricks to mimic human intelligence, where actually no intelligence like that of humans resides (making the term "artificial intelligence" a marketing/propaganda term).

More questions about this subject (and the implications for those producing drawing A to give a certain impression related to the myth that birds evolved from dinosaurs, reptiles basically, and make the claim that therapod dinosaurs have "hollow bones" in the context that they are just like the hollow bones of birds, for which they use that drawing to further cement that impression in people's minds) can be found in these comments:

Comment #1 (from the thread "How can atheism have morality?") (Subforum: Conspiracies in Religion)

Comment #2
Comment #3

Background (context of the discussion in that thread) starts here:

First comment about the differences between reptiles (such as dinosaurs) and birds, where the term "hollow bones" is used for the first time in that thread, in an appropiate nonpropagandistic manner (i.e. not deliberatly misusing the term to promote a false misleading impression that it is appropiate to refer to therapod dinosaur bones as "hollow bones"; which they aren't, not even close to the actual hollow bones of birds).

Please do not respond to this comment if you are not going to answer the main question (or respond with a lie/falsehood), the only correct answer is obvious, and any lie about it will only demonstrate your dishonesty concerning the entire subject of evolutionary mythology and propaganda. As will your silence (while still commenting about other things, in some cases perhaps to drown out this comment and get it off the last page, cause some 'people' don't want anyone to be reminded about the topic of evolutionary propaganda, especially when it is this blatant and obvious).

No, birds did not evolve from dinosaurs (reptiles). And therapod dinosaurs do not have "hollow bones", like the hollow bones of birds (when the term is used appropiately). Not even close. Any website that claims this, and then uses a drawing that much more accurately represents a drawing of a hollow bone of a bird, but pretends the drawing represents the bones of therapod dinosaurs (which are reptiles), is blatantly using propaganda to give people a false misleading impression, and worse, they know exactly what they are doing, they're not as stupid or gullible as their victims, but rather cunning instead (using their intelligence to deceive; not much wiser, but at least more clever and cunning, and more profitable, especially if we're talking about careers).

A comment from after comment #3 linked in my previous comment.

originally posted by: Degradation33
a reply to: cooperton

A trait of therapods is hollow bones.

Gives the term "doubling down" a whole new level (note how he leaves out the terms "dinosaur" and "reptile"; in light of the commentary I linked in my previous comment, are birds reptiles? Can they be appropiately classified as "dinosaurs"? Dinosaurs are reptiles that have gone extinct, birds are neither dinosaurs nor reptiles. With that information in mind, do we need to debate the term "therapod" in light of the topic of "hollow bones" as the term is applied to bird bones? Not an invitation to 'explain', i.e. mislead people about, the term "therapod" here, getting into red herring territory). And of course, no answer to any of my questions. Preferring to respond to Cooperton instead. I'm still geting silence (and a lie or lame argument/point from xtrozero in response, avoiding the obvious and correct answers to my questions, while quoting some of them, as if he was responding to it), which is telling too.

Again, please do not respond to this comment if you are not going to answer the main question in my previous comment honestly and reasonably. We (as in all humans here) can all see which of these 2 photos looks more like the drawing than the other. There's no ambiguity here. If you refuse to be honest and reasonable about it, don't bother. Silence will do, just as telling as in the other thread (once people start commenting about other things instead, or tip-toe, tap-dance, around the question).