Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: Venkuish1



The book simply does not mention science, and that's the old and new testaments.

I suppose overall it may contain descriptions of natural phenomena or references to the ""created"" world, but it is not a scientific text which is clear as day.

Now how people choose to interpret said book, well that's where the problems arise really by my guess, which is exactly how they please.

a reply to: MykeNukem

get TF up outta here with all that....sound like a pimp ffs...

And that sounds like a personal attack.

How very consistent.

The answer you were provided ticked the box you asked for, if you fail to be able to comprehend, that's up to you mate.

Probably simply best to stick to the Bible Mike.

Its obviously just your speed, same with belief in creationism by the looks of things.

Have a nice day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

And that sounds like a person attack.

How very consistent.

Stick to the Bible Mike.

Its obviously just your speed, same with believe in creationism by the looks of things.

Have a nice day.

Can't follow the convo? Just ad-libbing and inserting BS? LOL

Not sure where you fell apart, but, yes, go take care of yourself, I'll give you time to re-group...

a reply to: MykeNukem

I dont need to regroup my religious friend.

But I do need you to disprove QFT if you wish to dispel the notion that something can't come from nothing.

You asked and were answered, if you don't like the answer have a go at disproving such, or not, completely up to you.

Simple as that really.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

I dont need to regroup my religious friend.

But I do need you to disprove QFT if you wish to dispel the notion that something can't come from nothing.

Simple as that really.

Explain how you disprove something that has never been proven?

Actually, let's do this mental exercise.

Disprove God...

a reply to: MykeNukem

Like the Bible for instance?

Again Quantum field theory has been incredibly successful in explaining and predicting a wide range of phenomena, particularly in the realm of particle physics and quantum mechanics.

In science, theories are not proven in the same way mathematical theorems are proven.

Instead, they are supported by empirical evidence gathered through observation, experimentation, and testing.

I'm not an atheist mike, why would I try and disprove the existence of God?

There isn't a single universally accepted proof for the existence of God.

Beliefs vary about God greatly among different cultures and religions.

I will perfectly happily entertain the possibility of a creator or creator force.

Its man's interpretations of such I take issue with aka organised religious practice in all its many guises.

For a start they cannot all be correct because they are not claiming the same thing, or anything reminiscent of the sorts.

Hence the majority must be wrong, or more likely they all are false.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

I dont need to regroup my religious friend.

But I do need you to disprove QFT if you wish to dispel the notion that something can't come from nothing.

Simple as that really.

Explain how you disprove something that has never been proven?

Actually, let's do this mental exercise.

Disprove God...

He doesn't need to prove a negative so he doesn't need to disprove God.

The burden of proof is always on those who make claims for the existence of the supernatural world and the supernatural creator.

You don't seem to understand where the burden of proof is. In the absence of evidence there can be no value claims and all the claims relate to the supernatural are just religious beliefs because there is no evidence to support them.

You can change the word God and ask someone else to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or the giant space octopus.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

I dont need to regroup my religious friend.

But I do need you to disprove QFT if you wish to dispel the notion that something can't come from nothing.

Simple as that really.

Explain how you disprove something that has never been proven?

Actually, let's do this mental exercise.

Disprove God...

He doesn't need to prove a negative so he doesn't need to disprove God.

The burden of proof is always on those who make claims for the existence of the supernatural world and the supernatural creator.

You don't seem to understand where the burden of proof is. In the absence of evidence there can be no value claims and all the claims relate to the supernatural are just religious beliefs because there is no evidence to support them.

You can change the word God and ask someone else to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or the giant space octopus.

Congrats on completely missing the mark!

He asked me to disprove something, it doesn't work that way. That was the whole f'n point.

I didn't mention God, or flying sphagetti monsters, or Al Gore, or anything....

Just own up to that, then we can carry on..

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.

I'll take a creationist over a pig wearing lipstick.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I'll take a creationist over a pig wearing lipstick.

Thats the kicker through, people are free to choose whatever the please where religion is concerned.

But it won't change the facts, physics, or the fundamental principles and/or laws that govern the universe and its behavior.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'll take a creationist over a pig wearing lipstick.

Thats the kicker through, people are free to choose whatever the please where religion is concerned.

But it won't change the facts, physics, or the fundamental principles and/or laws that govern the universe and its behavior.

And wtf said it would?

You seem to be caught up on the religious aspect of this, I think the bias has clouded the limited amount of intellect available to you.

a reply to: MykeNukem

You seem to be caught up on the religious aspect of this, I think the bias has clouded the limited amount of intellect available to you.

In a thread about "37% of Americans believe in creationism"?

How very dare I. LoL

Where is the bias?

As to the apparent attack on my "intellect" because you fail to be able to disprove a scientific theory you clearly fail to comprehend, well that says more about you than it does anything else.

Not really any point arguing in circles with you any longer.

After all, things to do in the real world and all that jazz.

So on that note you have yourself a good day.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: TzarChasm

I'll take a creationist over a pig wearing lipstick.

Thats the kicker through, people are free to choose whatever the please where religion is concerned.

But it won't change the facts, physics, or the fundamental principles and/or laws that govern the universe and its behavior.

I'm not exactly worried about defending physics. Gravity is autonomous just like water and spherical rotation. 62% of voters said they would trust a creationist to watch the kids for a day every week, less than 30% would trust a pig wearing lipstick and a wig. Dinosaurs cohabitating with humans > gender ideology and graphic language about sex

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

You seem to be caught up on the religious aspect of this, I think the bias has clouded the limited amount of intellect available to you.

In a thread about "37% of Americans believe in creationism"?

How very dare I. LoL

Where is the bias?

As to the apparent attack on my "intellect" because you fail to be able to disprove a scientific theory you clearly fail to comprehend, well that says more about you than it does anything else.

Not really any point arguing in circles with you any longer.

After all, things to do in the real world and all that jazz.

So on that note you have yourself a good day.

Oh, you're giving up?

Well, I can respect that, I wish more people would do the same when the battle has been lost.

Stay safe!

a reply to: TzarChasm

What does childcare have to do with a person's religion or lack of for that matter?

Gravity is a fundamental force of nature that governs the interactions between objects with mass and energy.

Spherical rotation does indeed pertain to the rotation of objects such as planets of which our Earth ticks that box.

As to water, well that is made up of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom and is essential for life on Earth to exist as far as I'm aware.

As to the pigs wearing lipstick, well you have to ponder how they would get it on lack of opposable thumbs, and all that jazz.

a reply to: MykeNukem

Nope just board that you cant do what it says on the tin.

But if you wish the last word you can have it big fella.

Again I need to be getting on with the day, and keep the lights on somehow.

Have fun ATS.

a reply to: andy06shake

What I'm trying to say is, there's gradients of dumb in our society and creationism is on the less punishing end of that scale.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well, i don't begrudge you your opinion even if I don't share the same sentiment TzarChasm if that helps matters.

I do really need to be getting on now.

Enjoy the remainder of the day.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
Are you challenging the Bible?

You must be new here. I do it all the time.

The Bible is the word of God after all.

My statement stands.
The bible is not the sole authority on Who God is or what He has done.

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: MykeNukem

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

I dont need to regroup my religious friend.

But I do need you to disprove QFT if you wish to dispel the notion that something can't come from nothing.

Simple as that really.

Explain how you disprove something that has never been proven?

Actually, let's do this mental exercise.

Disprove God...

He doesn't need to prove a negative so he doesn't need to disprove God.

The burden of proof is always on those who make claims for the existence of the supernatural world and the supernatural creator.

You don't seem to understand where the burden of proof is. In the absence of evidence there can be no value claims and all the claims relate to the supernatural are just religious beliefs because there is no evidence to support them.

You can change the word God and ask someone else to disprove the existence of the flying spaghetti monster or the giant space octopus.

Congrats on completely missing the mark!

He asked me to disprove something, it doesn't work that way. That was the whole f'n point.

I didn't mention God, or flying sphagetti monsters, or Al Gore, or anything....

Just own up to that, then we can carry on..

And he was correct.

When it comes to established facts if you wish to doubt them you are free to do so but your claim can't be valid as you need proof to make your argument.

On the other hand nobody needs proof when it comes to religious claims made by others. They are the ones who need to prove their claims given that they are not factual but based on religious faith.

I see you unable to distinguish between facts and beliefs.