Shocking poll reveals that 37% of Americans believe in creationism

a reply to: Venkuish1

..but we arnt talking about "here" we are talking about a study of people from the u.s.

Which ,just so happens, to be the largest group of mixed religions on the planet.

I find it more telling that ... Some people... Will jump straight to "chrisianity" when discussing these topics...


Its almost like they are as brainwashed as those they mock... And i find that lack of introspection fascinating...

And you.. and this thread... Hasent disappointed

a reply to: Venkuish1

No, evolution is not a fact. It is twisted logic to support an outdated hypothesis.

Where are all the missing steps in the fossil records? Do you really think some very unlikely story about some single cell something, turning into a multi cell organism then morphed into animals and people.

How does DNA fit in with eons of history encoded into it fit evolution? Evolution requires all sorts of magical things to happen.

Sometimes a straight line from point to point is easier to understand than hammering twisted logic to fit preconceived beliefs.

Be careful sitting by a lake a new fish people may walk out and say hello.

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: MykeNukem


One thing is CERTAIN; mankind as we are today was not miraculously made in our current form by some omnipotent entity in his own image.
We evolved from other life forms over billions and billions of years....and we are still evolving - though polls and threads like this make me seriously think we are actually de-evolving as a species.

That's not certain... That's a theory and a theory isn't a proven fact.

a reply to: Venkuish1

That's gone down 3% since 2014 and 2019 polls.

I'm okay with that. As long as they don't make me also think that... or reflect it any coming laws.

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.

As much as I argue science I am still technically a creationist. Because there's no option for, "God is the laws of our universe and guided its evolution like computer programming, that doesn't need to intervene in any way," I likely choose the "god directed evolution" option as well.

The one in between "no god" and "everything in present form god."

And its not really a training wheel thing either, I just can't logically view the universe without priori. Even the vacuum genesis scaler field, existing before there were forces, has a speed of light requirement for the genesis (fluctuation) to happen..

So there's this cosmic priori chicken I can't remove without infinite reduction. Or just making infinity = cosmic chicken, and that being that.

Works for me, which is all it's intended to do..

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: MykeNukem

Can you disprove Quantum field theory mike?

Im apt to ponder thats a "No".

QFT has been immensely successful in describing the behavior of elementary particles and their interactions.

Is it theoretically possible for future evidence to challenge or refine certain aspects of quantum field theory?

Yes.

However, at present, quantum field theory remains one of the most well-supported and successful theories in physics.

More theories and no facts... Do y'all even read your posts before hitting "reply"?

a reply to: LSU2018

Is not my theory LSU2018.

Quantum field theory was developed by numerous people over the course of the 20th century.

It's not attributed to any single individual, but rather the result of contributions from many scientists.

And overall the theory is firmly grounded in the scientific method, supported by experimentation and empirical evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...
plato.stanford.edu...
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: LSU2018

Is not my theory LSU2018.

Quantum field theory was developed by numerous people over the course of the 20th century.

It's not attributed to any single individual, but rather the result of contributions from many scientists.

And overall the theory is firmly grounded in the scientific method, supported by experimentation and empirical evidence.

en.wikipedia.org...
plato.stanford.edu...
www.damtp.cam.ac.uk...

They still don't understand the difference between scientific theory, scientific hypothesis, speculation, fact or belief.

That's why the educational system seems to have failed a lot of people.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: MykeNukem


One thing is CERTAIN; mankind as we are today was not miraculously made in our current form by some omnipotent entity in his own image.
We evolved from other life forms over billions and billions of years....and we are still evolving - though polls and threads like this make me seriously think we are actually de-evolving as a species.

That's not certain... That's a theory and a theory isn't a proven fact.

You are confused desire the fact there are a lot of posts explaining the difference between scientific theory and scientific hypothesis or speculation.

You keep dismissing making erroneous statements.

originally posted by: Phantom42338

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Believe it or not, there are still kids out there with enough common sense to question why monkeys are still living among humans if humans evolved from monkeys. But hey, it's your choice to believe you evolved out of a monkey lol.

Can you please point to a biology textbook that says that humans came from monkeys. You don't understand evolution. Evolution is about speciation, not one species turning into another. When a population is isolated and cannot mate with the previous population, it is now a new species. They may be related genetically but they are a different species.

You don't understand "theory" either. Look it up.

We've all seen the theory of evolution. We all know a theory is an unproven idea, not a fact.

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Phantom42338

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Believe it or not, there are still kids out there with enough common sense to question why monkeys are still living among humans if humans evolved from monkeys. But hey, it's your choice to believe you evolved out of a monkey lol.

Can you please point to a biology textbook that says that humans came from monkeys. You don't understand evolution. Evolution is about speciation, not one species turning into another. When a population is isolated and cannot mate with the previous population, it is now a new species. They may be related genetically but they are a different species.

You don't understand "theory" either. Look it up.

We've all seen the theory of evolution. We all know a theory is an unproven idea, not a fact.

That's wrong. See posts above.

You keep arguing matters that are demonstrably false.

originally posted by: Albone
a reply to: Venkuish1

No, evolution is not a fact. It is twisted logic to support an outdated hypothesis.

Where are all the missing steps in the fossil records? Do you really think some very unlikely story about some single cell something, turning into a multi cell organism then morphed into animals and people.

How does DNA fit in with eons of history encoded into it fit evolution? Evolution requires all sorts of magical things to happen.

Sometimes a straight line from point to point is easier to understand than hammering twisted logic to fit preconceived beliefs.

Be careful sitting by a lake a new fish people may walk out and say hello.

Yes it is.
Only creationists argue otherwise and deeply religious people.

Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is widely observable in laboratory and natural populations as they change over time. The fact that we need annual flu vaccines is one example of observable evolution. At the same time, evolutionary theory explains more than observations, as the succession on the fossil record. Hence, evolution is also the scientific theory that embodies biology, including all organisms and their characteristics. In this paper, we emphasize why evolution is the most important theory in biology. Evolution explains every biological detail, similar to how history explains many aspects of a current political situation. Only evolution explains the patterns observed in the fossil record. Examples include the succession in the fossil record; we cannot find the easily fossilized mammals before 300 million years ago; after the extinction of the dinosaurs, the fossil record indicates that mammals and birds radiated throughout the planet. Additionally, the fact that we are able to construct fairly consistent phylogenetic trees using distinct genetic markers in the genome is only explained by evolutionary theory. Finally, we show that the processes that drive evolution, both on short and long time scales, are observable facts

A good peer reviewed scientific paper. But first you need to learn the basics

Source:
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

a reply to: Venkuish1

I don't need "peer reviewed" crap to know a theory is an idea. Peer reviewed BS is what got us to where we are now, meaning people like you trying to tell us that a theory is a fact. That's herd mentality in its purest form.

originally posted by: Another_Nut
a reply to: Venkuish1

..but we arnt talking about "here" we are talking about a study of people from the u.s.

Which ,just so happens, to be the largest group of mixed religions on the planet.

I find it more telling that ... Some people... Will jump straight to "chrisianity" when discussing these topics...


Its almost like they are as brainwashed as those they mock... And i find that lack of introspection fascinating...

And you.. and this thread... Hasent disappointed

The survey took place in the US and most people answered were most likely Christians. But it's true the same nonsense are argued in all Abrahamic religions and non Abrahamic religions.

a reply to: Another_Nut

The concept of "before" the Big Bang is not exactly well-defined within our current understanding of cosmology.

And the thing about spacetime is that it's not something we can exactly step outside of so we can observe and measure.

Hence the question of what can before the current iteration of our universe(spacetime) would seem to be more of a theological proposal than that of a scientific nature.

It's a bloody interesting conundrum, all the same, and a bit of a wonder to ponder.

The answer to such is possibly somewhat above humanity's ability to comprehend thus far.

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

I don't need "peer reviewed" crap to know a theory is an idea. Peer reviewed BS is what got us to where we are now, meaning people like you trying to tell us that a theory is a fact. That's herd mentality in its purest form.

That says it all !!!

I suppose you don't even read anything related to science not even if it's at a basic level.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: nugget1
There's an increasing distrust of 'the science' these days, and not without reason. When academia partners with government 'the facts' can get muddy as they're mixed in with agenda.

.
That's something very different to what I am describing. Creationism is not a modern view of the origin of humans or the world and the universe. Evolution is a fact and not a product of corrupt science/scientists.

Evolution is a theory, just like the Big Bang.

Clearly you don't know what you are talking about. If you think a scientific theory is some kind of speculation based on beliefs or a speculation broadly speaking.

And we didn't evolve from the monkeys. I see you are asking yourself the same ridiculous questions other creationists have been asking over various threads.

'if we evolved from the monkeys then why don't monkeys evolve to become humans'

This is why the educational system has been failing for a number of years.

A scientific theory is based on ideas that can't be proven, thus remaining a theory.

I never said "if we evolved from monkeys then why don't monkeys evolve to become humans", though I'm starting to slowly question that.

originally posted by: Venkuish1
ncse.ngo...
[exnew]... and 37% preferred "Humans did not evolve. They were created in their present form by God," ...

Belief in creation is not the equivalent of belief in creationism. No matter how many times people continue treating the terms as such (and regardless if it's a dictionary doing it as well).

Evolution, Creation, or Creationism—Which Do You Believe? (Awake!—1983)

... In the most recent legal skirmish, a federal judge decided that “creation science” as defined in an Arkansas law did not qualify on an equal basis with evolution. ...

Flaws in “Scientific Creationism”

From the testimony given in the trial, it is manifest that the scientific evidence for creation was not really presented in clear confrontation with evolution. Instead, it was lost to sight in clashes over side issues, particularly two tenets of creationism that had been written into the law:

1. That creation took place only a few thousand years ago.

2. That all geologic strata were formed by the Biblical Deluge.

Neither of these dogmas is really crucial to the central question of whether living things were created or not. They are merely doctrines held by the members of a few churches, notably the Seventh-Day Adventists, who form the core of the group that sponsored the law. When these sectarian beliefs were written into the law as something that must be taught in public schools, that law was foredoomed to be declared unconstitutional.

Creationist Doctrines Not Biblical

But does the legal defeat of scientific creationism, as this movement is known, reflect unfavorably on the Bible? Are the doctrines of recent creation and a diluvial origin of geologic strata found in God’s Word?

An informed Bible student would answer, No. While the Bible clearly states that the heavens and the earth and everything in them were created by God, it does not say when those things were created. Most of the defense witnesses were shackled by the religious dogma that the six creative days in Genesis were all encompassed in a period of 144 hours. This harks back to an erroneous fundamentalist teaching that was not challenged by the science of the 17th century, but that is no longer tenable in the light of present knowledge. The Bible itself does not set any such time limit on the days of creation.

The first verse of Genesis 1:1 simply says, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” If we take this to mean the creation of the starry heavens, the galaxies, and the solar system of which the earth is a part, we are talking about events that preceded the first creative day. The description of the earth’s condition in Ge 1 verse 2 also precedes the first day. Not until Ge 1 verses 3 to 5 do we enter upon the activity of the first day of creation.

So no matter how long the days might prove to be, Ge 1 verses 1 and 2 describe things already accomplished, and they fall outside any time frame encompassing the creative days. If geologists want to say that the earth is 4 billion years old, or astronomers want to make the universe 20 billion years old, the Bible student has no quarrel with them. The Bible simply does not indicate the time of those events. [whereislogic: concerning those numbers, remember, this article is from 1983.]

The next point to note is that the word “day” is used in many different senses in the Bible. It does not always mean a 24-hour period. Sometimes it means only the hours of sunlight, that is, 12, more or less. Sometimes it stands for a year. Sometimes it means the years during a certain generation. In several references a day is 1,000 years, and in some even longer. No doubt the days in Genesis chapter 1 were very much longer. But the Bible does not there say how long they were.

So all the argument in the Little Rock trial about the recency of creation and the attention it received in the news media were entirely extraneous to the question of whether man was created or evolved. The time of creation is not the same as the fact of creation. The two should not have been confused.

With the basic point established that the Bible text does not conflict with scientific theories about the age of the universe, we may also leave open the question of the age and origin of geologic strata. The Bible says nothing at all about the formation of sedimentary layers, whether at the time of the Flood or earlier. All the voluminous writings of creationists on this subject, which came under critical examination in the trial, have been motivated by the desire to reconcile the existence of the geologic column and its fossils, dinosaurs and all, with their claim for a 6- to 10-thousand-year age of the earth. If this claim is invalid, all the rest of the argument is beside the point.

Science Supports Creation

[whereislogic: but you don't want to hear that anyway.] ...

Would be nice if certain people would stop misusing and confusing the term "creationism" with "creation". Especially if the proposition the statistic is based on doesn't even mention "creationism", but says 'creation' ("created") instead (and only concerns humans, there are also those who believe that all other organisms evolved except for humans that were separately created; that's not creationism either, yet they can still agree with that proposition and be counted as part of the 37%).

Propaganda encourages this by agitating the emotions, by exploiting insecurities, by capitalizing on the ambiguity of language, and by bending rules of logic.

Source: The Manipulation of Information (Awake!—2000)

Another useless poll about the topic of evolution, what a surprise.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: LSU2018
a reply to: Venkuish1

Believe it or not, there are still kids out there with enough common sense to question why monkeys are still living among humans if humans evolved from monkeys. But hey, it's your choice to believe you evolved out of a monkey lol.

I accept it and question a lot the ability of the the educational system to do what is supposed to do. Clearly it has been failing the students.

The public education system has been dumbed down more and more over the past few decades to the point that many kids can't function in the real world, they're the ones responsible for pushing the theory of evolution as a fact. I'm not sure what your rub is with that since you're all about it.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: TzarChasm
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.

Dumb it is, given the evidence to the contrary.

Being dumb is not the same as being wrong. Wrong means you are infringing. Being dumb just means you are wasting someone's time with your natural charms, and the simple answer is stop playing games with dumb people. For example, starting a whole dialogue around the fact you disagree and how morally or intellectually superior you are is a dumb way to prove dumb people wrong because they're still here and still confident in their lifestyle. Laws broken? No. People dying because religious drugs and violence? No. Threat to democracy? No. Religion isn't even on the list of stuff that needs fixing in our part of the world unless you are using religion to mask your proclivity for fascism but that's a very fringe minority easily unmasked and distanced from the peaceful herd.

a reply to: LSU2018

Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not known with absolute certainty but "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent".[1] A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]