53% of Americans Believe in Evolution...66% of Americans Believe in Creationism

Originally posted by runetang
..... That would mean we are all retarded.

LOL!!! Some days I wonder

Well, I believe both, so where am I on there?

Originally posted by runetang

For if they werent, we all know the human genepool wouldve been permanently damaged had there only been 1 couple to start the human race. That would mean we are all retarded.

Have you looked at the human race lately?

No, all jokes aside, I understand and agree with what you are saying.

Originally posted by EBE 17
Well, I believe both, so where am I on there?

you are probably within the 66% group. The way I understand the poll is that of those polled 53% definitely believed in evolution and 66% of them believed that both evolution and creationism were compatible.

Originally posted by runetang
For if they werent, we all know the human genepool wouldve been permanently damaged had there only been 1 couple to start the human race. That would mean we are all retarded.

I think the official take on this is that Adam and Eve, even though cast out of EDEN were still "perfect" genetically, although they now were susceptible to disease, hunger, etc. So they and subsequent generations could inbreed, with errors accumulating over time. This implys that WE are the most genetically damaged / retarded stock to date.

Perhaps a Creationist can explain this better than I?.....

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
Well, then it is a faulty form of "creationism." I don't know of any honest theist that buys into the whole "Earth is only 6000 years old," argument.

Every christians that i know thinks that the earth is somewhere between 5000 and 10000 years old.

Originally posted by Alien42

Every christians that i know thinks that the earth is somewhere between 5000 and 10000 years old.

I don't know where you live or what kind of "Christians" you know, but I haven't encountered that at all.

Pathetic... really really Pathetic. It only goes to highlight this countries fundamental ignorance about science; and it is not getting any better. Just scroll down the list of recent posts here on ATSNN and there are many that exhibit a profound misunderstanding about the nature of science and just what it proves (or does not prove) and how.

I believe in creation and linear evolution. I know species can develop certain traits but I see no evidence of one species genetically becoming another. In fact when an animal is born with genetic defects the mother abandons the infant. I cant see how the earth developed and "evolved" so many different species even if it is 4.5 billion years old. Male and female of that species would have to have evolve simutatiously. Then given the fact that a human has over a trillion cells each performing a specific task. Giving evolution zero errors and believing the earth is 5 billion years old, the math just doesnt add up.

As much as it may upset some of you, Darwinian theory is circular in nature, and not truly falsifiable. This means it isn't truly scientific, as the 'cornerstone' of scientific method is "falsifiability criterion".

Karl Popper wrote: "I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... It is metaphysical because it is not testable"

It looks to me that both arguments, Darwinism, and Creationism, or others, such as Panspermia, boil down to individual beliefs.

It's hard for me to grasp, how anyone could believe that all the current species just popped out of nowhere, due to the supernatural powers of the omnipotent one .

It just doesn't make any sense whatsoever...

Koen

Originally posted by Implosion
As much as it may upset some of you, Darwinian theory is circular in nature, and not truly falsifiable. This means it isn't truly scientific, as the 'cornerstone' of scientific method

“I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation” (K Popper, Dialectica 32:344-346).

Falsification 1. Rabbit in the precambrian strata.

Falsification 2. Evidence of true chimeras (e.g. mermaid).

Falsification 3. No mechanism for heredity.

Falsification 4. No mechanism for change (e.g. mutations).

Falsification 5. Observed creation ex-nihilo.

Falsification 6. Static fossil record.





[edit on 8-6-2007 by melatonin]

This is a minor point, but 53% believe in evolution and 66% believe in creationism that makes 119%!!!!!!

I DO realize that those numbers ARE from different sources

I am sorry if that is off topic, but when I see things like that, I think something shady is going on.

I am telling the OP this so they might change their presentaion to reflect the honest numbers.

Originally posted by koenw
It's hard for me to grasp, how anyone could believe that all the current species just popped out of nowhere, due to the supernatural powers of the omnipotent one

.

They didn't pop out of nowhere. They each contain an instruction set. That which is known as DNA. I could see how it could be argued that DNA is a construct of the "omnipotent one" you speak of.

Here is a nice quote to illustrate the circular nature of Darwin's theory:

Pier Luigi Luisi talks of the "tautology of molecular Darwinism... [which] is unable to elicit concepts other than those from which it has been originally constructed"

The Cosmic Serpent - Jeremy Narby
ISBN 0-87477-964-2

"no clear evidence for any change of a species into a different genus or for the gradual origin of an evolutionary novelty"- Ernst Mayr

"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It seems never to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yields zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of changeover millions of years, at a rate too slow to really account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the organisms did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on someplace else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." (Eldredge, Niles, Reinventing Darwin: The Great Evolutionary Debate, 1996, p.95.)

"Each species of mammal-like reptile that has been found appears suddenly in the fossil record and is not preceded by the species that is directly ancestral to it. It disappears some time later, equally abruptly, without leaving a directly descended species although we usually find that it has been replaced by some new, related species." (Kemp, Tom, "The Reptiles that Became Mammals," New Scientist, Vol. 92, 1982, p.583.)

"At the core of punctuated equilibria lies an empirical observation: once evolved, species tend to remain remarkably stable, recognizable entities for millions of years. The observation is by no means new, nearly every paleontologist who reviewed Darwin's Origin of Species pointed to his evasion of this salient feature of the fossil record. But stasis was conveniently dropped as a feature of life's history to he reckoned with in evolutionary biology." (Eldredge, Niles, Time Frames: The Rethinking of Darwinian Evolution and the Theory of Punctuated Equilibria, 1985, p.188.)

Source.

Fossils and missing links

We may have suspicions, but we do not know for sure which is correct. Public opinion is often swayed by whatever theory happens to be in vogue at the time.

It's all a simple matter of belief. Each side is as dogmatic as the other. I'm not trying to convince anyone of one argument or the other, just attempting to point out how much this issue rests on an individual's beliefs.

[edit on 8/6/07 by Implosion]

I'd love to see that Luisi quote in context, especially considering he writes books like "The Emergence of Life: From Chemical Origins to Synthetic Biology".

ABE: Oh poop, we have a major quote-miner...

Evolution Quote mine Project

www.talkorigins.org...

www.talkorigins.org...

members.cox.net...

ABE2: A quote mine is an example of intellectual dishonesty where a quote is taken out of context from what the writer intended. But I understand it wasn't you who actually mined the quote, but merely transmitted it.

[edit on 8-6-2007 by melatonin]

[edit on 8-6-2007 by melatonin]

I'm curious....I don't know scripture as well as I used to and never really understood where people got the idea that the world is only 10,000 or less years. Is there supposed to be a scripture that says that??

God says 1,000 years is like a day to him so then using that logic, wouldn't it have taken 6,000 years to create the earth and then he rested for 1,000 to let the primordial ooze take over and do it's thing? So really, going on that - obviously the world would have to be older than 7,000 years. Sheesh - it took that long to create!

I dunno, just tossing out that idea.....does that make sense?

Originally posted by closettrekkie
I'm curious....I don't know scripture as well as I used to and never really understood where people got the idea that the world is only 10,000 or less years. Is there supposed to be a scripture that says that??

it has to do with the genealogy coming down from adam. they add up the ages or something and get an estimate from 6000-10000 years... which is far less reliable than looking at geology.

Originally posted by melatonin
ABE: Oh poop, we have a major quote-miner...

Evolution Quote mine Project

Would you like to expand on that? After all, I posted my source, and am always eager to learn.

Originally posted by melatonin
A quote mine is an example of intellectual dishonesty where a quote is taken out of context from what the writer intended. But I understand it wasn't you who actually mined the quote, but merely transmitted it.

OK, I see what you're saying now. How depressing.

[edit on 8/6/07 by Implosion]

Originally posted by SpeakerofTruth
It's simple, while 53% of those polled believed in evolution, 66% believed in both evolution and creation. They probably believe as I do.

Look at the poll, it's not that simple. The way the questions are phrased makes them mutually exclusive.

The evolution question state:

Evolution, that is, the idea that human beings developed over millions of years from less advanced forms of life.

53% said this was true.

And the creationism question states:

Creationism, that is, the idea that God created human beings pretty much in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years

66% answered this question as true.

It pretty much just makes polls such as this completely worthless.

Archbishop James Ussher or Ireland (1581/1656) calculated the ages of the patriarchs of the Old Testament and determined that the world was created the nightfall preceding October 23, 4004 BC... add 2,000 years since Christ and you get 6,000+ year old.

Yeah right.