Some people will believe anything

[Gob]

Nearly half of Americans believe God created mankind in a single day about 10,000 years ago, a literal interpretation of the Bible, according to a new survey that shows the view toward evolution in the United States hasn't changed in 30 years.

About 46 percent of people say creationism explains the origin of humans. Just 15 percent say humans evolved without the assistance of God, a Gallup poll finds.

The new data reveals that more Americans think President Barack Obama is a Muslim than believe in the theory of evolution. More Americans also believe in witches with magical powers, too.

About 32 percent of Americans believe in so-called 'Intelligent Design' -- the concept that God guided the evolution of mankind.

In all, 78 percent say God played a role in the development of the human race.

The number of creationists has actually gone up since Gallup began conducting the survey in 1982.

Back then, 44 percent of Americans said God created mankind all at once. About 82 percent believed God played some role.

While more Republicans believe in creationism than Democrats or independents, the issue seems to be nonpartisan. Members of both political parties reported more creationists than people who believe in intelligent design or evolution.

About 58 percent of Republicans, 41 percent of Democrats and 39 percent of independents say God made mankind.

Independents and Democrats were tied with 19 percent believing in evolution. Just five percent of Republicans believed in the scientific theory.

Unsurprisingly, the more frequently someone goes to church, the more likely they are to believe in creationism -- 67 percent for those who go to services every week.

The 15 percent of evolution supporters, who have the backing of the scientific community, are outnumbered by Americans who believe Obama is a Muslim, 16 percent.

More Americans also believe in witches, 21 percent, according to a separate Gallup poll. Three quarters said they believed in some kind of supernatural or paranormal activity.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/155003/Hold- ... igins.aspx

[MajGenl.Meade]

More Americans also believe in witches, 21 percent, according to a separate Gallup poll. Three quarters said they believed in some kind of supernatural or paranormal activity.

Experience here seems to indicate that the number in sub-Saharan Africa is closer to 100 percent.

The 15 percent of evolution supporters, who have the backing of the scientific community

Yep you can always get 15 percent to believe just about anything

Meade

[Andrew D]

The 15 percent of evolution supporters, who have the backing of the scientific community

Yep you can always get 15 percent to believe just about anything

Unfortunately, in America, getting even 15 percent of people to believe something true is a challenge.

Which explains Republicans.

[Grim Reaper]

Well, we're at least not as bad as South Koreans, they will be removing several examples of evolution from high school text books and a group is trying to remove all such examples in order to "correct" student's views of the world.

[dales]

나는 승인

[MajGenl.Meade]

To back its campaign, the group highlights recent discoveries that Archaeopteryx is one of many feathered dinosaurs, and not necessarily an ancestor of all birds.

Yes, science (I'm sorry I'll read that again: science with real scientists who don't believe in God) suggests that previous loudly promoted claims about archaeopteryx are in fact not necessarily true and may not in fact be true. And has been doing so for years only no one seems interested in it - because it challenges the faith of evolutionist propaganda

Shock horror that anyone should teach children that science marches on and that their text books are (in fact) out of date. Let's keep on teaching them that all birds descend from archaeopteryx, even when it's not a scientific fact and the theory has had holes shot in it by scientists.

I don't get why they are against the finch beaks though. That's a perfectly ordinary example of adaptation and nothing to do with the descent of man or animals

Meade

[dgs49]

So allow me to ax the question: Is this an indictment of the American public school system?

Surely, the vast, vast majority of adult Americans were taught at least superficially about "the origin of species," and no public school has seriously taught biblical origins of the universe in at least 50 years, so why is "Evolution" not generally known and accepted?

Hell, I went to a Catholic HS and I was taught that Genesis was NOT to be taken literally, especially w/r/t the origins of the universe. The biology book taught, basically, Evolution.

And by the way, I have at least two acquaintances who are professed Wiccans. They cast spells, put hexes on people - the whole deal. Thus, I do believe in Witches.

Does that make ME a primitive?

As for "Intelligent Design," I believe that God's creation can be compared to a "perfect" break in a game of straight pool. An infinitely intelligent and powerful pool player could figure out a way to break a good rack in such a way that the one-ball would go in first, followed by the 14 other balls. Similarly, God effected the Big Bang (or whatever) in such a way that all of the natural results were predictable and known from the beginning. Thus there has not been any need for divine intervention since the Beginning of the universe.

[Grim Reaper]

Yes, science (I'm sorry I'll read that again: science with real scientists who don't believe in God) suggests that previous loudly promoted claims about archaeopteryx are in fact not necessarily true and may not in fact be true. And has been doing so for years only no one seems interested in it - because it challenges the faith of evolutionist propaganda

In which case they should teach the new findings instead of deleting everything dealing with Archaeopteryx. And it challenges nothing, it strengthens the theory of evolution to have a better picture of how things evolved.

[dgs49]

The details of the Theory of Evolution are being re-written constantly as new information comes to light. Assumed timelines are proven false, Ancestry of species is called into question. Genetic dead ends are ubiquitious.

We are sorting through a mountain of new and old information, some of which can never be corroborated by direct examination.

Until someone disproves what is now presumed to be the case, it's the best theory we have on the origin of species.

As I have observed to a few of my Bible-believing friends, if Evolution is false, then God is one hell of a practical joker for leaving us all this evidence to the contrary.

[MajGenl.Meade]

As I have observed to a few of my Bible-believing friends, if Evolution is false, then God is one hell of a practical joker for leaving us all this evidence to the contrary.

Ah the broad brush of that word "evolution"! Brilliant use of language.

IMO anyone who denies evolution is a bit of a fool - if by evolution one means the gradual adaptation of animals (and other things of course but no one cares about flowers except for a few weedy botanists) to the environment. Finch beaks.... er.... camouflage.... er Paris Hilton and so on.

But if one means by the term evolution, the origin of different species by descent from a common ancestor and/or the spontaneous generation of life in a pre-biotic soup, well that's another matter entirely.

You say micro I say macro etc. One of the cleverest language tricks of the godless origin crew is to use evolution in the second sense and then accuse non-kowtowers of denying evolution in the first sense. A legitimate tactic and one that Herr Goebbels would have respected

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

One of the cleverest language tricks of the godless origin crew is to use evolution in the second sense and then accuse non-kowtowers of denying evolution in the first sense.

One of the cleverest tricks of Creationists is to pretend that there's two kinds of evolution.

It's like trying to claim that earthquakes exist while also denying plate tectonics.

A legitimate tactic and one that Herr Goebbels would have respected

And Godwin's Law shows up, we can wrap up this thread now.

[dgs49]

Meade, I don't know what your access to books is, but I strongly recommend you get a copy of Ann Coulter's book, "Godless."

She has a full chapter that debunks much of the "established science" of Evolution, and all of her points are sourced in a detailed bibliography.

You would get a kick out of it.

[Grim Reaper]

Too bad none of her sources are actual biologists or paleontologists or anyone with a working knowledge of evolution. Any person can rattle off sources, that doesn't magically make their assumptions correct when their sources are about as solid as jello.

[MajGenl.Meade]

One of the cleverest language tricks of the godless origin crew is to use evolution in the second sense and then accuse non-kowtowers of denying evolution in the first sense.

One of the cleverest tricks of Creationists is to pretend that there's two kinds of evolution.

It's like trying to claim that earthquakes exist while also denying plate tectonics.

A legitimate tactic and one that Herr Goebbels would have respected

And Godwin's Law shows up, we can wrap up this thread now.

Another clever trick is to ignore the word "sense" and substitute the word "kinds".

No there are not two 'kinds' of evolution. There are two (and probably more) different meanings assigned to the word by argumentative evolutionists. Hypothetically let's assume your little funny up there to be the case. If a person did have some argument with the theory of plate tectonics, the pro-geologist will accuse that person of denying that earthquakesexist. Which neatly avoids discussing plate tectonics. But that's hardly the point.

There is a theory of the origin of species - humankind in particular attracting the most attention I guess. Those who support this theory (when challenged) point to finch beaks and say "Aha! You are denying evolution which is proven by these here finch beaks". Since obviously finch beaks did adapt, the argumentative nay-sayer looks very foolish - especially those creationist minded buffoons who say "evolution didn't happen". Clearly, the facet of the evolutionary theory that involves adaptation within a species is visibly demonstrable.

Perhaps you meant "teutonic plates"

Meade

[Gob]

I find it amazing that those who mock evolutionist scientists for not having all the answers nailed down yet have only one answer; "an invisible magical man in the sky did it."

[Grim Reaper]

No there are not two 'kinds' of evolution. There are two (and probably more) different meanings assigned to the word by argumentative evolutionists. Hypothetically let's assume your little funny up there to be the case. If a person did have some argument with the theory of plate tectonics, the pro-geologist will accuse that person of denying that earthquakesexist. Which neatly avoids discussing plate tectonics. But that's hardly the point.

It's an analogy, it's not 100% perfect. And people used to believe in earthquakes while denying plate tectonics, they imagined all sorts of alternate theories, but none of them explained things as well as plate tectonics does. And since plate tectonics isn't such a touchy subject, we don't have any 'intelligent hand' people trying to say that God is causing earthquakes.

The analogy though is that you're looking at the small end of the scale, stuff we can easily see within our lifetimes and saying everything's fine with your beliefs. But when we look at the larger end of the scale, at things that happen over amazingly long periods of time, and you suddenly start to have problems. Even though we have a great deal of fossil evidence, and now genetic evidence, that weighs heavily on the side of evolution leading to new species.

There is a theory of the origin of species - humankind in particular attracting the most attention I guess. Those who support this theory (when challenged) point to finch beaks and say "Aha! You are denying evolution which is proven by these here finch beaks". Since obviously finch beaks did adapt, the argumentative nay-sayer looks very foolish - especially those creationist minded buffoons who say "evolution didn't happen". Clearly, the facet of the evolutionary theory that involves adaptation within a species is visibly demonstrable.

Evolution that results in different species is visibly demonstrable by looking at the fossil record that becomes stronger as we discover more links in the chains that lead from species to species. It is also visibly demonstrable by looking at genetic material and seeing how closely some animals are related to each other compared to other animals.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Evolution that results in different species is visibly demonstrable by looking at the fossil record that becomes stronger as we discover more links in the chains that lead from species to species. It is also visibly demonstrable by looking at genetic material and seeing how closely some animals are related to each other compared to other animals.

(a) no it isn't demonstrated at all. There are no links in the chain. Only a series of unevidenced "connections" created in the brains of people who want to see it that way. Find a bone one-inch square and all of a sudden we've got a proto human which obviously could run yeah fast and climb x trees and had less hair than the previous half-inch bone we found.

(2) so what? Who ever said that the material world is not composed of similarly constructed things? When it comes to humans and other animals one would expect exactly that, given special creation or not. Show me a sword and a steam train - common metal materials do not lead me to conclude that iron developed itself into two different kinds. Instead I conclude that someone manufactured them both from a common source. Same with an earthworm and a human - same original material.

But you know - it's a fruitless argument and we should just agree that we have different ideas as to what is "proven" and what is not.

Meade

[Grim Reaper]

(a) no it isn't demonstrated at all. There are no links in the chain. Only a series of unevidenced "connections" created in the brains of people who want to see it that way. Find a bone one-inch square and all of a sudden we've got a proto human which obviously could run yeah fast and climb x trees and had less hair than the previous half-inch bone we found.

Your snark does a disservice to how much work is done to determine new species. And it also ignores that we do have large amounts of fossil evidence of human ancestors, more than just single bones and overactive imaginations.

(2) so what? Who ever said that the material world is not composed of similarly constructed things? When it comes to humans and other animals one would expect exactly that, given special creation or not. Show me a sword and a steam train - common metal materials do not lead me to conclude that iron developed itself into two different kinds. Instead I conclude that someone manufactured them both from a common source. Same with an earthworm and a human - same original material.

The difference, which you deliberately ignored, is that some animals are more closely related to others. Humans and chimpanzees share more common material than humans and alligators.

And if someone did design each species? Well they didn't put a whole lot of effort into it. Why give humans an appendix? It's just a ticking time bomb waiting to kill you. Why have an extra four (wisdom) teeth that only exist to cause potential problems? The intelligent designer idea relies on not knowing very much about the human body. If a car were put together this poorly, there would have been a factory recall a long time ago, assuming it even made it to production without being sent back to the drawing board.

But you know - it's a fruitless argument and we should just agree that we have different ideas as to what is "proven" and what is not.

You're right, it is fruitless when one side refuses to acknowledge any proof and instead points to God for any explanations.

[dgs49]

One does not have to believe in "god" to conclude that Evolution is bunk, pure and simple. Take away all the bullshit and the theory is that somewhere, somehow, life spontaneously generated itself, then evolved (by processes only guessed-at) from simple, single-celled creatures to the infinite variety and complexity of plants and animals that we now observe.

Nothing that is simple at first evolves into something that is more complex later. Does not happen. Never happened. Cannot happen. Take a thousand dogs of various breeds and mix them together and a hundred years later you will have a million similar-looking mutts. Take a thousand purebred dogs and a hundred years later you will have a million purebred dogs, just the same.

A "theory" is nothing more than a plausible explanation of that which we can observe, inferring things like causation and process. Evolution is a fantastic theory. The Big Bang is a fantastic theory. They provide a plausible explanation for MOST OF what we can observe.

An intelligent creator is no less plausible than Evolution, but it is not suscepible to scientific examination or inquiry.

[MajGenl.Meade]

it also ignores that we do have large amounts of fossil evidence of human ancestors

Way to beg the question. "These human ancestor bones prove evolutionary theories of the origin of humans because the evolutionary theories of human origins prove these bones are human ancestors". If you add the word "alleged" in several places then you are back on the scientific track.

They are monkeys and monkey derivatives that went nowhere. But of course to "scientists" they cannot be "monkeys" or "nothing of any importance" because they MUST fit into a theory against which not even the Cambrian explosion is permitted to interfere.

I read just recently that scientists theorize that dinosaurs were responsible for more methane in their time than cows today. They should look closer to home

Meade