Slashdot Mirror
48% of Americans Reject Evolution
MSNBC has up an article discussing the results of a Newsweek poll on faith and religion among members of the US populace. Given the straightforward question, 'Is evolution well-supported by evidence and widely accepted within the scientific community?', some 48% of Americans said 'No'. Furthermore, 34% of college graduates said they accept the Biblical story of creation as fact. An alarmingly high number of individuals responded that they believe the earth is only 10,000 years old, and that a deity created our species in its present form at the start of that period.
sheep...
That 48% is composed mostly of people who have a firm Christian background, I'm certain.
I only have three more things to say:
All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster!
Praise "Bob"!
Hail Eris!
Specifically, their children are going to grow up to be as ignorant as their parents; even if they're much smarter than mom and dad, their ignorance will interfere with them becoming valuable contributors to the scientific community. Those smart kids would end up as so much wasted resources, like having Stephen Hawking mopping floors.
And if we don't get enough of them thinking critically, we'll end up in aHarrison Bergeron future.
John
*cough* Bill O'Reilly *cough*
If the dollar is an "I owe you nothing", then the Euro is a "Who owes you nothing." - Doug Casey
I wouldn't mind publicly hanging terrorists and pedophiles.
What's wrong with that?
-----
In a concurrent study, 48% of the United States was found to be idiots.
I don't know why people can't get it through their heads.
Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
*cough* Global Warming *cough*
Now we just need to continue to pour more government and foundation money into the crapper of evolution. Maybe if we put 100% of our dollars there instead of 99%, we can push that number of non-believers down. No matter that the scientific foundations of macro-evolution are completely bankrupt. Just keep putting this one-sided trash into our textbooks, science classes and other media so the same losers can keep parroting the same useless misinformation generation after generation. After all - how else are you going to get funded? Not by real scientific research, that's for sure.
What I am referring to is deeper than your sadly shallow point of view. It is the love you feel from your savior. Without trying to get myself into a religious debacle, I will point out that you cannot see love either. But I'd be willing to bet you believe it exists. Some things cannot be seen.
like air! air cannot be seen, therefore it must not exist. just like god, the flying spaghetti monster, zuse, budda, alla, ra, or thore. (at least other religions bother to name there gods!)
but since air exists, all of the above gods must exist also! (did you stop and think about why there are so meny different religions? i think people are just trying to cope with there own mortality)
just like a witch must float because she's made out of wood - like a duck!
Don't call me back. Give me a call back. Bye. So yeah. But bye our, well, but alright we are on a shirt this chill.
Why stop at thousands of years? if the deity likes to plant false evidence, how about creating the Earth three years ago, and planting false memories in your head? Or three hours ago. Or three seconds. Anyone supporting creationism must support this argument too.
The bones being there for fuel... The reason is a given, if you can't figure it out go
The bones being there to give some geologist something to do... Something to do in the sense of an occupation. In French we often use the verb that means 'to do or to make' in this context.
Why stop at thousands of years? if the deity likes to plant false evidence, how about creating the Earth three years ago, and planting false memories in your head? Or three hours ago. Or three seconds. Anyone supporting creationism must support this argument too.
Your counter-argument does not answer my question. Your counter-argument is simply flamebait and should be modded as such. Simply put I was stating, why couldn't the 'diety' have created the earth with fossil fuels and fossils developing into fossil fuels etc. I haven't seen this question asked nor answered on slashdot and would like a logical response.
Hebrews 11:1 ... faith ...
... is the evidence of things which are not seen", when translated into common use of language, becomes "God saying something is evidence that it is so". Which, if you presuppose an omnipotent, omniscient God who creates everything by speaking, it follows that if God says something, if it's not true yet, it's about to be and can therefore be believed in spite of contrary evidence.
one problem here being that like in law, the bible sometimes has particular ways of using words that are not the common use. In the context of the bible, faith is not "the thing you believe" it's "the thing spoken by God that you believe". Misinterpretations, errors and other religions are not described as "faith".
So "... faith
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
http://pubs.acs.org/cen/coverstory/85/8513cover1.h tml
Go to the above link by a Darwinist. Faith commitments seem to be holding Darwinist Origin of Life scenarios together.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Macro-evolution is NOT a verified hypothesis, it is NOT a logical explaination, it is NOT a proven model, it has NOT predicted future occurrences of evolution that have been observed (since macro-evolution has not been observed or reproduced in the lab) and is clearly NOT tested through experimentation.
I am glad you posted this to clarify the exact status of evolution - it is a conjecture - an opinion.
Gravity is a testable and observable - nothing with macro-evolution has come close to be either. I will also point out that most evolutionists base macro-evolution on micro-evolution. That because something happens in small increments within a given species it should be extended to assume that this same process creates new species; it has never been shown to be true. This would be somewhat analagous to assuming that because I can jump into the air and achieve a small amount of zero gravity that one day, if I just try hard enough and let time take its course, I will be able to float in the air for as long as I want - get real.
The problem with basing macro-evolution on micro-evolution is that micro-evolution, such as viruses mutating to resist, certain species losing a tail, etc, is all about information loss - the DNA and the "features" are lost, not added. Macro-evolution to a higher order species requires the addition of information to DNA and that just hasn't been proven/reproduced/observed in the slightest - at least I can't find it on Google :-)
Operators are standing by to take your facts and post them to this thread .... oops, evolutionists don't have any, I guess this will be a short thread.
http://www.dumpalink.com/videos/Peanut_butter_proo f_that_evolution_is_false-5jl2.html
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Both evolution and creationism are considered THEORIES in the scientific definition.
Neither are scientific LAWS and therefore has not been proven without a doubt, unlike something like gravity, which is a scientific LAW. Most people believe in micro evolution, basically, within our own species (ie humans have changed slightly over the years: height, etc) but do not believe in macro evolution (ie we have evolved from some organic soup in a process that started a gazillion years ago).
As much as people want to discredit either theory, none of us were around 10,000 years ago or 100 gazillion years ago. Science is using infallible science to try and prove their theory and religion is using their infallible, God-inspired Bible to prove their theory. Infallibility is in the eyes of the beholder. There is no first-hand, human recorded knowledge of either process.
My subject explains my feelings on it all and I'm leaving it at that. Politics, Religion and sports will always start a flame-war and heated discussion.
I know this whole article is the start of a giant flame war, but I feel that I needed to chime in. Think about the computer you are using right now, was it not designed and manufactured by a sentient being? Or the building you are in? How can these things be deliberate acts but something as complex as a human and well existence be hap-hazard. My biggest argument for creationism would be to ask "and where did that come from" an infinite number of times. So you believe that life was created by a big bang huh, who created the materials that banged, something has to have proceeded that right? Why not accept that some higher power that we might not be able to comprehend exists, or are we so arrogant as to think that we are the top tier of existence? I could spend my whole life trying to teach a dog how to use the bash shell, but that dog is simply not going to comprehend it, I know IT guys that have a hard enough time with permissions! Why is it not reasonable that if we can not understand creation that maybe it was done at a higher level than we can understand.
I asked a dear friend who's much smarter than I on the subject of evolution to help articulate my perspective: Paradigms shift all of the time. Hundreds of years ago, it was the common consensus that the solar system revolved around the earth. The science textbooks changed and a new paradigm entered the scene. The beliefs of science are in constant flux. If the world lasts, a thousand years from now, our progeny will scorn our shallow understanding of the world. Compared to eternity future, we are but still at the beginning, playing with the dust and pebbles of the universe while thinking we are doing something grand. Evolution is a paradigm that is in grievous trouble. Fred Hoyle of the British Academy of Science and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe decided to calculate the probability of life coming into existence anywhere in the universe. Their results? Utterly impossible. They gave it all the time in the universe, but time plus chance produces nothing! Francis Crick, Noble Prize winner for his discovery of DNA, also attempted to calculate the probability that life sprang into existence spontaneously. His results? Utter impossible. Instead of jumping into the arms of God, Crick decided to propagate the theory of genetic panspermia. In sum, his theory propounded that life on earth was seeded by benevolent and mighty aliens. Their work made life possible through the path of evolution. The problem? Crick merely delayed the impossible, casting it back on a continuous regression of aliens. Stephen J. Gould, one of the greatest defenders of evolution, was also troubled by issues that he saw within evolution. As a result, he came up with the theory of punctuated equilibrium. He postulated that there were sudden leaps in evolution that left no transitional forms. If only he had made one massive leap, he would have ended up where theists are today. Are these the actions of men that believe that the evolutionary paradigm is secure? While the defenders of evolution are resorting to new and stunning conjecture to cover the nakedness of evolution, intelligent design has been seeking to topple the entire infrastructure. The simple design of a mousetrap is irreducibly complex, no one part of the mousetrap makes sense without all of the other pieces. The evolution of a species or a single organ is also irreducibly complex. Take for example the eye. The eye is composed of mechanisms that are entirely reliant upon one another for the eye to function at all. If evolution is true, each part of the eye evolved over time and accrued in aggregate form. Unfortunately, the individual parts of the eye do not promote the survivability of the animal. They may actually impede its survivability. Over millions of years, the evolutionist would have us believe that the portions of the eye accrued until we had a complete and functional organ. Another stake in the heart of evolution is the absence of transitional forms. Darwin predicted that this would be the downfall of his theory. Nothing has been found. Frauds have been created such as Piltdown man, Java man and a host of other oddities found to be made out of bits of extinct pigs, apes, etc., but nothing definitive has been offered to support the claims of evolution. If nothing else, our excavations should lead us to conclude that life was more complex and varied in the past than it is at present. This concurs with the concept of entropy. The third law of thermodynamics is at odds with evolution. Time and chance lead to a loss of genetic information, the accretion of deleterious and deadly mutations. Per the evolutionary model, the very environment that may have produced the earliest protein chain is the same environment that would wipe it out in the next second. Life and entropy teach us that life is fragile. The fossil record has yielded no evidence for evolution. Fossil beds contain a mixture of species and life forms from supposedly different evolutionary eras all at the same level of excavation. The geological column, which is purported to have