Slashdot Mirror
Massive New Cambrian-Era Fossil Bed Found
jfbilodeau sends word of a massive new trove of fossils located in Canada, which scientists say will rival the acclaimed Burgess Shale fossil bed. The rock formation inside which both fossil sites were found is roughly 505 million years old (abstract). The fossils provide insight into the Cambrian explosion, a time that brought the rapid appearance and diversification of many animal forms. "In just two weeks, the research team collected more than 3,000 fossils representing 55 species. Fifteen of these species are new to science." Paleontologist Jean-Bernard Caron said, "The rate at which we are finding animals — many of which are new — is astonishing, and there is a high possibility that we'll eventually find more species here than at the original Yoho National Park site, and potentially more than from anywhere else in the world." The fossils at the new site are about 100,000 years younger and are better preserved than those at the renowned Burgess shale site.
The difference between groups and individuals is sexual individuals specialize to create asexual groups and asexual cells specialize to create sexual individuals. http://archive.org/stream/Huma...
Seastead this.
Or because it is not in the US it doesn't exist?
I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.
Colour me surprised.
Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
I am not a paleontologist and was surprised that 15 of the 55 species found were previously unknown. I really thought we knew more. Is it possible that a significant find could radically change the way we think of the past?
Darn that devil for foolin' us! But Darn god for giving us deductive reasoning. It's god's fault I'll end up in hell.
That's because evolution is not found in books, but on stone tablets.
Goodbye Slashdot. You've changed.
Wait -- are you talking about the fossil thingie or Beta...?
The devil's deception is so exquisitely designed and executed that it is worth studying and admiring.
All that happened was the emergence of bones/shells. This was the first thing that could fossilize. Everything earlier had just soft tissues and they did not fossilize well. So there was an "explosion" of fossilization, not necessarily speciation.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.
Colour me surprised.
Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.
Oh, the hubris of the fundies who think that.
If God does exist, He damn well could have created man in His image via evolution.
No, you got trolled.
Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones. But only the loud and idiotic get on TV so now we have a christian stereotype. I believe in God and I don't presume to tell him how he went about creating the universe. In my opinion science is the method by which we understand God.
As far as the literal interpretation of the Bible goes... I've never really thought any religion, especially Christianity, intended for entire professions to be wrapped up in deciphering their holy works word for word to find hidden meanings. The Bible gives a pretty clear and definitive guide to being a good person. If someone needs to spend half an hour flipping from page to page to show me the clues to that lead them to believe some secret truth held there-in I usually just write them off as having way too much time on their hands. I know I'm a good person and have faith that God agrees with me. After I'm dead, if I find out Gods as big of a Jerk as these people have been claiming all along, well I don't want to hang out with him anyway. And if I find out there is no God... well I guess I wont find out will I? So it doesn't matter.
That is a bit hard to believe since the Burgess Shale preserves such exquisite detail.
And 100,000 years is a short time....
To quote a great bit on this line of thinking from Robin Williams, the majoritie of fundies will say "no, God just went 'click'"
Not a Christian stereotype, a fundamentalist one. I refuse to stereotype as Christian those that use the Christian moniker for such restrictive viewpoints.
I completely agree that most Christians believe in evolution and the use of science to understand the existing universe, regardless of the source of the Universe.
I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.
As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.
If only we could fall into a woman's arms without falling into her hands
You just get off the Bow Valley Parkway on the road going west to Radium (Highway 93), cross the Alberta/BC border, and stop at the Marble Canyon Campground (if you see a sign that says Vermillion river, that's the campground), and look NorthEast from there. From the pictures it appears to be the south western slopes of Mount Whymper W1, about 51.206N, 116.114W (The area was burned in a wildfire in 2005). There is a high valley with a glacier at the north end, and gobs of gravel in the middle of Whymper and Whymper W1. Just a guess though, could be wrong. I know its all top secret and whatnot. Mind you, its been there for a while.
If a fossil falls in the bed, and there is no paleontologist to find it, does it make a sound? err. I mean does it exist? Clearly "Bed down" has a different meaning to a paleontologist than it has to you.
Well, if you buy the whole bullshit story, then it's the same thing, since god created satan and nothing happens in the universe without god's knowledge and consent.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Well you're never going to cure another man of his bigotry against you and your beliefs by reciprocating that bigotry. In my time I've debated a lot of fundamentalists of several different religions. In almost every case I got to the end of the debate feeling pity for the person because I'd eventually realize their fundamentalism was just a manifestation of a much deeper set of problems.
One gentleman was standing on a street corner, with his son, telling every woman that walked by in a skirt that she was... well, a lady of the night... anyways, I felt bad for his kid that was forced to hold up a not-very-nice sign while his father was clearly losing his mind in front of a crowd so I engaged the man. He actually claimed that he hadn't sinned in 10 years. Which means he clearly didn't understand that bible AT ALL. So it all came down to: "Sir, could God make a square circle?" which is of course the old Omnipotence paradox. He got angry and started yelling that I was just using a straw-man argument. I explained that I wasn't, and that this question did indeed have a correct answer. So I asked his kid holding the sign what he thought. He said "I don't know" and I told him "Neither do I! Welcome to the club!" While God may be omnipotent, he does not expect you to be. You can not know everything about about anything and he just expects you to do the best that you can.
His father stored off with him in tow, and at the very least that particular street corner was more peaceful, but hopefully his son could find his way through faith without the anger his father was consumed with. I don't know what happened to his father to make him that way, but I certainly don't hate him for it. I pity him, and did what I could to help him out of the clear hell he was living in.
As someone placed in the Christian faith not by my choice, it bugs me when folks use "Christian" as a descriptor to mean "I do what I want, how I want, in the name of Christianity". Folks like that have no issue treating certain other folks badly, all in the name of some misguided (my opinion) understanding of certain phrases.
Personally, I find it interesting that men like Lincoln ran around saying that they hoped that they were doing what god wanted, while working hard to be good, while men like reagan and W ran around saying that they knew that god backed them in what they did and that it was all good, in spite of the lies, deceit, and thousands/millions (respectively) that were murdered in all of their invasions.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.
Colour me surprised.
Thank goodness neither position has anything to do with the real world.
You haven't read the Book of Job? Satan was allowed to put them there by God to test the faithful.
It's a joint effort.
were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.
As were Hookers 'n Blow. So who are we to question God's divine plan? Personally, I welcome such a test. To prove my worthiness in His eyes, of course.
Have gnu, will travel.
Or... did $DIETY place those fossils so that we get hints as to how things will work?
I don't know personally anyone who believe in the literal truth of the various holy books lying around.
I could introduce you to a large number of people in my town, then, if you're feeling left out.
He wouldn't have done it via image. He'd have kicked 'em, and used [puppet | chef | salt ] to customize the configs.
"Truth is what works" -- William James "It works!!" -- o-dark-AM comment
No matter how sane you are, once you reach senility your life savings still go to the first charlatan selling tickets to heaven. Usually though these days he wears a white lab coat.
Help stamp out iliturcy.
Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones.
Those statements are questionable without some significant disclaimers. Are you taking about worldwide or just the US? What qualifies as 'Christian' 'fundmentalist' or 'believing in evolution'?
Consider the latest highly publicized Pew Research poll on the subject. One-third of Americans believe "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time". Note that's not disagreeing with the theory of natural selection or postulating 'God's hand', this is utter denial that species evolved over extremely long periods of time. For those that identify as white evangelical Protestants (a good surrogate for 'fundamentalist', I'd say) , that number is 64 percent. Also, FWIW, only 43 percent of Republicans agree that "humans and other living things have evolved over time".
So at least in the US, it would appear that most 'fundamentalists' (and Republicans) *do* reject the evolution of species outright. And while I can't say that third of *all* Americans that would represent a majority of Christians, it is safe to assume that those people would overwhelmingly skew Christian, and therefore if most Christians *do* believe in evolution, it's a slim (and apparantly shrinking) majority, at least in the US.
Clearly, deniers of evolution are not just a fringe minority with a loud voice, these beliefs are frighteningly mainstream.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
The book of Job is a description of regression testing....
They are, as everything, God's creation. So He clearly wanted us to find them, and come up with the theorie of Evolution. So who are you people do disagree with the Lord, all non-evolutionist will rot in Hell.
Okay, okay, settle down. They both did it to outfox the other.
while men like reagan and W ran around saying that they knew that god backed them in what they did and that it was all good,
I don't know that Reagan and Dubya held that position. Can you point me to quotes where they said such a thing? Make sure they're real, traceable quotes, not links from a fever swamp of some variety.
How one asks the poll questions is important. Polls can 'reveal' about anything that the pollster wants. The 'Pew Research' organization, for some reason, sounds in my head in the voice of a National Public Radio announcer. Perhaps that's where I've heard them cited most often. Daniel Shore's voice, or someone else with that 'NPR' diction.
Judging from what I read here, a lot of people on this forum hope deeply that what they believe, namely that there are a bunch of dumb people out there, is true. It's odd, but possibly validating to think like that.
One gentleman was standing on a street corner, with his son, telling every woman that walked by in a skirt that she was... well, a lady of the night... anyways, I felt bad for his kid that was forced to hold up a not-very-nice sign while his father was clearly losing his mind in front of a crowd so I engaged the man. He actually claimed that he hadn't sinned in 10 years. Which means he clearly didn't understand that bible AT ALL. So it all came down to: "Sir, could God make a square circle?" which is of course the old Omnipotence paradox. He got angry and started yelling that I was just using a straw-man argument. I explained that I wasn't, and that this question did indeed have a correct answer. So I asked his kid holding the sign what he thought. He said "I don't know" and I told him "Neither do I! Welcome to the club!" While God may be omnipotent, he does not expect you to be. You can not know everything about about anything and he just expects you to do the best that you can.
Omnipotent: having all power (that exists)
Omniscient: having all knowledge. While the question about the square circle is about omnipotence, not knowing that answer shows that you are not omniscient.
The question I've often heard is: Can God create a rock so large that He couldn't lift it?
48 comments before this, and 28 of them taking stabs at the fundamentalist anti-dinosaur strawman. I came for a fight and wasn't disappointed. Never mind that the other side didn't even show up.
How one asks the poll questions is important.
Read the link from the previous post. Respondents had two choices: "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" or "humans and other living things have evolved over time". That's about as binary a choice as is possible on the subject, and the former choice pretty well defines 'creationist', that is, that one rejects all evidence of the evolution of species.
These results are pretty much in line with all other polls I've seen over the last 25 years. Do you have any contrary evidence to show that these numbers are massively overstated? Otherwise your clutching at straws to dismiss such data as just something to validate a deeply held hope that there are many "dumb people" out there (I, for one, find no hope at all in the idea) strikes me as a mere rationalization to deny that it could actually be true.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Didn't H.P. Lovecraft write about that? Most of his Ancient Ones were "protoplasmic masses" (see The Shadow Out of Time.)
> I believe in God
Why?
I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
Actually, the numbers are inconclusive.
No less an expert on Christianity than Fox News recently told us that 1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution.
http://www.foxnews.com/science...
And 77% of Americans self-identify as Christian, with approximately 60% of them being classified as "evangelicals, fundamentalists and pentecostals".
If we start with the assumption that the only Americans who don't believe in evolution are part of that 60% of 77%, we can not with certainly say that "even the fundamentalist ones" mostly believe in evolution. Not if you back into Fox News' authoritative assertion of "1/3 of Americans don't believe in evolution".
I can't think of another group that collectively tends to deny evolution, but I might be missing something.
Further, I would bet that the subset of people who don't believe in evolution is entirely within the subset who don't believe in anthropogenic climate change.
What do you think? Do you think there is anyone who does not believe in evolution and does believe in climate change? I can't imagine it.
You are welcome on my lawn.
:-)
FUCK BETA!!!111one
These 'fossils' are in fact put in place by the devil to convince mankind that there is no God, driving more hapless followers into his evil realm.
There are many theistic evolutionist out there, and many creationists that do not believe in a "young earth".
If anything, this would bolster the claims of "old earth" creationism, not diminish it.
The mindless posts by atheistic evolutionists attempting sarcasm, like those found here, does make you question where you can find an intelligent being in this place.
That's about as binary a choice as is possible on the subject
Which makes it unsuitable for interrogating about beliefs that aren't similarly binary such as the example you gave.
Are you taking about worldwide or just the US? What qualifies as 'Christian' 'fundmentalist' or 'believing in evolution'?
The trouble is that US Americans ALWAYS impose the consequences of their irrationality on everyone arond them.
Case in point: this discussion. Many of us are interested in geology and archaeology, We would have enjoyed a discussion about the fossil beds, their composition, deposition process, the reason for their persistence etc. Instead, the Americans in the audience have (as they always do) hijacked the discussion for their own personal religious soapboxes. And it is monumentally DULL. Everybody has read these arguments here over and over and over again. They're repetitive, irrelevant, and uninteresting (to anyone outside the USA).
Slashdot doesn't need Beta to chase people away, just rude, arrogant and inconsiderate Americans.
foxnews id a horrid source. They have a long and well documented history of lying and leaving out important details. Far more then any other news agency. There is a reason that can't call them selves a news agency in Canada. IT's so bad that it just shouldn't be trusted no matter what side they appear to represent.
It's more complex the what FoxNews is saying in there effort to get creationism thought of a a legitimate science. Since that have no evidence, they resort to public opinion, as if that is good data.
try:
http://www.pewforum.org/2013/1...
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Sorry, but if one agrees with "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time", then then that person *is* by definition the most extreme form of evolution doubter, i.e., the young earth creationist. (OK, I guess there might be some old earth creationists out there that believe that life has continued for billions of years in unchanged form, but that makes about as much sense as the the young earth evolutionist.)
If you want to disagree with the actual results/methodology, fine, but as I've noted, these numbers are not out of line with other polls I've seen. But it's disingenuous to attack the wording of the question when so many respond affirmatively to a statement that is unambiguously equivalent to "the evolution of species never happened".
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
Oh, I agree completely.
But they did report the same number as the Pew site you studied. I was being sarcastic about Fox.
You are welcome on my lawn.
How long do palaeontologists get before this site is destroyed in the name of oil?
For example the vatican has long recognized evolution, and the earth as being very old. In europe creationism, YEC, and so forth are nigh unknown. It is an indiosynchrazie of the US with YEC and creationism, litterral bible interpretation.
10,000 years ago?
Go to any Walmart in the USA, and you'll find more giant beavers there than you can shake yer stick at!
While it doesn't make any distinction between anywhere on the spectrum
Yep. That's my point.
Yep. That's my point.
But so what? The question is still entirely unambiguous by its construct, essentially, "do you believe humans and other species are unchanged from the beginning of time, or not?" There's no credible gray area there; if you answer in the affirmative, you deny or ignore all evidence of the evolution of species.
So while you can't draw any nuances from the views of those who chose the evolution option, it does quite clearly identify those who reject evolution entirely, right down to the fossil record. And the poll indicates an overwhelming majority of evangelicals and a very substantial percentage of self-identified Christians in general quite clearly, again, reject evolution *entirely*.
Which was *my* point, as counter-evidence to the OP's assertion:
Most Christians believe in evolution. Even the fundamentalist ones.
...where it appears the first assertion is at best marginally true (it shows a slim majority of Christians don't reject evidence of evolution entirely), and the second seems to be demonstrably false. I understand the inclination of the Christians who don't accept young earth creationism to distance themselves from it and to downplay its significance in the Christian faith, but that doesn't change the fact that by all estimates YEC is a very widely held belief among US Christians (your denomination may vary) and the dominant belief of US evangelicals.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
There are almost never binary choices. I can correctly answer true to 'existed in their present form' since before humans there was no concept of time as we couldn't think about it before we existed. We evolve slowly, so by the time we came up with the concept of time we were already similar to how we are now.
I don't believe many (if any) people used than interpretation when answering the question, but it's a valid interpretation if 'beginning of time' wasn't defined. English sucks. Word choice is extremely important. There are always different interpretations.
I always though the Fundamentalist position was that fossils were put there by God, so as to test the faith of hapless followers.
If that's true, then creationists are being blasphemous when they suggest that their beliefs are supported by physical evidence, since an omniscient, omnipotent God wouldn't leave any. (Although they're obviously not above it if that's what it takes to get it taught in public schools.)
Where are all the loud Christians— the ones who aren't insane—when it comes time to shout down the anti-scientific bias being introduced into school systems in certain American states?
I'll take what you're saying far more seriously when I see the sober-minded Christians busy shouting down their own who cross the line. I sure as hell shout down scientists who begin to claim more than science can reasonably pretend to know. This particularly stereotype was well and duly earned through meek opposition. The meek shall inherit the worst.
But so what?
It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints. Kind of how voting often works, especially in the US.
you damned communist! oh wait .....
why advanced?
These 'fossils' are in fact put in place by the devil to convince mankind that there is no God, driving more hapless followers into his evil realm.
Yeah, don't focus on the awesomeness of the find.. Rather spend your time being a troll.
Comments like this nonsensical trolling are exactly why nobody can get along. Posters like this need to mature and start focusing on moving forward and progressing rather than picking fights, spreading more intolerance, and generally being Internet slime.
well I believe in evolution but not AGW. or correction, I dont disagree that AGW *may* be happening, I simply believe if it is, its not the doom and gloom that the supporters make it otu to be.
to me, the AGW crowd is the same as the people who believe that the rapture is coming, just their rapture is sea rising.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
its sad when the news sources (Fox news MSNBC) cant be trusted because they are so full of shit that we in america have to rely on outside sources for reliable news
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
OK, you didn't read what I wrote.
I'm not saying that all climate-change deniers don't believe in evolution, I'm saying that all evolution deniers don't believe in climate change.
I think there is certainly room for someone who accepts science to question AGW. But not believing in evolution comes with a cultural, tribal set of beliefs that would include the notion that there is some conspiracy among scientists to fabricate man-made climate change in order to advance an evil secular agenda.
You are welcome on my lawn.
I respect hookers that respect my money. This already is a selection criteria that is sharp like a razor and if I were smart I would have also used why choosing my ex-wife by I digress. The hookers are as much of god's plan as the rest. I can imagine however that those not enforcing use of condoms should be condemned to hell, at least as long as all health issues associate with such reckless approach are not resolved.
The poll questions, as well as your comments, reveal more about the misconceptions and prejudices of the speaker than about the actual beliefs of the respondents. A thoughtful YEC (Young Earth Creationist) could not answer "yes" to "do you believe humans and other species are unchanged from the beginning of time?" First of all, in the Genesis account of creation living creatures were created on the fifth and sixth days, not at "the beginning of time" (the first day). Second, no one in the YEC community believes that "species are unchanged". YECs allow for natural variation within created "kinds", which roughly correspond to the "family" in scientific classification. For example, a YEC would believe that most Felidae species descended from an original "proto-cat" (my term) through a designed process of limited adaptation. What a YEC does not believe is that inanimate matter plus chance plus time led to the great diversity and complexity of life that we see today.
I can't defend the appalling behavior of your street-corner preacher, for "all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God" and "If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us."
But C. S. Lewis had a good answer to your question about the square circle (or the more often heard question of "could God make a rock so large that he could not move it.")
"His Omnipotence means power to do all that is intrinsically possible, not to do the intrinsically impossible. You may attribute miracles to Him, but not nonsense. There is no limit to His power.
It remains true that all things are possible with God: the intrinsic impossibilities are not things but nonentities. It is no more possible for God than for the weakest of His creatures to carry out both of two mutually exclusive alternatives; not because His power meets an obstacle, but because nonsense remains nonsense even when we talk it about God."
It's an easy way to get higher poll numbers for an extreme position when there is no intermediate position to echo actual peoples' viewpoints.
OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time". There's certainly none I can think of.
Not to mention, compared to other polls I've seen that *do* offer more nuanced options, this poll actually shows a *lower* number for the number who reject evolution (other polls show 45% or more). If anything this poll is biased towards showing people *favoring* evolution, not rejecting it.
For instance, look at Gallup's polling on the subject over 30+ years. They offer 3 options...
- Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, but God guides the process.
- Humans evolved over millions of years from less advanced life forms, but God played no part.
- God created humans pretty much as they now exist at some point within the past 10,000 years or so.
Yet with these more nuanced options, the creationist position has consistently averaged around 45% going back to 1982, 12 points higher than the Pew poll which you assert forces people into the more extreme position. Kind of blows a hole in your hypothesis, I'd say.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
After re reading i do see that your subset was reversed from the way I initially read it.Thank you for clarification
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
OK, then, please enunciate a nuanced position on evolution that would cause someone to choose the extreme position of "humans and other living things have existed in their present form since the beginning of time" over "humans and other living things have evolved over time".
Pretty much any position. IMHO a lot of people just randomly pick poll choices when their viewpoint isn't accurately represented or when they don't understand the poll question in the first place.
If there really were that many people with those beliefs, then they'd have better luck getting their agenda into classrooms. And they'd be a lot more overt about it too.
Since you kept on this far...
Pretty much any position. IMHO a lot of people just randomly pick poll choices when their viewpoint isn't accurately represented or when they don't understand the poll question in the first place.
That's a weak cop-out. You know full well that anyone who accepts the general scientific consensus of the timeline of natural history would not choose the creationist option in either of the polls I cited, no matter what role that person leaves for an omnipotent hand in the process. Oh, you may have few jokers or idiots who don't understand the options, but that kind of noise is in every poll. You may as well say that no poll result (or in this case, 30 years worth of consistent results) can ever be trusted at all because people just answer randomly. If so, your argument ends there.
If there really were that many people with those beliefs, then they'd have better luck getting their agenda into classrooms. And they'd be a lot more overt about it too.
Well, now you're just coming up with rationalizations why the polls *can't* be true. In my view they *have* had significant success promoting their agenda, quite overtly, especially in the areas where these beliefs dominate. (And make no mistake, it is to a large extent a geographically and demographically concentrated worldview.) Even if I concede that with those numbers they should be even more successful, that doesn't prove anything about how prevalent they are. I would argue a large part of what keeps them from promoting their beliefs any further than they do is a functioning (at least somewhat) separation of church and state.
Believe me, I'd love nothing better than find some credible evidence that full bore denial of evolution was just some fringe belief of a tiny obnoxious minority, and all the polls consistently showing them as widespread are just an NSA-sponsored psyop designed to drive rational people into despair. And if you have such evidence, by all means, bust it out. If not, though, then I have to go with the best evidence I have, which states otherwise.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
That's a weak cop-out.
Doesn't matter. It's good enough.
You know full well that anyone who accepts the general scientific consensus of the timeline of natural history would not choose the creationist option in either of the polls I cited, no matter what role that person leaves for an omnipotent hand in the process.
I don't know any such thing. You don't either.
Believe me, I'd love nothing better than find some credible evidence that full bore denial of evolution was just some fringe belief of a tiny obnoxious minority, and all the polls consistently showing them as widespread are just an NSA-sponsored psyop designed to drive rational people into despair.
Elections in the regions in question are a good indication that there are considerably less such people than claimed by the polls. Seriously, why do you think almost 50% of the population adheres to creationist views and yet never wonder why creationist ideology has a really hard time getting into school curricula anywhere in the US?
My take is that believers in creationism at best make up 10% of the US population. If it really was 40-45% as claimed by the Gallop poll and others, then the US would look a lot different than it actually does.
Seriously, why do you think almost 50% of the population adheres to creationist views and yet never wonder why creationist ideology has a really hard time getting into school curricula anywhere in the US?
Well, just because you believe in creationism, doesn't mean you also wish the state force creationism onto others.
AFAICT, the polling question was only on what the person believes in, not whether they want the state to do something about it.
Let's have some nuance here ;)
And then there's money. There's more money from scientists (like those AGW scientists remember?) pushing their global warming agenda.
There's a casual link between climate scientists and fossil scientists too: climate scientists tell us we should stop drilling for oil, stop cutting down trees, etc. This benefits fossil scientists as the environment would be left undisturbed for them (because messing up the environment for profit is doubleplusungood, messing up the environment FOR SCIENCE is ok). If fossil scientist are successful in discovering more proof for evolution, they further indoctrinate kids to believe in science, which leads to believing in AGW, benefiting the climate scientists.
While the church also has money, I'll compliment the church and guess that much of the church's money is spent on actual charity, including education.
My take is that believers in creationism at best make up 10% of the US population.
Yet over this entire exchange, you have yet to produce one shred of solid evidence for this, and dismiss out of hand all of the evidence indicating otherwise. Kind of like the creationists, actually.
You are pretty much reduced to (a) claiming that accurate polling is impossible on the matter (rendering the question unanswerable, how else can you measure the prevalence of beliefs?), and (b) claiming an unfounded number based upon your mere supposition of how those number would manifest politically, even though I (and the AC above, which I'm amazed anyone would still be following this thread) offered explanations why that would not necessarily be true. (Not even to mention, I think you overstate your general premise that creationists have a "really hard time" promoting their agenda, I assert they do quite well at it, especially in the areas where they are politically dominant).
Obviously, at this point I'm not going to convince you to accept any evidence that contradicts your belief. But you have made it clear that all you have to contradict that evidence is your belief, much like the creationists. So unless you have some actual contrary evidence as opposed to speculation and your unfounded "take" on the prevalence of creationist beliefs, I declare this horse fully beaten to death.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
My comment went from +4, Funny to -1, Flamebait, which would mean most moderators seem to think that I am making fun of a rational POV in order to stat a flame war? Interesting, and you can't blame this to the Beta!
Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
Yet over this entire exchange, you have yet to produce one shred of solid evidence for this, and dismiss out of hand all of the evidence indicating otherwise. Kind of like the creationists, actually.
Recall I mentioned elections? That's hard evidence. Let me elaborate. There are several indications from elections for school boards and similar positions that creationists are not very common:
1. ) The development of Intelligent Design propaganda. If 40-45% of the US population is hard core creationist, then why the need for creationism-lite?
2. ) Non-uniform distribution of creationists. Keep in mind that if there really were that many creationists in the US, they would not be uniformly distributed. There would be places like the Bible Belt or Utah and Idaho where they would have a much higher concentration. As a result, they would be dominating the politics of those areas in a way that isn't actually being done. The fact that school boards and similar political organs aren't normally dominated by creationists indicates to me that they don't actually have a voting majority anywhere in the US.
3. ) It is rare for a creationist-heavy board to come to power and they generally do so by hiding their beliefs until they get a voting majority. Ninja boards are another indication that they aren't that numerous.
4. ) And when a creationist-heavy board does come to power, their goals are very limited, usually to things like advocating ambiguous "alternative viewpoints" to evolution.
5. ) And most of the time, when a creationist-heavy board does do the above, it gets voted out. Seriously, check up on a few of the famous cases from previous years.
So a Gallup poll says one thing and thousands of US election polls say another. Which should I believe? No offense, but I think this demonstrates that Gallup has gone downhill.
Well, just because you believe in creationism, doesn't mean you also wish the state force creationism onto others.
But you do wish the state to force evolution onto others, which you don't believe in? I don't buy that reasoning at all.
I see a lot of speculation and assumption here, but still no hard evidence that the polls are overstating creationist belief by 300%-500% (and not just Gallup, I never seen any poll that supports your <10% figure).
I don't buy the argument that if X% of people believe Y, then you`d *certainly* see it manifest politically as Z. As one example off the top of my head, polls have shown a majority of Americans favoring full recreational legalization of marijuana for a good 8-10 years now. And though the laws are slowly changing to reflect that, I`d say that success in the political arena is quite limited compared to what people say they believe, much like you are stating about creationism. That doesn't prove that the polls are wrong; it just means there are many reasons why a prevalent belief might not manifest as strongly in the political arena as you'd think. (E.g., entrenched interests, constitutional restraints, the fact that just because someone believes something doesn't make it the person's primary political concern at the voting booth, etc.) So sorry, how you think these beliefs would manifest politically is mere speculation and not hard evidence of anything.
I don't take any offense of your opinion of Gallup as I have nothing to do with them, nor do I think polls can't often be biased. I'll even concede there's a pretty big gap between Pew and Gallup (33% vs 45%) on what are nearly equivalent creationist answers, so I don't regard these numbers as gospel (pun intended). But as someone who's followed Nate Silver through the last few election cycles, I can say with confidence that polls, especially in aggregate, do have some basic level of accuracy. So when you say *all* of these polls are overstating creationist beliefs by 300%-500%, I'd call that an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence, and you've provided nothing of the sort.
And I will also point out, you started out this exchange on the appropriateness of the poll question...only to shift back to every reason you believe such high numbers can't be accurate. Like I said earlier, I'd be overjoyed to see hard evidence that less than 10% of people believed such nonsense, the difference for me is that I can't simply dismiss hard data out of hand because it contradicts what I want to believe. And while you may not think so, in my view you are doing exactly that.
Horse stew for dinner tonight.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
As one example off the top of my head, polls have shown a majority of Americans favoring full recreational legalization of marijuana for a good 8-10 years now. And though the laws are slowly changing to reflect that, I`d say that success in the political arena is quite limited compared to what people say they believe, much like you are stating about creationism.
I disagree. "Medical marijuana" has been legalized in three states and marijuana for recreational purposes has been legalized in three states. All but one of these were approved by ballot initiative which requires at least a majority of votes in order to pass. And they're likely to stay on the books. Some of these laws have been kicking around for more than 15 years.
A perusal of the Wikipedia article on this is instructive. To summarize, there is no state level mandate to support even the weaker "intelligent design" (ID) in school curricula. Every time it has been tried, it has ultimately failed. For example, twice the Kansas Board of Education tried to approve ID-friendly curricula, and twice that board has been reversed within two years of making that decision.
So marijuana advocates have made substantial gains in recent years while creationists, supposedly just as numerous, have not. This evidence doesn't fit with the polls which claim that there's almost a majority of people who believe in hard core creationism.
I think there's a simple explanation. The polls are wrong. I don't pretend to know exactly why. But as I noted earlier, the use of binary, no nuance questions may have contributed to this error.
Twenty states and the District of Columbia allow the use of marijuana for medical purposes, and two of those states, Colorado and Washington, have also legalized the recreational use of the drug. Those numbers may grow this year, as several other states are considering measures to legalize marijuana use.
I understand Rhode Island also allows recreational use of the drug via a piece of legislation.
Well, actually there's something like 18 states with med laws (though most of them are functionally useless)...but polling on allowing medical marijuana alone goes as high as 80% or more...and only 2 states have 'legalized' for recreational purposes...in neither case is the political success even close to reflecting public opinion. So again, I'd say that shows that just because a belief is widely held *doesn't* mean it will translate proportionally into policy. And I'd also posit that the *only* reason for the success of MJ advocates is because of ballot initiatives where the people can directly vote on the issue. Creationists, on the other hand, have had to influence elected school boards and legislatures (I am unaware of anywhere where these issues were decided by referendum), which makes it much harder for even a powerful minority to buck the system. And since the polls show creationists are *not* a majority as is the case with people favoring MJ legalization (or an overwhelming majority for medical MJ laws), whatever lack of success you think the creationists have had in comparison can easily be explained along those lines, as well as a number of other plausible factors i can think of, some of which I expressed earlier. The bottom line, as I see it, is that you are effectively arguing that the translation of a widely held public opinion into *successful* political action is *so certain* that the lack thereof is conclusive proof that the polling of that opinion is consistently overstated by a factor of 3-5. I find that patently absurd.
I think there's a simple explanation. The polls are wrong. I don't pretend to know exactly why.
If you invoke Occam's Razor to discount evidence (as opposed to hypotheses), you're using it wrong. That you "don't pretend to know exactly why" is an tacit admission of an unexplained mechanism that makes all of these polls *massively* overstate creationist beliefs. (Highlights: only the Scanadinavian countries seems to poll in approx the range you claim; even the UK, Canada, and Australia report closer (in the 25% range) to the US numbers than what you posit; and "A study published in Science compared [34 nations'] attitudes about evolution ...the only country where acceptance of evolution was lower than in the United States was Turkey.") Yet instead you offer up a lot of (IMO mostly unfounded) speculation as to why the prevalence of these beliefs "must" be lower, as if such outcomes are so certain that they override all of the other evidence (which IMO, they certainly are not). You therefore conclude that *all* the poll data must be not just inaccurate, but wrong to the point that 75-80% of people on multiple polls by multiple pollsters in multiple nations who choose the unambiguous creationist option *don't* really believe it. But you don't even claim to know why nor have you really articulated any credible way in which either the Gallup or Pew questions (which IMO were entirely clear and unambiguous) "may have contributed" to being misunderstood by the vast majority of respondents. In the language of Occam's Razor, that is quite a few unfounded assumptions.
In other words, your "simplest explanation" really seems to be the one that fits your pre-existing belief even though you have no evidence for it or any explanation why all the polls are so very wrong. My "simplest explanation" for the poll numbers is that they are correct (or at least reasonably accurate), and since all of your counter-arguments are at best speculative and IMO not conclusive of anything at all, you give me no reason to even entertain an unknown explanation in order to reject many years worth of consistent polling results.
Feel free to disagree, but don't expect me to tell you that you're making a rational argument, because you're not.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
So again, I'd say that shows that just because a belief is widely held *doesn't* mean it will translate proportionally into policy.
Except that the movement for marijuana legalization is translating into policy.
Creationists, on the other hand, have had to influence elected school boards and legislatures (I am unaware of anywhere where these issues were decided by referendum), which makes it much harder for even a powerful minority to buck the system.
Not at all. You can go beyond influencing the school board or legislature. You stack the deck by getting enough of your people elected. If they really had anything close to a majority, it wouldn't be that hard and certainly would be cheaper than running a statewide referendum. Please keep in mind that they can't even maintain a weak compromise position at the state level.
but don't expect me to tell you that you're making a rational argument
Clearly, you think mu argument isn't rational for some reason. But elections are polls too. And polls that a lot of people actually happen to care about and participate in. And as I see it, when a Gallup poll ends up contradicting an election poll, I go with the latter.
But elections are polls too. And polls that a lot of people actually happen to care about and participate in. And as I see it, when a Gallup poll ends up contradicting an election poll, I go with the latter.
But nobody votes for "I believe in YEC" in the election booth, unless by public referendum and I know of no such referendum anywhere. Generally, a voter picks a candidate to represent him/her based a prioritization of ALL issues important to the voter. So you are comparing apples and watermelons here, and making the implicit assumption that the vast majority of people who say they accept creationism have mandating creationist education as their #1 political priority. That is the glaring flaw in your argument and I don't find that a tenable position, to put it mildly.
And strange....when these same organizations conduct actual election polling that does compare apples-to-apples to actual election results, the standard margin of error is around 3%. But you compare a general opinion poll to that same election result, add a healthy dose of speculation and unfounded assumptions, and now you seem perfectly comfortable concluding on that basis alone that all of the opinion polls are totally, but yet somehow consistently out in left field.
That's my "some reason" for saying your argument is not rational, and you only keep convincing me of that further with each response.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.
But nobody votes for "I believe in YEC" in the election booth, unless by public referendum and I know of no such referendum anywhere.
Both times that the Kansas Board of Education was overturned by election after an Intelligent Design move, it was clearly people who didn't believe in ID who perserved. And for Youth Earthers, what educational priority is going to be higher, especially when ID or creationist proponents could make it easy by providing a group of candidates to vote for?
And strange....when these same organizations conduct actual election polling that does compare apples-to-apples to actual election results, the standard margin of error is around 3%.
There are two things to note here. First, election polling is a relatively cut and dry matter. There's only a few choices (even when the subject is ignorant of the matter, they may well vote as they poll). It's harder for wording of questions to bias the poll.
Second, that polling was well off in the 2004 US presidential election (enough to spur charges of vote fraud conspiracy).
Re the 2004 election, all I'll say is that the discrepancies are nowhere near what you are suggesting for the creationist polls.
As for the difference between the accuracy of election polls vs opinion polls, I can even buy that up to a point. After all as I noted, Pew gets 33% and Gallup gets 45% for what are both crystal-clear creationist options, that's a huge gap by election poll standards. But only up to a point. Pew gets 33%, Gallup 45%, but you want me to believe <10% without being able to produce even one poll to support anything close to that, a number less than polls of any country save for maybe Iceland and Norway. That's way beyond the point.
Otherwise, you're pretty much repeating the same kind of fallacious arguments in different variations over and over. I could reciprocate in the same vein until the cows come home: if there are so few creationists, why is "Left Behind" so popular, and why are there so many megachurches that cater to this nonsense, why does virtually no US politician publicly denounce the creationist agenda....and on and on with lots of circumstantial evidence that these views are indeed widespread. But that would all be based on various assumptions and biases that might make good rhetoric, but it's not rational argument.
And guess what? I don't have to make that kind of argument...because (sorry Trigger, here it comes again) pretty much every public opinion poll ever done on the matter indicates that at least a third of US population accepts creationism, and I don't need to invoke the proxy argument of "but if the were as few creationists you claim, then blah-bitty-blah" because as far as I know, the public opinion poll, however imperfect it may be, is the best measurement we have for, y'know, public opinion. That leaves you with the burden of proving your contention that all of the polls are so consistently wrong. As much I would celebrate it if you could prove your view to be even remotely likely, you have not convinced me in the slightest of it.
Momentarily, the need for the construction of new light will no longer exist.