jump to last post 1-7 of 7 discussions (222 posts)

In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings

  1. 0
    Rad Manposted 3 years ago

    In June 2012, Gallup's latest findings showed that 46% of Americans believed in creationism, 32% believed in evolution guided by God, and 15% believed in atheistic evolution.

    http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/0 … board-war/

    This seems astonishing to me. Almost 50% of Americans think the universe is less than 10,000 years old.

    1. DoubleScorpion profile image85
      DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Well America is ranked (as of June of 2013) as #17 of 50 countries in Education Systems. With Science and Math falling below the Average.

    2. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not all religions believe the Universe is only 10000 yrs old Rad but I get the point you are trying to make.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The point is the pole showed
        46% of Americans believed in creationism
        32% believed in evolution guided by God

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          So does it show 78% of Americans still believe in god?

          Polls usually have a slant on them for some reason or other, I do not dispute the numbers listed in the poll I just wonder why it would be useful.

          How many Americans still believe in the tooth fairy? Asking those over 18 may give a different answer to those under 15.

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            You'll have to take that up with Gallup. They are the experts in polling.

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              After reading the link again I understand why the poll is conducted on a regular basis.

        2. psycheskinner profile image81
          psycheskinnerposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          On the other hand it showed that 57% believe in evolution (if not abiogenisis), which I find quite encouraging really.

    3. 0
      Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hmm.  In that 46%, is there any distinction between Young Earth Creationists and others who believe that the world was created but is far more than 10,000 years old?  And is there an accounting for those who believe that there is a creator who set in motion natural processes (such as evolution) that have been happening for billions of years?

      I'd just be curious to know how extensive the poll was.

      big_smile

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Ha! Reading the article answered my question sort of.  Do you wanna know what I find more disturbing about AIG than anything?  That they spend tens of millions of dollars on advertising that could be spent doing what Jesus told us to do-like feeding the hungry, sheltering the homeless, giving drink to the thirsty, and clothing the naked. 

        Defending the faith has become so much more important than living it these days.  Talk about messed up priorities.  Doesn't matter one bit where we came from or where we're headed if we're going to miss the mark so badly while we're right here

        Sigh.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image85
          DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If only more thought as you do. Think of the Good that could be done. Really sad...

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It would be ... wonderful to see.  I'm grateful that we get glimpses of it, but I'm of the opinion that oft shouldn't be an occasional glimpse, rather a full time panoramic view.

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Ya, that ran through my head as well. They are spending 1/2 a million on advertising. Or at least I think that's what it said.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I think you are correct.  The tens of millions I referred to was actually their operating budget.  Sorry about that.  smile

        3. EncephaloiDead profile image58
          EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well put, some believers here could learn from those words. smile

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Oh,  those folks don't wanna learn anything from me.  I'm not a real believer after all.  wink

    4. 0
      MysticMoonlightposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm actually a bit surprised that it's not more than 46% really. Perhaps that's just because I live in an area of America that lives and breathes Christianity and Christianity only...and I do mean nothing but Christianity...all the time, 24/7, 365.

      Did I mention I live in the Bible SUIT? LOL wink

    5. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Not everyone who believes that God created the world believe it is necessarily less than 10,000 years old.

      1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Why doesn't everyone who believes that God created the world believe it less than 10,000 years old? Do they not believe what scriptures says about it? Why would that be?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Does it actually say in the scriptures that the earth is only 10000 years old? I have never read it.

          I have read that god created the earth in 6 days and on the 7th he rested, but my own personal belief is why would an entity that was eternal have a 24 hr. day? Of course the account doesn't allude to the time except for the 7 days, which many have seen as 7 literal 24 hr. days.
          In the vastness of the universe do we measure anything in our own literal 24hr. days?

          My thoughts are more about not how long god took to do it they are more about is there a god and if so why would he create these things.

          1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
            EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            "The Bible says the world is about six thousand years old. How do we arrive at that number?"

            http://www.missiontoamerica.com/genesis … years.html



            Yes, we do, that is why it is called a "day".



            But, if you believe God created the world, don't you also have to believe it is less than 10,000 years old? Are you saying you believe some things in the Bible but not others?

            1. Silverspeeder profile image61
              Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              The bible says man is 6000 years old, it even says that in your link, it then goes on to assert that because man is 6000 yrs old the earth must be as well. It doesn't actually say in the bible how old the earth is.

              So how many days is it to the nearest star (not including our own).

              So again where does it say god created the earth in 144 hrs? And no I don't have to believe its less than 10000 years old.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Of course you don't have to believe that nonsense, you also don't have to believe that man has only been around for 6000 years because all the evidence says at least 200,000.

                1. Silverspeeder profile image61
                  Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I am still working on that Rad, you told me to go away and learn something before (maybe not in those words) and that is what I am doing at the moment. maybe I will come back with an objection or agreement when I have learnt enough.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Are you denying biblical scholars findings? I can come up with an endless supply of sources that confirm what the bible says about that.



                Distances such as that are measured in light years. The closest star is around 4 light years away.



                It says a "day", which we all know is 24 hours, they knew that back then, as well.



                That's fine, you deny the findings of biblical scholars and you don't believe what the Bible says. I have no problem with that.

      2. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        The pole showed
        46% of Americans believed in creationism
        32% believed in evolution guided by God

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          It's still an assumption to believe that everyone who believes in Creationism therefor subscribes to the theory developed and expounded by a man that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.

          Soooooo, do you have numbers that state "48% (or whatever number) of people in America literally believe the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old," or are you making an extrapolation that doesn't necessarily hold up?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Ah, I take it you didn't read the article. The second last paragraph says…

            "For as long as Gallup has conducted the survey, creationism has remained far and away the most popular answer, with 40% to 47% of Americans surveyed saying they believed that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years."

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              mea culpa.

              I just knew that I keep hearing about the growing number of people who think that God used evolution. I don't know I'd personally go that far, but I don't know that the Earth is only 10,000 years old.

              1. 0
                Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                What do you think? You should know that the evidence for evolution is overwhelming and denying it is like denying that air exists.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I think that for me the evidence of God is overwhelming.

                  The rest I ponder and puzzle over.

                  1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    The odd thing about evidence is that when it is overwhelming, everyone usually agrees.

                    For example, gravity has overwhelming evidence.

                    Gods don't.

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
            EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I thought it was expounded by the Bible, the official word of God.

        2. vehnh profile image61
          vehnhposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The Bible is an official word of a bunch of nomad sheep herders that thought the earth was flat, never,  heard of an atom, and had no idea where the sun went every evening.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Evolution was proposed by a guy who thought that if you practiced running and got really fast, that cells from your internal organs would travel to your testicles where they would pass to your child and insure that HE also ran really fast...because YOU practiced at it.

            There's a point there... assemble it yourself.

            1. BuddiNsense profile image59
              BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That certainly is not evolution, unless you are sarcastic.

              I disagree, from birth on-wards education is about being logical and not making a fool of oneself.
              Quite agree with you. But if a school drop out becomes an excellent farmer or businessman, we do not call them educated farmer or businessman, do we? Third world countries have many farmers who are quite knowledgeable about their trade, but they are not considered countries with high education.

              No, they are not illogical skills, they are skills where logic is applied or where logic is not a factor. When a mad bulls charge at you, it is logical to escape though the one escaping is not thinking about logic.

              please explain.

              Education is indeed about thinking logically even if you do not like it.
              No, critical thinking is not simply questioning the information, it is arriving at a conclusion by analyzing and following the logic.
              Wrong examples, ethics and psychology is entirely based on  logic and all others we cannot apply the terms logic or illogic.[there is a logic behind that too, simply throwing paint on a canvas don't make art or pressing keys in a keyboard won't make music]

              Please demonstrate how.

              Theories are not rejected based on philosophy or religion but showing contradictions and showing that the theory has not taken into account all facts. (hope you know what a theory is.)

              Exactly, and the rules of the process is called logic.
              Again straw man. Someone rejecting a theory because it does not go with their prejudice may be close minded but I am not talking about close mindedness but about someone who does not get educated. Someone who reject the the theory because they have not educated themselves, is the sort of people I am talking about.
              It is not about believing one book over other, but believing stories verses getting educated.

              Never said so. Unless someone get educated they cannot know about evolution to accept it. It is the learning process they underwent to accept or reject, called education.

              Get the list of highly educated nations and get the list of % of atheists in those nations you will get the correlation. The more educated the nation is the more the % of atheists (who not only accept evolution but also reject god (not only creation) and get the list of nations which are in the bottom of the list and get the % of the theists (check the gallop polls there is more of a correlation) in those nations, you get the correlation.

              How did you read the statement "you are prejudiced" to mean "you are prejudiced against me", if you are not prejudiced. I said you are prejudiced, not prejudiced against me. You do not even know me, why should you be prejudiced against me?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                1. I encourage you to actually read Darwin's theories.
                2. I don't think we have a shared base on educational theory. Nothing personal, it's one of my things. A great place to start is with the works of Glasser and Rogers. Stiener is great. Malaguzzi is great. Even Montessori is an OK place to start. I really can't run you through the general principles of education in a forum post.
                3. You really need to work on causation vs. correlation. In addition, before statements like " The more educated the nation is the more the % of atheists" you need to define what constitutes "more educated" From your previous statements apparently you don't consider agricultural studies an education. So what are we looking at here? Is your entire view of "educated" based on acceptance of Evolution? That's rather limited. It's also a circular argument. If you define education by acceptance of evolution, then of course only those who accept evolution are deemed to be educated.

                I would still like to see links on your statement.

                In addition, once again, you are confusing knowledge with acceptance. One can know all about the theory of evolution and still dismiss it. You are assuming that choosing creationism means an ignorance of the theory of evolution. That's the same as assuming that atheists don't believe in God because they are ignorant of the bible.

                4. OK then, what are my prejudices?

                1. BuddiNsense profile image59
                  BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And I encourage you to study and understand it.
                  That will not change the fact that a drop out successful business man is an uneducated business man.
                  You need to read correlation as correlation not causation. One can learn agriculture by practicing it and learning it from ones ancestors, but that is not  "educated" in agriculture.

                  I didn't say choosing creation means ignorance of theory of evolution, what I said is there are well educated people who reject evolution for various reasons and such "educated" people are a minority.

                  After all these you still want me to point it out?


                  PS: I don't know why the answers are coming out in bold letters, I didn't do it.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I have read it and do understand it, apparently you have not. The example that I gave was indeed a part of Darwins theories. If you had read them, you would know that.

                    In addition, you don't get to move the goal posts because you were losing. The conversation, which is available for all to read, was whether critical thinking necessarily was logical thinking. It isn't. In addition, you further argued that education was about critical thinking. It isn't. Sorry you were wrong then and you're still wrong.

                    Furthermore, a successful business man is by definition educated. Just as a farmer that learns the trade from his ancestors. But, in addition, there are degrees in Agriculture. Just saying.

                    But yes, please do point out my prejudices against your arguments... you know other than them being wrong. What bias, except me apparently having more education on the subjects we are discussing, is apparent to you?

                    In addition, you implied causation not correlation... and you provide no evidence except your word on it in either case. I'm still waiting for those links.

                    While you are looking for links to back that one up... find me some that back this statement:

                    " I said is there are well educated people who reject evolution for various reasons and such "educated" people are a minority."

            2. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this
              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Smartass. smile

              2. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                That study is fascinating!  As a person dealing with two chronic illnesses thought to have a strong genetic/hereditary component, I'd love for them to learn more.  smile

    6. BuddiNsense profile image59
      BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Is it any wonder that America is loosing its grip, with this many uneducated citizens?

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Just pointing out, again, that not believing in evolution does not necessarily mean uneducated.

        My two oldest sons could run circles around most adults in learned knowledge by the time they were 14 and they had never heard of the theory of evolution.

        I think general knowledge would be a better indicator of academic achievement than acceptance/refutation of one single scientific theory. Actually, just about any marker would be a better indicator.

        That's like saying that if someone constantly misspells a specific word, they are uneducated.

        1. BuddiNsense profile image59
          BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What do you mean by "education"? Is it the ability to memorise?

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            No, I mean the ability to think. Memorizing is part of that, yes. So is spacial reasoning, logic/critical thinking, philosophy, emotional intelligence and a whole host of other thinking skills.

            Scientific-type reasoning is only one thinking skill. Don't get hung up on it as the only indication of educational achievement.

            1. BuddiNsense profile image59
              BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              "reasoning, logic/critical thinking
              Logical/critical thinking will discount any sort of creation and if the person is still holding onto creation and discarding evolution the person is hardly "educated".

        2. Zelkiiro profile image84
          Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          The point is that, if they can't accept the theory of evolution, then it's hardly likely they're knowledgeable in the sciences at all, and it puts into question what other elementary facts they don't accept.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That's bunk. Firstly, you are assuming that those who don't accept the theory of evolution are not knowledgeable about it. Secondly, it also assumes that those who don't accept evolution also don't accept any other scientific facts.

            Are there a whole host of religious fanatics out there denying the existence of mitosis? Is there some great debate over centrifugal force? Are Kepler's laws of planetary motion being debated from pulpits around the US?

            You are making the quite human mistake of thinking that if a person believes one thing you think is "stupid" or "uneducated" that everything they think ever is stupid or uneducated. If you want to believe that, feel free. Although it doesn't say much about your critical thinking skills wink

            1. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              smile

            2. Chris Neal profile image83
              Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              I am often reminded of a particular scene in The Big Bang Theory when Sheldon goes home and is having dinner with his mother (the buffoonish, stereotypical Southern Jesus Freak.) He says that evolution has been proven, she retorts that that is 'his opinion.'

              In fell swoop, the show managed to completely miss the point all around and yet still make out like science has 'won' the argument.

              So why aren't kids taught the Law of Evolution in school then?

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Sorry Buddy, I was up with you til right there.

                An established scientific theory is the same to the scientific community as God's law is to the devout.

                Sort of.

                Except they use empirical evidence and religion uses holy text. Scientific theory is not the same as one of Sherlock Holmes theories. It doesn't mean "a good guess". It means it has survived the rigors of all that the scientific criticisms that the community has thrown at it and emerged unscathed.

                Now, you don't want to accept it based on religious reasons. Which puts it squarely in the philosophical domain to you. That's cool. However, philosophical arguments don't swim in the domain of science. As I said, stick to the category in which you mind has stuck the question "How did we get here?"

                Attempts at proving/disproving a philosophical point with science not only makes you look foolish, but it defeats the purpose of philosophy/religion in the first place. The same goes for the science minded. Science has no place in philosophy, and attempts to bring it there are often childish and agenda based. Science shouldn't have an agenda. That defeats the purpose of the scientific method.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  I have had Scientific Theory explained to me a number of times and so your explanation confirmed that I do understand it.

                  Doesn't change that once it's fully proven, it's a Law, until then, no matter how strongly they believe it and on what basis, it's faith that it's proven.

                  That's why it's the Law of Gravity, and the Big Bang Theory.

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And if they changed it to the "Law of Evolution" would you suddenly stop believing that God made the world and everything in it?

                  2. Zelkiiro profile image84
                    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    ...And the theory of heliocentrism, cell theory, germ theory, valence bond theory, plate tectonics theory...

                  3. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                    EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It's clear you don't the know the difference between a Law and a Theory. Theories do not become laws due to being proven. Laws describe analytical statements and provide formulas to calculate what something will do, like the Law of Gravity.

                    A theory will tell us why and how something happens, like the Theory of Gravity.

                    The are two completely different things and as such, we could never have a Law of Evolution.

              2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Evolution is not a law, it is a theory, a collection of facts.

              3. MizBejabbers profile image91
                MizBejabbersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                We were taught the theory of evolution. Perhaps your question should be "when did they stop teaching evolution in school?" I think the answer is when the creationists raised such a fuss. The administrators took it out of the curricula because they were afraid they would have to give equal time to religion-based creationism. Some states tried to pass laws to that effect.

                1. Chris Neal profile image83
                  Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  You say that like it's a bad thing. wink

                  1. 0
                    Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    It is a bad thing. It's yet another time when religion interferes with the secular world.

            3. EncephaloiDead profile image58
              EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              That is very often the case. Anyone who is knowledgeable about evolution certainly doesn't reject it on any valid or credible grounds that have anything to do with the theory itself.



              That would be hypocrisy considering evolution is the most successful theory in science.

              1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                Those who don't accept it, generally don't accept it on philosophical grounds. That's an entirely valid reason. There are all kinds of examples of things that are accepted as beneficial or correct by the scientific community that are rejected, in mass, on ethical or philosophical grounds.

                The world does not live by logic alone.



                In my opinion, Jonas Salks theories on virology were a bit more successful. Louis Pasture's theories on  microbiology were pretty damn good as well. Hell, even Tesla was a pretty big deal.

                Of course I prefer actual physical science to theoretical science. "Thinking shit up just 'cause." was never a big motivator to me. I prefer "Thinking shit up so that it does something" It's more my speed.

                1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Philosophy can't invalidate facts, no matter how hard it tries. It could be a valid reason, but it doesn't have valid grounds.



                  That could be part of the problem. wink

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And science can't invalidate philosophy, no matter how it tries (which it shouldn't in the first place.) Just as a country can't be ruled by committee, philosophy shouldn't be ruled by empirical evidence. Philosophy is the first step in the scientific process. Show some respect.



                    Nah, I'm kind of fond of emotions and imagination. A world of sociopaths doesn't appeal to me.

                2. Zelkiiro profile image84
                  Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  And yet, germ theory and cell theory are theories, just like evolution, the Big Bang, and heliocentrism.

                  Huh...

                  1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I'm sure you have a point. I have no idea what it is, but I'm sure you have one.

        3. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          If they had never heard of evolution then they were uneducated about evolution. They may have been very well educated in math, English, history and biology, but not evolutionary biology. I am uneducated in a great many things.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            That was kind of my point. Sort of.

            Once again, being uneducated and not accepting are two different things.

            In addition, the lack of belief in evolution does not mean a person is uneducated in general, as BuddiNsense was implying in Chicken Little fashion. That also holds true on a national basis. The lack of belief in evolution, even by the majority, wouldn't be enough to label a whole country as uneducated. Even the lack of education in evolution wouldn't do that.

            I really do think you guys are putting too much weight on this as an indicator of anything. I don't believe it has nearly the impact that you are perceiving it to have.

            Like I said, I don't care and have no real belief one way or another. I manage to get both shoes on the correct feet. I can even walk and chew gum at the same time.

            1. BuddiNsense profile image59
              BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Anybody who has gone to school should understand evolution and by "critical thinking" should discard creation.
              What the gallop polls shows is that people cannot get out of the "ancient beliefs" and prejudices they got from their birth. Education is getting above once prejudices and level of education is inversely proportional to the religious beliefs in the nation and America is slipping down from the top in every indicator including education but going to the top in religiosity. [I never said it is the only indicator but it is a sensitive indicator though lack specificity.]

              1. Chris Neal profile image83
                Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                You show your own prejudice by asserting (even if by implication) that anyone who is 'educate' cannot believe in God. That's simply not true.

  2. MizBejabbers profile image91
    MizBejabbersposted 3 years ago

    I guess I'm not really surprised. I live in the Buckle of the Bible Belt. The Christian religion here is predominately fundamentalist, and most of them take Genesis literally. I'm just glad my dad taught me evolution. He was an atheist and believed in the atheist version of evolution. I was raised in the Christian church of my mother and studied the Bible.  I can cherry pick what I want to believe from both.

    1. EncephaloiDead profile image58
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I've never heard of that version? I always thought there was only one version, the one that includes the facts and evidence from scientists originally theorized by Darwin?

      1. MizBejabbers profile image91
        MizBejabbersposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Encephalodead, I think there are some nameless modified versions of evolution, but I guess here they are discussing straight Darwin.

  3. MelissaBarrett profile image60
    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago

    Was there a category for "Don't care?"

    I never really understood the raging debate on creationism vs. evolution. I know, I know great big important question. I just never understood why it was such a great big important question.

    Once again, I don't need to know who built my house to live in it.

    Don't get me wrong... I understand the SCIENTISTS reason for caring. They just live to figure s*** out. I just never understood why the religious cared... or why they cared enough to argue about it.

    Maybe it's just me.

    1. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Some think that genesis is fact and therefore think the universe is under 10,000 years old and during that time dinosaurs lived along side us because we were around from it's creation. By doing this they are saying most science is wrong. They look past the insurmountable evidence to justify their beliefs and they want to teach new generations to do the same. 46% of Americans think this way and I find that mind boggling. That's limiting the education and potential scientists of almost half the population.

      1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I understand why some Christians believe the Genesis thing. I just don't understand why they care if others do not.

        Personally, I never quite grasped beyond a high-school level understanding of evolution... probably because I really, honestly, truly don't care. It is an active apathy, if that's possible. I strive to not care.

        Now, with that said, my high-school level of knowledge evolution has done nothing to hinder my intellectual development.

        But, my complete and utter apathy on what/who created the universe/life/people hasn't really done anything to hinder my Christianity either.

        Once again, I don't understand why it's a big point of contention.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          Well, one side wants creationism taught as science in science class while the other side doesn't want kids to have there brains shut down by the nonsense.

          One side wants to throw out most of what we know about science and the universe because it conflicts with an old story written about the universe by people who didn't understand the universe a few thousand years ago while the other side is interested in a secular society.

          1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
            MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I love ya hon...

            But accepting creationism doesn't throw out most of what we know about science and the universe. Its a disagreement about the origin.

            One can believe that God created the universe without a whole lot of conflict with the rest of the scientific world. After all, 99.9 percent of science isn't based on evolutionary science. There is no conflict, for example, between molecular biology and creationism.

            I don't believe Creationism should be taught as science, because it isn't. I also think Evolution shouldn't be taught as philosophy, because it isn't either. I don't think either subject is suitable for a child under the age of say 16 or 17. By then, they should pretty much be able to sort for themselves which answer to the big question suits them... If they even care.

            The problem is when one side or the other wants to cross the line out of their domain. Both sides do it. Both are sticking their nose where it doesn't belong.

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Actually a lot of science would have to be thrown out for one to believe that evolution is a myth and the universe is less than 10,000 years old. If I have time I'll list as many as I can think of later. Right now I'm being called for dinner.

          2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
            EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Not only that, but creationism actually doesn't answer any questions or provides an explanation to anything. The whole story is contained on one page, in which the entire thing boils down to "Goddunit".

            Some have mentioned that they believe creationism is God putting things in motion at the very beginning, such as the mechanics of evolution, but that in itself is not an answer or an explanation. It only serves to add more complexity and confusion to real answers and real explanations. We learn absolutely nothing from it.

            So, why even bother with it?

            1. 0
              Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              You're right. I agree. But, it one thing understanding what we learn from science and still believing in God and it's another to think that most of science is bunk and that one page written thousands of years ago is all we need. It brings up right back to the middle ages. It brings us back to someone looking up at planets and noticing that those planets have moons that orbit their planet and not ours and being told to keep quite.

              If someone tells me they think God created the universe billions of years ago, I think that's a reasonable but wrong assumption, but it's still reasonable. It's simply not reasonable to think the universe is less than 10,000 years old when light coming to us from distant stars and galaxies take billions of years to get here.

  4. bBerean profile image60
    bBereanposted 3 years ago

    Hello Rad.  I would like to try a different approach, and set my views aside.  I am interested in why you hold the beliefs you do.  Let's start here:



    Why do you believe this?

    1. MelissaBarrett profile image60
      MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm going to go out here on a limb and say because light travels at a specific speed and other stars are very very far away.

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Hello Melissa.  Thank you for the response.  Everyone has their own beliefs and reasons for holding them.  I would like to focus on those of one person, at least to start off.  I chose Rad because we have a history of these conversations going nowhere, primarily because, as he stated in the OP, and in other comments, he finds my beliefs unreasonable, and it astonishing that I or anyone else could hold them.  I don't know if anyone will find this surprising, but I can make the exact same statement about how I view his beliefs.  Repeatedly we have both walked away from these encounters shaking our respective heads in bewilderment.   

        It is my hope that a slow, methodical approach might bear more fruit, helping me and others who share my views come to a better understanding of why those on the other side of the issue believe what they do.  Perhaps along the way, they too will learn something about themselves.  Keeping it to one person's beliefs may be our best shot at a more clear and productive exchange.  I feel it is at least worth giving it a try.

    2. 0
      Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      First of all, I don't believe for a second you are setting aside your views. But that being what it is you can start with your education here as I'm not an educator nor do I have the time or energy to attempt to explain the simplest of sciences to someone who assumes it's all BS anyway.

      http://www.howstuffworks.com/question224.htm

      Now why do I believe the stuff these scientist tell us as opposed to the stuff creationists tell us? Well the scientist don't have an agenda, they don't care if their finding conflict with anything written a few thousand years ago while the creationist do have an agenda. The science can be check and double and triple checked by anyone on earth or in space while the creationists spend there time attempting to alter the minds of those interested in science.

      But you go ahead and tell me I'm wrong to believe that there are visible galaxies billions of light years away because a book written thousands of years ago says so.

      1. bBerean profile image60
        bBereanposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        In retrospect, I'm not sure why I thought you might be interested in this conversation.  Consider me appropriately dismissed.  Sorry to have bothered you Rad.

        1. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I see, so you can't put your beliefs aside and look at the facts. You asked me a question and I supplied a link for your education. Were you going to attempt to convince me that much of science is bunk?

    3. EncephaloiDead profile image58
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Scientists from all over the planet believe that, many of them in the field of astronomy and astrophysics can make the same observations.

      When it comes to religions, the question posed to a believer is why they believe in their certain religion and their god amongst many? Believers from all over the planet do not agree with each other, which is very different from scientists.

      Why is that? And, why would you go away from Rad shaking your head when you also have to go away from the vast majority of other believers shaking your head who believe something completely different from you, as well?

      Rad doesn't go away from other scientists shaking his head.

  5. Zelkiiro profile image84
    Zelkiiroposted 3 years ago

    I once read in a book that the Earth was created by extraterrestrials as a supercomputer designed to calculate the definitive question of life, the universe, and everything. And the answer they were trying to find the question to was 42.

    Just because it's written in a book doesn't mean it's true. And I'll take the words of Douglas Adams more seriously than those of superstitious Bronze Age nomads.

    1. Silverspeeder profile image61
      Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number of 10 with 40 thousand noughts (zeros) after it.

      1. 0
        Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Here the thing about those odds.

        If you run those odds every 1 000 000th of a second you eventually get a winner. The fact that we are here is evidence of that.

        1. Chris Neal profile image83
          Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          How did we arrive at that figure? And on what device, organic or otherwise, are we actually running that much information at that speed? And just how much information is that?

          1. 0
            Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            It's just the numbers some believers like to throw around.

            That was just me showing them how silly those numbers are.

      2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
        EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Okay, let's look at that number and provide some realistic facts. If only one sequential trial took place in the early prebiotic ocean, then the odds of forming life would be very improbable, however billions of sequential trials were taking place simultaneously as the oceans, rich in amino acids, were being churned by tidal forces and weather conditions.

        The volume of the oceans being 10^24 liters and even a very dilute amino acid concentration of 10^-6M, we would have 10^31 self-replicating peptides forming in less than a year, let alone millions of years.

      3. BuddiNsense profile image59
        BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        What is the likelihood of a "lifeless" god forming from nothing?
        What is the likelihood of formation of a "living" god from nothing?

        1. Silverspeeder profile image61
          Silverspeederposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I am not to sure as I didn't work out the math it was Hoyle, I am sure if he was still alive he would be able to give you the answer you seek.

          1. BuddiNsense profile image59
            BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Why do use stuff which you do not understand?

  6. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago

    I pose this question to those who "accept" evolution.  Along the way during its study, certain elements have been proven, others disproven.  To "accept" it as it's being presented here must mean that it is complete, entire, and absolute-at least that's how it sounds.  If that is the case, there seems no reason to discuss or research or question further.  It is and therefore it must be accepted by all-including those scientists who remain active trying to learn even more about it.

    Contrary to that, nothing about evolution has provided every answer to every question, so why must it be "accepted" as evidence of one's intelligence when intelligent minds continue to wonder, ponder, and seek?  One might be of the opinion that our understanding of it could conceivably change and "evolve" over time.

    1. Chris Neal profile image83
      Chris Nealposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      smile

    2. DoubleScorpion profile image85
      DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this



      The proven evidence is accepted. Why continue to ponder and seek? Because there are still more questions that need answers. And if there is changes over time...Then those who accept this will change as well...

      Religion stops at God and goes no further. No change, nothing new, regardless if there is new information or not.

      IMHO

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Religion can stop at God for those who are content to seek no further.  I don't think you're one of those, nor am I.  I believe, but faith, as is any proposed answer to life's major questions, is falsifiable.  I've found in religion many of the answers that I seek, but certainly not all.  Anyone-no matter their chosen avenue of inquiry-who claims that THE answer has been found might as well head to Magarathea and stay there.  smile

        My point is that one who spends a lifetime questioning can't ever be satisfied with one answer, or even a mere handful of them.  It's unfair and unrealistic to tell anyone that they are stupid (even when you politely use the word uneducated) because they are not content with the answer that satisfies you.  If that were the case, there would be no debate between string theory and loop quantum gravity.  There would be no need for more than one philosophy, etc...

        I accept evolution as being valid.  I also believe that there is a creator.  At the end of the day, I'm neither deluded, nor uneducated.  I'm simply a seeker.  I'm also fairly unusual, I suppose, in that I don't feel the need to find an answer to life, the universe, and everything.  Knowing the how and why of it all won't change it or me.

        1. DoubleScorpion profile image85
          DoubleScorpionposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't agree with calling people stupid...(Some are though or at least are bent on not accepting facts that disagree with their beliefs)...Just because one believes in God...does not make them stupid or uneducated...They just have some questions answered by faith, pending something else providing a solid answer that might change that.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Hey now, be careful how you wield that sword of common sense.  wink

            Someone could get hurt.  smile

        2. 0
          Rad Manposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I don't think we can equate education with intelligence. I personally am uneducated in a great many things as are all people, but that has nothing to do with intelligence. So saying that someone is uneducated in biological evolution doesn't mean they are stupid, it simply means they haven't studied it.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            I agree with you completely, and if you or I were to use the word, there is a high likelihood that we would mean it just that way.  Others use the word to deliberately shame people who think differently.  Just as religious people accuse the non religious of "living in darkness," the hard core evolutionist accuses the other of being "uneducated" and living in the dark ages.  What's wrong is wrong.  At the end of the day, when an impassioned argument for or against something doesn't persuade someone to agree with someone else completely, they pull out the I'm better/more enlightened/more special/smarter/righter than you cards.

      2. MelissaBarrett profile image60
        MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        I'm not sure I even agree with that. Religion, both as an institution and ESPECIALLY on an individual basis is constantly evolving (see the pun there). The difference is pronounced on a global basis, but is still certainly visible on a nation-by-nation basis.

        Hell, even the Bible is evolving... you know that as well as me. The interpretations of the Bible are even more influx.

    3. BuddiNsense profile image59
      BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Evolution is not about providing every answer to every question but answer to only two questions, how there is this much diversity among life and why we life behave the way we do.
      It is chosen as a standard of education is only because only an educated person can know enough of it to accept it and reject the ancient illogical notion of creation just like a few centuries before accepting that the earth as round by rejecting the commonsense nonsense 'flat earth' was sign of education.
      Yes our understanding regarding the exact ways by which evolution works may change but what do not change is that it is evolution that gave rise to diversity and not creation.

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Sure.  Scientists can't agree in what it is, but they can agree on what it isn't.  But that attitude isn't an absolute?  And when exactly was it decided that one's rejection of any idea regarding the origins of life determined the standard by which their education is measured?

        1. BuddiNsense profile image59
          BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          What scientists don't agree is the exact mechanisms by which it works and the exact routes, not what it is or it it is not but what we are discussing is not that but the relationship between evolution and education.

          Those people who reject evolution doesn't know anything about it, that is they are not educated to know what evolution says which is quite evident from the posts above by the evolution deniers. Apart from that, as Melissa puts it, education is about critical thinking and anybody who think critically should reject creation which is nonsense and accept evolution. People accept creationism not because it is logical but because it is written in an ancient book.
          If you reject that the earth is globular and say it is flat, will you be considered educated?

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Has anyone denied it?  And does it change your understanding of it one whit if they do?  And why must everything be rejected so completely if you are not speaking of absolutes?  That's my point.  We know without doubt or speculation that the earth isn't flat.  We know that evolution is indeed scientific fact.  As far as the origins of the universe, we do not have an unquestionable answer that has been proven again and again and just because there are some who acknowledge that, they are considered uneducated?  Education- the pursuit of knowledge- teaches us only one thing for certain.  There's a hell of a lot that we don't know.  Period.

            1. BuddiNsense profile image59
              BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

              Who is talking about "origin of universe"? What we are talking here is origin of "species".

              1. 0
                Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                If that's all that concerns you, why the adamant insistence that the notion of a creator be rejected?  There are those who believe that a creator is responsible for putting evolutionary processes in motion.  You seem to be concerned then with young earth creationists-which is a whole different animal than someone who simply believes in creation.  Not everyone who believes in a creator accepts that "poof" here we all are and that's that.

                1. BuddiNsense profile image59
                  BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  For one it is self contradictory,  illogical ( and education is about being logical). Second it gets in the way of people getting educated. (god has told me everything is created so why do I got to study this nonsense evolution, stuff)

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    I find it fascinating that you believe the absolute truth of that statement.  Most of the world does not see in such black and white terms, in my experience anyway.  I suppose life would be much simpler if that was the way of things.  And there would likely be little to no argument about anything.  I just see a much wider smattering of inquiry between the two poles, I guess.

                  2. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Why is it contradictory?  You've stated it's about the origin of species, not the universe.  If they are two separate issues, why must the answers be complementary?

                  3. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    And I've seen many who go into education with preconceived notions and are still capable of learning-even of learning things that contradict what they've already been taught.  Is education only acceptable if it teaches what group A deems to be truth?  You want it to teach what to think and what not to think, not how to think about the information presented.

                  4. MelissaBarrett profile image60
                    MelissaBarrettposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Education is NOT about being logical. That's a part of it, but it's not total. Not even close. Critical thinking isn't even completely about being logical. There is so much more to education than logic. You're being closed minded again. Education does not equal science education. Nor does scientific education equal acceptance of evolution. Like I said, you're putting WAY too much importance on acceptance of ONE theory.

                    In addition, religion does not necessarily get in the way of education. Not anymore than the limited view that logic equals education does.

                2. EncephaloiDead profile image58
                  EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                  Before the theory of evolution was proposed, most believed God created humans as they are today and no concept of God putting evolutionary processes in motion even existed. It was through education and the understanding of evolution that many of those believers changed their beliefs from humans being created by God to humans evolving as a result of God putting evolutionary processes into motion.

                  So, the original belief was indeed rejected for a more educated and understood idea, but the new concept still had the original "creator" contained within, even though the original concept had been rejected.

                  Today, scientists are working on abiogenesis theory, which will eventually be as understood as evolution and it will force believers to once again change their beliefs to one in which a creator did not require putting evolutionary processes in motion.

                  1. 0
                    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

                    Then it seems you need just be patient and allow the inevitable to happen in its own time.  smile
                    Seems a waste of time and energy to fight about it, insulting people (however inadevertently) and eroding the good will that might exist at present, when eventually people will accept the proof available in their own time.  smile
                    You can evangelize a non religious ideal as aggressively as a religious one and offend just as deeply.  smile

    4. EncephaloiDead profile image58
      EncephaloiDeadposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I'm curious, what elements have been disproven?



      The postulates of evolution are well understood, the continued study of biological evolution is to understand what species existed and how they all evolved.



      Evolution is the answer as to how we evolved intelligent minds, but that doesn't mean there aren't any questions to ponder regarding everything else in the universe.



      It does, but the postulates of evolution remain solid as a sound foundation to the theory.

      I would have to ask if you understand evolution yourself?

      1. 0
        Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Not entirely.  But it seems to me that understanding a concept isn't necessary to reject it or accept it, at least that's how it appears.  I am not arguing for or against it.  I simply tire of the superiority complex of those who support it.  I'm not a scientist.  I've no desire to be one.  My argument isn't for or against evolution.

        1. BuddiNsense profile image59
          BuddiNsenseposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          You here have the answer you are looking for, most people who reject evolution do not understand it and to understand it one need to study it and as evolution is not something that is taught in school (the bare basics are taught, of course) one has to go to college to study it a process we call education.

          1. 0
            Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago in reply to this

            Uh.  Okay.

  7. 0
    Motown2Chitownposted 3 years ago

    And just another thought:  some people are cause oriented.  Others focus on processes, and yet others on results.  I tend to feel that the average believer is much more concerned with cause/result than process, while the opposite is true with the average non believer.  IMO, it's why some religious people are so narrowly focused on the afterlife and miss so much of the wonder connected to THIS one.  I think also that's why some who don't believe get more out of life-they don't convince themselves that what's coming is what's better than what is already here.

    Ultimately, the problem is coming to an agreement about what's most important, I guess.  So, in some cases, maybe it's more important to understand what a person's priorities are before presenting them with information about something they don't feel has any ultimate value.

    Does that make any sense?  It did in my head...lol

 
working