What Americans Think about Evolution

[Parsimony]

In accordance with OP's request, can't you guys move this to the "The battle of evolution vs creationism" thread?

 

[dust1n]

Guys, I made this thread with the intent to focus on discussing the survey or discussing people's beliefs about the topic. This thread is not the place for another **** fest of "evolution vs. creationism" where one side tries to prove itself right to the other. If you want to do that, I respectfully request you start a different thread for that purpose.

LOL. I tried to frubal you , but it's been too recent since, but you definitely needed one for your most popular thread.

 

[Revoltingest]

Bring it.

I have been, but your responses were directed more at others.
So I'm done here for now.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

So, you believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Due to the fact that there is no evidence for macroevolution in my opinion, then my only alternative is Intelligent Design in accordance to Christian theism. So I believe that Goddidit.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

As the gaps are filled god keeps getting pushed further back into the background.

The gaps are not filled when it comes to abiogenesis or infinity. "Science of the gaps".

The only real place left for god to hide is in the beginning of the universe but even with that we are seeing a rise in Deism. A god that created the universe and left it to do whatever. Everything "naturally" occurring would have been initiated since the beginning.

Deism is still a better position than naturalism, I can tell you that much.

 

[outhouse]

The gaps are not filled when it comes to abiogenesis
.

Nonsense.

Their getting closer every year.

But we dont need abiogensis to understand the mythology of ancient men and the gods they created and worshipped.

Due to the fact that there is no evidence for macroevolution in my opinion

Your opinion here is completely worthless.

Evolution, all of it is now fact.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I'm not the one making claims about kinds. You are.
Hence why I'm asking YOU what makes them different. The fact that you can't seem to articulate that point very well speaks volumes.

And I gave a scenario at which you yourself are put in a position at which you will have no problem defining "kind"...so if you wouldn't have a problem in the scenario, you shouldn't act as if "kind" is so foreign to you on here.

I’m pretty sure that if the banana, in its original form was on field, you would have no idea where to put it.

Well pardon me for not knowing the anatomy of fruit, as I have no idea what "original" form is.

Plenty of evidence has been provided for you to look over and you STILL haven’t looked at it. And here you are again, making the same claims over and over again as if previous discussions with you never happened.

I don't believe evidence is of truth value...the alleged evidence is only the interpretation.

Time for you to crack open a book.

I can do you one better. About 30 or so years ago (give or take a year or two), I was born, and I "cracked" open my eyes...and day after day, year after year, since I opened by eyes, I've only saw animals producing what they are, not what they aren't. So I've drawn the conclusion that dogs will only produce dogs, and cats will only produce cats, and so on and so forth. This is the only thing I ever saw.

Evolutionists would like us to believe that long ago, when no one was around to see it, there were quite a few exceptions, and once man came on the scene all of this macroevolution stuff stopped...that is about as fraudulent as any con-scheme as I've ever seen. "You will never see it happen...but it happens".

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nonsense.

Their getting closer every year.

Yeah..so let me see if I get this straight...abiogenesis, on your view, is a mindless and blind process. Yet, this mindless and blind process was able to do something that intelligent humans with eyes hasn't been able to do, and that is produce life from nonliving materials? So a mindless and blind process is more smart than intelligent humans? Wow.

But we dont need abiogensis to understand the mythology of ancient men and the gods they created and worshipped.

Yet we need to postulate voodoo science?

Your opinion here is completely worthless.

Evolution, all of it is now fact.

Romans 1:25

25 They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

 

[outhouse]

Despite all your nonsense and severe willful ignorance.

Evolution is fact.


BY the way, your mythology is outlawed in public schools from most science classes.

 

[outhouse]

So a mindless and blind process is more smart than intelligent humans?

How can we discuss science when you cannot get past proper grammar?


How intelligent are humans? many still believe in mythology from ancient men 2000 years ago that knew nothing of the natural world around them.


How intelligent can they be when they choose willful ignorance over scientific facts?


How Intelligent can they be when they cannot even structure a sentence, while asking a question that makes no sense what so ever?

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

How can we discuss science when you cannot get past proper grammar?


How intelligent are humans? many still believe in mythology from ancient men 2000 years ago that knew nothing of the natural world around them.


How intelligent can they be when they choose willful ignorance over scientific facts?


How Intelligent can they be when they cannot even structure a sentence, while asking a question that makes no sense what so ever?

Yeah my grammar and sentence structure is so poor that no matter what thread I find myself posting on, you always seem to go out your way to quote me and respond to me. What is the matter, just cant stay away? Hmmm.

Anyways, as I said before, theologians have always argued that the universe began to exist, while these scientists that you adore so much have always said that the universe is static and eternal...so if anything, the scientific method that you worship has confirmed what theologians have been saying for over 3,000 years.

 

[idav]

while these scientists that you adore so much have always said that the universe is static and eternal....

I am curious, what scientists say this.....and would they all be speaking from their respective fields?

 

[ruffen]

Yeah my grammar and sentence structure is so poor that no matter what thread I find myself posting on, you always seem to go out your way to quote me and respond to me. What is the matter, just cant stay away? Hmmm.

Anyways, as I said before, theologians have always argued that the universe began to exist, while these scientists that you adore so much have always said that the universe is static and eternal...so if anything, the scientific method that you worship has confirmed what theologians have been saying for over 3,000 years.

Theologians have also always argued that the Universe began to exist a ridiculous short amount of time ago. If you're going to cherry pick, at least pick cherries from stories and myths that don't contain so many easily disprovable mistakes.

And yes, many astronomers believed that the Universe was static and eternal pre-Edwin-Hubble in the 1920's. But guess what - they changed their mind when nev evidence was presented!!

What would it take for you to change your mind about your beliefs?

 

[metis]

There is countless scriptures which mentions the "stretching" out of the heavens...and to stretch is to expand...but the fact of the matter is there is teachings of a BEGINNING, and the last I checked that is all that matters.

I use the JPS and RSV since they are closer to a direct translation of the Hebrew and Greek, and "stretch" does not show up in the creation accounts in reference to our universe: Bible, Revised Standard Version
As far as there being a "BEGINNING" is concerned, yes I obviously agree it does teach that, but that in no way contradicts evolution or the big bang.

To many apologetic sites have already responded to the creation accounts in Genesis, and also that of Cain and his wife. That is old news.

It might be "old news" but this "old news" is a problem with those who take a literalist interpretation. Secondly, a apologetic can be as dishonest as the day is long if it makes up stories to explain away what is written. If we view that the Bible teaches "truth", them making up stories is the antithesis of "truth". Instead, it would be far more honest of them to say "We don't know".

I have a decision to make, I can either go in the direction of these Sumerian texts, or I can go in the direction of Jesus Christ, which there is actual historical evidence for.

You have drawn a totally illogical assumption. Much like Christianity borrowed a great deal from Judaism, Judaism itself borrowed some ideas from neighboring societies. If you view that for us to borrow from the Sumerians is somehow immoral, then logically you should also believe that Christianity borrowing from Judaism is immoral.

 

[outhouse]

Yeah my grammar and sentence structure is so poor that no matter what thread I find myself posting on, you always seem to go out your way to quote me and respond to me. What is the matter, just cant stay away? Hmmm.
.

You keep posting unsubstantiated nonsesne, when you do that, expect to get called on it by those with more knowledge.

My grammer is not that great but I wish to learn more, and become better.

Anyways, as I said before, theologians have always argued that the universe began to exist, while these scientists that you adore so much have always said that the universe is static and eternal...so if anything,

Nonsense, that is incorrect. Scientist do not say the universe is static, DO you have any sources for this?

Are you being dishonest here?

the scientific method that you worship has confirmed what theologians have been saying for over 3,000 years

Nonsense, only if you pervert scripture and science :slap: through ignorance.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I am curious, what scientists say this

Look, it is common knowledge that our universe began to exist. You people are making it seem as if this isn't contemporary, it is. The steady state model was the first model of the universe that was made as an answer to the standard big bang model, and since then there have been dozens of cosmology models that have been postulated in efforts to give some kind of explanation has to how and why our universe began to exist. I mean seriously.

.....and would they all be speaking from their respective fields?

Yes, cosmology.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

Nonsense, that is incorrect. Scientist do not say the universe is static, DO you have any sources for this?

Are you being dishonest here?

I was speaking of the scientists of the past, you know, like Einstein and anyone during that time frame. That was the leading view in science, that the universe was static and eternal. All you have to do is google it and you will find dozens of links on the "big blunder" of Einstein.

 

[McBell]

Your reliance on outdated information is comical.

 

[Call_of_the_Wild]

I use the JPS and RSV since they are closer to a direct translation of the Hebrew and Greek, and "stretch" does not show up in the creation accounts in reference to our universe: Bible, Revised Standard Version

Then there is obviously a Hebrew or Greek equivalent of the word "stretch" then.

As far as there being a "BEGINNING" is concerned, yes I obviously agree it does teach that, but that in no way contradicts evolution or the big bang.

It contradicts evolution...but it doesn't have to contradict the big bang because it is in agreement with the big bang, which is nothing more or less than a "finite" universe implication.

It might be "old news" but this "old news" is a problem with those who take a literalist interpretation. Secondly, a apologetic can be as dishonest as the day is long if it makes up stories to explain away what is written. If we view that the Bible teaches "truth", them making up stories is the antithesis of "truth". Instead, it would be far more honest of them to say "We don't know".

I mean, you give a possible "problem" and we give a possible solution to the problem. That is all it is. As long as the solution is possible, it could happen...and it no longer becomes a problem and it certainly doesn't become a contradiction.

You have drawn a totally illogical assumption. Much like Christianity borrowed a great deal from Judaism

Christianity borrowed what from Judaism?

, Judaism itself borrowed some ideas from neighboring societies. If you view that for us to borrow from the Sumerians is somehow immoral, then logically you should also believe that Christianity borrowing from Judaism is immoral.

Jesus is actually a historical figure, metis. And if what the bible records about this man is correct, then Judaism becomes quite irrelevant and so does the "borrow" theory.

 

[Runewolf1973]

I was speaking of the scientists of the past, you know, like Einstein and anyone during that time frame. That was the leading view in science, that the universe was static and eternal. All you have to do is google it and you will find dozens of links on the "big blunder" of Einstein.

The universe is dynamic and animate due to the fundamental forces of nature.