"Creation"

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Schmide

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

It's is? Out of the trillions of trillions of possible universes this is the most beautiful and wonderous thing possible?

I disagree.

universes

Dude - you can't have more than one. It's kind of like everythings

The universe is infinite in both time and space. The infinite dimensions of time create something that most people would consider to be 'universes,' even though it is still only one.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
Really, you should talk to Lawrence Krauss about that. (Physics Professor who argues for the simultaneous existance of millions of universes)

However, i was speaking of "possible universes" as in that this universe that we got today is not the only possible outcome there could be and it is far from the most perfect one any of us could imagine, isn't it?

'Perfect' is an opinion, not a reality.

And I beg to differ, the universe as we got today is the only outcome with you and I both in it and communicating as we are now. It is what is. That infinite probabilities still exist, likely simultaneously, doesn't change that.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield
I was going to write a rebuttal to what you reduce "evolutionists" to believe but then i realised that you were right, i don't see it that way, i don't see the beauty in any of it what so ever. I see it as it is, a set of laws and it's not wonderful nor is it ugly, it just is.

There is IMO nothing more beautiful than logic. What 'just is,' to me, is the most beautiful and wondrous thing possible. I marvel at its infinite yet consistent complexity. If there is a God, He is those laws, He is that logic.

It's is? Out of the trillions of trillions of possible universes this is the most beautiful and wonderous thing possible?

I disagree.

You confused what I said.

Perhaps, but the laws both you and i are talking about are the laws of this universe and far from beautiful or wonderous.

Is it the UNDERSTANDING of the whole idea that you are referring to? Because if so i agree completely.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The Butler Act, a Tennessee law made it illegal to teach anything but divine creation in any state funded educational facility. That Act set up the Scopes trial in '25 (I think) - W.J. Bryan versus Spencer Tracy... er... C. Darrow.

There is some mis-understanding about evolution and what is accepted or rejected at least by the Catholic Church which today seems to be in concert with science. I don't think they, however, accept: God created Ape and Ape begot Moonbeam who Begot human or like that.

When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think.

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

And there is no "missing link" there never has been, it's just a made up term for a transitional that was expected but has never been found, the predictions derived from the ToE aren't always so precise that you can rely on every notion of them.

That said, evolution is a fact, it can be proven even to the most staunch opposer of it and it can be done in any biological laboratory near you.

If it wasn't true, well don't worry about HIV or the Swine flu, those viruses do not exist, they cannot exist without evolution.

I suppose I don't know if there is a precursor to the biped, good looking, INTELLIGENT, homo whatever we are. It is, however, in that situation that folks find creationism. We can't seem to find how we came to be in a logical evolutionary smooth transition. I would agree that DNA 'error' could account for an evolution kind of event but not sure the support exists for that.

Well, there is nothing smooth about evolution what so ever, so that might be your problem, www.talkorigins.org has a lot of information on the matter, if you'd like.

The truth is that by the time most people breed we already have around 200 genetic mutations that we carry on, in fact, you and me are more alike genetically today than either are with our ancestors just a few hundred years ago.

Now this hasn't always been the case, back when there were very few of us humans, walking around hitting each other with sticks and dragging random women back to our caves (that last part hasn't really changed that much) evolution worked a lot faster because of natural disasters in some areas and migration to other areas so the chances for a forking because of isolation was much better back then.

So, you see, you can't reasonably say that there needs to be a closer relative to humans than the Homo Sapiens Idaltu (oldest form of modern Homo Sapiens we know of) or the Homo neanderthalensis.

I'll go read that "talk origins" thingi but I rather suspect if they indicate a rapid or spikey evolution as fact I'm a gonna mail it to Al Gore et. al. as proof that we'll learn to breathe calcium and eat quartz before global what ever can affect us.

 

[Schmide]

Well arguing theory of infinite probability still goes against the definition of universe. The universe is everything by definition. I've always thought of that as a poor term.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Schmide
Well arguing theory of infinite probability still goes against the definition of universe. The universe is everything by definition. I've always thought of that as a poor term.

What? How on earth does the scientific theory go against the definition of universe?

By definition the universe is the definition of universe, not anything more and not anything less, unless you can SURELY say what no scientist in the field would ever, ever claim, that this, OUR universe is indeed everything.

This is getting off topic so i'm out of this discussion now.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The Butler Act, a Tennessee law made it illegal to teach anything but divine creation in any state funded educational facility. That Act set up the Scopes trial in '25 (I think) - W.J. Bryan versus Spencer Tracy... er... C. Darrow.

There is some mis-understanding about evolution and what is accepted or rejected at least by the Catholic Church which today seems to be in concert with science. I don't think they, however, accept: God created Ape and Ape begot Moonbeam who Begot human or like that.

When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think.

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

And there is no "missing link" there never has been, it's just a made up term for a transitional that was expected but has never been found, the predictions derived from the ToE aren't always so precise that you can rely on every notion of them.

That said, evolution is a fact, it can be proven even to the most staunch opposer of it and it can be done in any biological laboratory near you.

If it wasn't true, well don't worry about HIV or the Swine flu, those viruses do not exist, they cannot exist without evolution.

I suppose I don't know if there is a precursor to the biped, good looking, INTELLIGENT, homo whatever we are. It is, however, in that situation that folks find creationism. We can't seem to find how we came to be in a logical evolutionary smooth transition. I would agree that DNA 'error' could account for an evolution kind of event but not sure the support exists for that.

Well, there is nothing smooth about evolution what so ever, so that might be your problem, www.talkorigins.org has a lot of information on the matter, if you'd like.

The truth is that by the time most people breed we already have around 200 genetic mutations that we carry on, in fact, you and me are more alike genetically today than either are with our ancestors just a few hundred years ago.

Now this hasn't always been the case, back when there were very few of us humans, walking around hitting each other with sticks and dragging random women back to our caves (that last part hasn't really changed that much) evolution worked a lot faster because of natural disasters in some areas and migration to other areas so the chances for a forking because of isolation was much better back then.

So, you see, you can't reasonably say that there needs to be a closer relative to humans than the Homo Sapiens Idaltu (oldest form of modern Homo Sapiens we know of) or the Homo neanderthalensis.

I'll go read that "talk origins" thingi but I rather suspect if they indicate a rapid or spikey evolution as fact I'm a gonna mail it to Al Gore et. al. as proof that we'll learn to breathe calcium and eat quartz before global what ever can affect us.

You really should read it, there are so many pages though so start with what catches your interest the most at first.

Humans won't suddenly learn to breathe calcium, that is a ridiculous statement, evolution doesn't work that way, living organisms do not adapt themselves to their environment, rather, the natural selection process makes those not fit extinct and as those who fit the conditions the best breed and their genome is combined through thousands of years the end product is one that fits the environment.

You see, the environment we live in isn't adapted to fit us, we are adapted to fit IT through the process of natural selection.

It makes quite a bit of sense when you think about it, doesn't it?

 

[Phokus]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: eskimospy

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

epic /facepalm

Man, that's a lot of willful ignorance.

This is the reason the republican party hasn't been completely extinguished yet.

 

[bamacre]

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

:thumbsup:

No, he's wrong about one thing: "which should be empty of both side's soldiers.." On the political battlefield, we would be best served by decisions based on concrete evidence, rather than beliefs. "I believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" - look where that got us.

What I meant is not what you thought. I'm not opposed to government's understanding nor use of science, not at all. Does government not use science to prosecute murderers? What I meant was that those who believe that evolution is contradictory to religious beliefs are only as ignorant as the religious who believe the same. Government should be on the side of truth and evidence, so why should government choose a side when both sides understand neither?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: bamacre

Originally posted by: DrPizza

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: bamacre
I've never understood the battle between evolution and creationism. Just another unnecessary war really. One is the scientific study on the changing of life, the other a religious belief dealing with the creation of life. Neither contradicts the other, yet the war carries on. And the biggest problem is this is being fought on the political battlefield, which should be empty of both side's soldiers.

:thumbsup:

No, he's wrong about one thing: "which should be empty of both side's soldiers.." On the political battlefield, we would be best served by decisions based on concrete evidence, rather than beliefs. "I believe Saddam has weapons of mass destruction" - look where that got us.

What I meant is not what you thought. I'm not opposed to government's understanding nor use of science, not at all. Does government not use science to prosecute murderers? What I meant was that those who believe that evolution is contradictory to religious beliefs are only as ignorant as the religious who believe the same. Government should be on the side of truth and evidence, so why should government choose a side when both sides understand neither?

Well the government SHOULD obviously be on the side that has evidence in the case of evolution VS literalist genesis believers, but i get what you are saying, that it doesn't exclude a God and neither should government, the government should stay neutral.

Unfortunantly such arguments only lead to sheit like "teach the controversy".

I've always hated that "teach the controversy" sheit... THERE IS NO CONTROVERSY!

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Great. Another misleading article so people can exclaim, 'Ha, them stoopid Amerikans is stoopid.'

Here's a link to the actual poll this claim is based on:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114...Believe-Evolution.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

So only 25% do not believe in the theory. Others haven't decided either way. A bit different from what the article implies.

It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

Yeah. I bet this is going to be a huge hit in Yemen and the rest of the ME.

:roll:

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Great. Another misleading article so people can exclaim, 'Ha, them stoopid Amerikans is stoopid.'

Here's a link to the actual poll this claim is based on:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114...Believe-Evolution.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

So only 25% do not believe in the theory. Others haven't decided either way. A bit different from what the article implies.

It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

Yeah. I bet this is going to be a huge hit in Yemen and the rest of the ME.

:roll:

Well, those on the fence are either ignorant or uneducated so that doesn't help much and are you seriously trying to make the argument that "at least we're better than the ME"? Because that would be a pretty lousy argument.

I'm fairly sure there are lots of much better comparisons that you could make than that, including the UK.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: LunarRay
The Butler Act, a Tennessee law made it illegal to teach anything but divine creation in any state funded educational facility. That Act set up the Scopes trial in '25 (I think) - W.J. Bryan versus Spencer Tracy... er... C. Darrow.

There is some mis-understanding about evolution and what is accepted or rejected at least by the Catholic Church which today seems to be in concert with science. I don't think they, however, accept: God created Ape and Ape begot Moonbeam who Begot human or like that.

When Darwin was bobbing about on Beagle I think we in the US were almost universal in the Creation doctrine. Today, I think we're moving toward accepting evolution except for human creation. They'll need the 'Missing Link' to alter that to any extent, I think.

LunarRay, you ARE an ape, just like every other human, it's the first part of Homo Sapiens Sapiens, it means ape.

And there is no "missing link" there never has been, it's just a made up term for a transitional that was expected but has never been found, the predictions derived from the ToE aren't always so precise that you can rely on every notion of them.

That said, evolution is a fact, it can be proven even to the most staunch opposer of it and it can be done in any biological laboratory near you.

If it wasn't true, well don't worry about HIV or the Swine flu, those viruses do not exist, they cannot exist without evolution.

I suppose I don't know if there is a precursor to the biped, good looking, INTELLIGENT, homo whatever we are. It is, however, in that situation that folks find creationism. We can't seem to find how we came to be in a logical evolutionary smooth transition. I would agree that DNA 'error' could account for an evolution kind of event but not sure the support exists for that.

Well, there is nothing smooth about evolution what so ever, so that might be your problem, www.talkorigins.org has a lot of information on the matter, if you'd like.

The truth is that by the time most people breed we already have around 200 genetic mutations that we carry on, in fact, you and me are more alike genetically today than either are with our ancestors just a few hundred years ago.

Now this hasn't always been the case, back when there were very few of us humans, walking around hitting each other with sticks and dragging random women back to our caves (that last part hasn't really changed that much) evolution worked a lot faster because of natural disasters in some areas and migration to other areas so the chances for a forking because of isolation was much better back then.

So, you see, you can't reasonably say that there needs to be a closer relative to humans than the Homo Sapiens Idaltu (oldest form of modern Homo Sapiens we know of) or the Homo neanderthalensis.

I'll go read that "talk origins" thingi but I rather suspect if they indicate a rapid or spikey evolution as fact I'm a gonna mail it to Al Gore et. al. as proof that we'll learn to breathe calcium and eat quartz before global what ever can affect us.

You really should read it, there are so many pages though so start with what catches your interest the most at first.

Humans won't suddenly learn to breathe calcium, that is a ridiculous statement, evolution doesn't work that way, living organisms do not adapt themselves to their environment, rather, the natural selection process makes those not fit extinct and as those who fit the conditions the best breed and their genome is combined through thousands of years the end product is one that fits the environment.

You see, the environment we live in isn't adapted to fit us, we are adapted to fit IT through the process of natural selection.

It makes quite a bit of sense when you think about it, doesn't it?

Oh I agree totally that we adapt to the changes in our environment and that that environment changes over time. Slowly, except for an event like an comet hitting and we've not time to adapt.
My calcium thingi was a humor bit. Monty python would see the wisdom, however. Us carbon units are funny about how we use our intellect to adapt. IF not by actual functional change then by creative means.
I did learn one thing so far ( I read fast ) that I don't fully agree with. Well... not in the blood type but in another issue.

" ... If the two alleles at a locus are the same type (for instance two A alleles) the individual would be called homozygous. An individual with two different alleles at a locus (for example, an AB individual) is called heterozygous. At any locus there can be many different alleles in a population, more alleles than any single organism can possess. For example, no single human can have an A, B and an O allele ..."

I've not yet seen in that site where they don't agree with my suggestion that evolution is a slow steady process. Which is the creationist argument that without seeing the steps from what ever to humanoid they'd have a creation by God argument to make.

I'm aware of the African starting point and that bit. Let me say it this way. I don't argue against what is rational and don't defend the irrational. It is what it is.

Adam and Eve very well may have been Chimps for all I know. Gen 6 indicates Kids of God slept with Kids of man and those events may be what the Creationists see today as the missing link. I don't care, personally, from where I came.. Brooklyn is about as certain as I can be. I can't evolve but can pass on stuff that may cause evolution to advance.

Oh, I did learn another thingi... Dictionaries are not a viable source of word definition.

It would be nice, however, to show the steps we actually went through to become us and I just don't see the progression yet.

 

[Schmide]

People who think there are infinite infinities think you can add infinity + infinity.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: LunarRay

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield


You really should read it, there are so many pages though so start with what catches your interest the most at first.

Humans won't suddenly learn to breathe calcium, that is a ridiculous statement, evolution doesn't work that way, living organisms do not adapt themselves to their environment, rather, the natural selection process makes those not fit extinct and as those who fit the conditions the best breed and their genome is combined through thousands of years the end product is one that fits the environment.

You see, the environment we live in isn't adapted to fit us, we are adapted to fit IT through the process of natural selection.

It makes quite a bit of sense when you think about it, doesn't it?

Oh I agree totally that we adapt to the changes in our environment and that that environment changes over time. Slowly, except for an event like an comet hitting and we've not time to adapt.
My calcium thingi was a humor bit. Monty python would see the wisdom, however. Us carbon units are funny about how we use our intellect to adapt. IF not by actual functional change then by creative means.
I did learn one thing so far ( I read fast ) that I don't fully agree with. Well... not in the blood type but in another issue.

" ... If the two alleles at a locus are the same type (for instance two A alleles) the individual would be called homozygous. An individual with two different alleles at a locus (for example, an AB individual) is called heterozygous. At any locus there can be many different alleles in a population, more alleles than any single organism can possess. For example, no single human can have an A, B and an O allele ..."

I've not yet seen in that site where they don't agree with my suggestion that evolution is a slow steady process. Which is the creationist argument that without seeing the steps from what ever to humanoid they'd have a creation by God argument to make.

I'm aware of the African starting point and that bit. Let me say it this way. I don't argue against what is rational and don't defend the irrational. It is what it is.

Adam and Eve very well may have been Chimps for all I know. Gen 6 indicates Kids of God slept with Kids of man and those events may be what the Creationists see today as the missing link. I don't care, personally, from where I came.. Brooklyn is about as certain as I can be. I can't evolve but can pass on stuff that may cause evolution to advance.

Oh, I did learn another thingi... Dictionaries are not a viable source of word definition.

It would be nice, however, to show the steps we actually went through to become us and I just don't see the progression yet.

I think it takes quite a bit of time to absorb the information and understand the concept in itself, but when you do and you understand that while evolution sometimes been a slow and steady process it sometimes makes jumps.

Sometimes an event so grand that it wipes out almost all the population on earth leads to a change (like a change in climate) that will only leave those fittest to survive to breed, now THAT will create a very fast jump because ALL of those who did not have the heredetary necessities to pass on their genes will be excluded and those who did will.

I'm much like you in one way though, i don't know where life comes from, i find the scientific theories fascinating and the work done quite impressive but it doesn't offer me evidence conclusive enough for me to say "i know this". Regarding evolution, the evidence and the clarity of the evidence is so overwhelming to me that i can say (with about the same certainty that i can say that there are not pink unicorns, not entirely certain, but certain enough to claim knowledge) that i know that evolution is a fact.

To me, what creationists are calling "micro evolution" is only the small steps that we can observe (because we don't live thousands of years) but sometimes.... BAM, macro evolution happens in very short periods of time, read about E Coli macro evolution (this is another common mistake by creationists, they assume that if it's macro, it can't have something to do with anything as small as bacteria)

Adam and Eve couldn't have been monkeys though, we didn't evolve from monkeys.

EDIT: trimmed down the quotes...

 

[LunarRay]

JoS said

"Adam and Eve couldn't have been monkeys though, we didn't evolve from monkeys. "


This humble servant says: Monkey gots tail, Chimps don't, Chimps be apes, Adam no got tail till eve came. then Eve gave Adam some tail... the moon shone... a Moonbeam became. The ark floated upon the notion of rising tides. A bird brain pointed to land and dove to it. From one became many. We evolved from Noah and Mrs Noah and the moon shone brightly a moonbeam appeared and all rejoiced. I once had tail but not lately.


Edit: IF our brothers the Orang can eat rocks so can we

"Geophagy, the practice of eating soil or rock, has been observed in orangutans. There are three main reasons for this dietary behavior; for the addition of minerals nutrients to their diet; for the ingestion of clay minerals that can absorb toxic substances; or to treat a disorder such as diarrhea"

 

[MikeMike]

i believe there is something similar to a mix of evolution and creationism...

i mean, in 25 years when we have robots able to communicate emotion, are they going to look at each other and say "hey, were we created, or did we evolve from something?"

both are true... they were created by man, and a controlled evolution brought robots about...

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LunarRay
JoS said

"Adam and Eve couldn't have been monkeys though, we didn't evolve from monkeys. "


This humble servant says: Monkey gots tail, Chimps don't, Chimps be apes, Adam no got tail till eve came. then Eve gave Adam some tail... the moon shone... a Moonbeam became. The ark floated upon the notion of rising tides. A bird brain pointed to land and dove to it. From one became many. We evolved from Noah and Mrs Noah and the moon shone brightly a moonbeam appeared and all rejoiced. I once had tail but not lately.


Edit: IF our brothers the Orang can eat rocks so can we

"Geophagy, the practice of eating soil or rock, has been observed in orangutans. There are three main reasons for this dietary behavior; for the addition of minerals nutrients to their diet; for the ingestion of clay minerals that can absorb toxic substances; or to treat a disorder such as diarrhea"

Stone soup is very good.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Schmide
People who think there are infinite infinities think you can add infinity + infinity.

infinity + infinity = infinity

 

[ericlp]

Well, i could give a shit less if the movie did come to the USA, I'd still never watch it and I would not go.

Maybe the reason why it's not going to be shown in America is because they don't want to risk being a failure. A lot of movies get played elsewhere to test the waters and the sales were miserable ...

I'm sure that you could buy the DVD so not to worry religious freaks you can still watch the movie! I wonder how the creationist museum is doing? Probably failing as well.

 

[Siddhartha]

It is okay with me if some people want to believe that the Head Bunny created the world and everything by waving it's paws and that bunnies are the center of the universe. But is not going to change the fact that the evidence does not support this.

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: Siddhartha
It is okay with me if some people want to believe that the Head Bunny created the world and everything by waving it's paws and that bunnies are the center of the universe. But is not going to change the fact that the evidence does not support this.

Text

The whole pi = 3 debate is the result of a mistranslation. The KJV strikes again. The actual ancient Hebrew passage contains an equation that, while overly complicated by modern standards, is possibly the most accurate solution for pi known for ~900 BC.

 

[Vic]

Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right (3 times)
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight

Preacher man, don't tell me heaven is under the earth
I know you don't know what life is really worth,
Is not all that glitters is gold and
Half the story has never been told
So now you see the light, aay
Stand up for your right. Come on

Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight
(Repeat)

Most people think great God will come from the sky
Take away ev'rything, and make ev'rybody feel high
But if you know what life is worth
You would look for yours on earth
And now you see the light
You stand up for your right, yeah!

Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight
Get Up, Stand Up. Life is your right
So we can't give up the fight
Stand up for your right, Lord, Lord
Get Up, Stand Up. Keep on struggling on
Don't give up the fight

We're sick and tired of your ism and skism game
Die and go to heaven in Jesus' name, Lord
We know when we understand
Almighty God is a living man
You can fool some people sometimes
But you can't fool all the people all the time
So now we see the light
We gonna stand up for our right

So you'd better get up, stand up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight
Get Up, Stand Up, stand up for your right
Get Up, Stand Up, don't give up the fight.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

only 39 per cent of Americans believe in the theory of evolution.

epic /facepalm

That is quite simply one of the most astounding (and horrifying) statistics I've ever read. Wow.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Great. Another misleading article so people can exclaim, 'Ha, them stoopid Amerikans is stoopid.'

Here's a link to the actual poll this claim is based on:

http://www.gallup.com/poll/114...Believe-Evolution.aspx

PRINCETON, NJ -- On the eve of the 200th anniversary of Charles Darwin's birth, a new Gallup Poll shows that only 39% of Americans say they "believe in the theory of evolution," while a quarter say they do not believe in the theory, and another 36% don't have an opinion either way. These attitudes are strongly related to education and, to an even greater degree, religiosity.

So only 25% do not believe in the theory. Others haven't decided either way. A bit different from what the article implies.

It has been sold in almost every territory around the world, from Australia to Scandinavia.

Yeah. I bet this is going to be a huge hit in Yemen and the rest of the ME.

:roll:

Being unsure is just as bad as actively disbelieving. Evolution is so well established that to be unsure of whether the theory is sound is like being unsure of gravity. I also put Big Bang theory in that category, although it doesn't seem the draw the controversy like evolution does.