Finally... More Young Americans Who 'Believe' in Evolution Than Creationism

[Muse]

Wonder what Darwin and his predecessors would think about that...

Who cares what his idiot predecessors would think? Darwin was on the right track. He wasn't perfect but he got it 90% right, which was a 500 foot home run.

"What is now proved was once only imagined." -- William Blake (at least 30 years before Origin of the Species was conceived and published)

The fact that only 1/2 of Americans even believe in evolution shows how uneducated the populace remains. A lot of people profit from the public remaining uneducated and want to keep them that way. They are the enemy.

 

[John Connor]

Ridiculous.

Indubididly

 

[John Connor]

The fact that only 1/2 of Americans even believe in evolution

There's no doubt about evolution, but I think it's one piece to a big puzzle.

 

[pcgeek11]

If something is undetectable how can it have an effect on a physical process?

I didn't say it was undetectable. I do not have the answers to all the mysteries of the universe. Do you?

What I said was this: "None that we can recognize anyway. Just because you don't or can't detect it doesn't mean that it isn't there."

 

[John Connor]

Subatomic particles, planets, solar systems and galaxies spin in circles. You can't explain that!

 

[pcgeek11]

well, just say that your god isn't in any way interested in you or any other humans. That is kinda what you are saying right here, isn't it? That is really the only way to cram an "Evolution as God's tool" argument in there, and actually understand the first thing about evolution.

That's fine and all, but again, the next obvious answer is why believe in such a god? Of course you can tell me to pound sand in response and that's perfectly fine--I'm actually just curious about such a belief.

No, that isn't what I am saying at all.

The evidence supporting evolution cannot be denied. Check.
There ( IMO ) are too many things that had to be just right for us to even exist on planet earth at all. Too many to be considered random.

 

[pcgeek11]

in many opinions, yes. Such people that hold this idea as opinion, though, are deniers of solid scientific rigor. It can be no other way. Again, that is your opinion. Just don't confuse your opinion as something that is equally as valid as actual scientific observation and testing.

But it is not in any way an opinion that the improbability and current direction of evolution fit perfectly well within the framework of known existence (age of earth, biological rates of mutations and selective forces over time, etc).

There have been many scientific truths that have later been proven wrong also.

 

[Muse]

I'm surprised this isn't more common. I've discussed the idea with friends who believe in in-situ creationism and have never gotten a good answer as to why God couldn't use evolution, the Big Bang, particle physics, etc, to create the universe.

What is God then? A conscious entity with an intention, kind of like a chess player maybe. OK, if I make these moves, here's what I will achieve? Seems preposterous to me. God, if the idea has any meaning whatsoever is just the universe itself, everything. No reason, no intention, no outcome intended, all those are just projections that humans utilize. There are intentions in this world, there is good and evil, but God encompasses it all. It's not a really useful concept, actually. And the word has so many barnacles hanging off of it, it's become a real drag!

 

[Muse]

There have been many scientific truths that have later been proven wrong also.

OK, I call your bluff and raise you. Name me some.

Newtonian physics was accepted as the gold standard but it wasn't proven. It's useful to an extent but it isn't actually correct, only approximately correct in a lot of situations, useful situations from a practical standpoint. That can be shown experimentally and was first conceived mentally. But Newtonian physics wasn't "scientific truth." You should instead think of those "scientific truths" of yours as scientific paradigms that were accepted. Truth proven wrong is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

 

[WelshBloke]

I didn't say it was undetectable. I do not have the answers to all the mysteries of the universe. Do you?

What I said was this: "None that we can recognize anyway. Just because you don't or can't detect it doesn't mean that it isn't there."

But what you're doing is making something up, defining it as undetectable and then saying "prove me wrong!".

 

[Thebobo]

I'm God. When I die, all of you will cease to exist.

Well that is true from your perspective.

 

[pcgeek11]

OK, I call your bluff and raise you. Name me some.

Newtonian physics was accepted as the gold standard but it wasn't proven. It's useful to an extent but it isn't actually correct, only approximately correct in a lot of situations, useful situations from a practical standpoint. That can be shown experimentally and was first conceived mentally. But Newtonian physics wasn't "scientific truth." You should instead think of those "scientific truths" of yours as scientific paradigms that were accepted. Truth proven wrong is an oxymoron if there ever was one.

OK, I'll change that to things that were accepted as facts are then proven as false later.

Look this goes nowhere as you atheist are not going to accept anything short of God popping up on your lawn and showing you.

I believe what I believe and so do you...

 

[Muse]

OK, I'll change that to things that were accepted as facts are then proven as false later.

Look this goes nowhere as you atheist are not going to accept anything short of God popping up on your lawn and showing you.

I believe what I believe and so do you...

Who said I am an atheist? I call shens...

 

[IronWing]

I like how the atheists think they know there is no God. Then proced to use the judicial system to tear down a religion. That by definition is Nazism.

Just when I think you couldn't possibly write something more stupid than your last post, you do.

 

[Thebobo]

Subatomic particles, planets, solar systems and galaxies spin in circles. You can't explain that!

God likes twirly things.

 

[WelshBloke]

Look this goes nowhere as you atheist are not going to accept anything short of God popping up on your lawn and showing you.

I'd accept any evidence at all for a start.

 

[IronWing]

I'm partial to things that spin but don't spin in circles.

 

[IronWing]

I'd accept any evidence at all for a start.

The problem with that offer is that you get hit in the face with the mother (or father, I suppose) of all sloppy definitions.

 

[Muse]

God likes twirly things.

4th of July maybe?

 

[WelshBloke]

The problem with that offer is that you get hit in the face with the mother (or father, I suppose) of all sloppy definitions.

I guess. At least it's something to work with though!

 

[John Connor]

God likes twirly things.

No, God likes balance and harmony. Precision and equilibrium.

 

[Thebobo]

No, God likes balance and harmony. Precision and equilibrium.

Oh yea you've seen his profile on Match?

 

[sdifox]

No, God likes balance and harmony. Precision and equilibrium.

You are a clear example of non existence of God.

 

[Fritzo]

I like how the atheists think they know there is no God. Then proced to use the judicial system to tear down a religion. That by definition is Nazism.

It's impossible to prove something does not exist. Atheists don't "know" there is no God. The choose to believe there is not one (or more).

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I like how the atheists think they know there is no God. Then proced to use the judicial system to tear down a religion. That by definition is Nazism.

Not sure if joking or dumbest thing ever said. Please advise us of your intent.