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

[Thebobo]

Really? Is a higher being seeding life really that unbelievable? Would you choose not to that believe farmers seeded and bring life to the carbohydrates you eat?

Life does not come naturally, some higher being created it. Who created higher being does not matter because higher being might not even be “life”.

We can live in a computer simulation for all we know and our god can be an AI.

Well I should've been clearer. I deny our current religious gods from the bible and what not. I believe it's possible that the earth was seeded with DNA that is programed to evolve into intelligent life given the right environments. I also believe life is possible from non life after all it started somewhere. We're very young in our knowledge of existence but I will not plug in god when I don't know the answer to the question.

 

[sandorski]

You are just desperately trying to prove something that can’t be proven just as you are desperately trying to disapprove creationism which can’t be disapproven.

Layout your Theory of Creation. Spare no details.

 

[WelshBloke]

Really? Is a higher being seeding life really that unbelievable? Would you choose not to that believe farmers seeded and bring life to the carbohydrates you eat?

Life does not come naturally, some higher being created it. Who created higher being does not matter because higher being might not even be “life”.

We can live in a computer simulation for all we know and our god can be an AI.

OK so for you evolution is too far fetched even if each bit of the process can be explained but your theory has some higher power that is undetectable, unexplainable and doesn't fit in with any of the facts of how the universe works that we know of. Oh, and there is absolutely no evidence of said beings existence.

Sounds totally reasonable.

 

[Chaotic42]

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!

I don't know. I'm not religious, but at the very least attributing things like evolution, abiogenesis, relativity, etc. to God doesn't require just blatantly ignoring the obvious in the same way that Young Earth Creationism does. The question of God isn't a scientific one - if the current universe "obviously" requires a creator, then that creator obviously requires an even more intelligent creator. It's turtles all the way down.

At least acknowledging currently known and understood science allows people to function productively within that framework.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Really? Is a higher being seeding life really that unbelievable? .

Yes, it is. As freaky and unlikely as the wonders of the cosmos are, it's still the most plausible scenario. That's the part where you wannabelievers always trip up. You can't wrap your minds around how life could arise on its own because that seems too complex, so you invent an invisible man with the power to fart the entire universe out of his ass. And you just can't quite get your minds to accept the premise that single cell organisms coming into being spontaneously is a bazillion times easier to occur than a supreme being arising spontaneously. And that's why we laugh at you.

single cell = too improbable.
God that can create a universe with a snap of his fingers = sure, makes perfect sense

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Yes, it is. As freaky and unlikely as the wonders of the cosmos are, it's still the most plausible scenario. That's the part where you wannabelievers always trip up. You can't wrap your minds around how life could arise on its own because that seems too complex, so you invent an invisible man with the power to fart the entire universe out of his ass. And you just can't quite get your minds to accept the premise that single cell organisms coming into being spontaneously is a bazillion times easier to occur than a supreme being arising spontaneously. And that's why we laugh at you.

single cell = too improbable.
God that can create a universe with a snap of his fingers = sure, makes perfect sense

Hahaha too complex to understand. Please ask Darwin if he rejects notion of God, last time I checked, he was a devouted Anglican Christian until his death. Are you gonna balatantly tell him that his own theory that he invented is too complex for him to comprehend?

Also, God has no finger so what you said is invalid.

Also, I find you to be condescending even though you know nothing.

 

[IronWing]

Hahaha too complex to understand. Please ask Darwin if he rejects notion of God, last time I checked, he was a devouted Anglican Christian until his death. Are you gonna balatantly tell him that his own theory that he invented is too complex for him to comprehend?

Also, God has no finger so what you said is invalid.

Also, I find you to be condescending even though you know nothing.

Evidence that your god has no finger?

 

[IronWing]

Yes, it is. As freaky and unlikely as the wonders of the cosmos are, it's still the most plausible scenario. That's the part where you wannabelievers always trip up. You can't wrap your minds around how life could arise on its own because that seems too complex, so you invent an invisible man with the power to fart the entire universe out of his ass. And you just can't quite get your minds to accept the premise that single cell organisms coming into being spontaneously is a bazillion times easier to occur than a supreme being arising spontaneously. And that's why we laugh at you.

single cell = too improbable.
God that can create a universe with a snap of his fingers = sure, makes perfect sense

Making gods is easy peasy. Making useful gods is a trick.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Evidence that your god has no finger?

I do not adhere to any religion so I don’t need evidences.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Making gods is easy peasy. Making useful gods is a trick.

Well, nobody has come up with one yet. But judging from the intellect of the people that invent gods that seems to be user error. And therein lies the catch. Anyone intelligent enough to create a god that was good for anything would not be creating one in the first place.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Hahaha too complex to understand. Please ask Darwin if he rejects notion of God, last time I checked, he was a devouted Anglican Christian until his death. Are you gonna balatantly tell him that his own theory that he invented is too complex for him to comprehend?

BZZZ. Wrong. Ask god for a better brain. Darwin WAS devout in early life. As he studied more and learned more he rejected the bible entirely. He wanted there to be a god, he kept looking for evidence of god and tried to discover evidence that god was behind evolution, trying to find an almighty order in nature. He failed.

 

[sandorski]

BZZZ. Wrong. Ask god for a better brain. Darwin WAS devout in early life. As he studied more and learned more he rejected the bible entirely. He wanted there to be a god, he kept looking for evidence of god and tried to discover evidence that god was behind evolution, trying to find an almighty order in nature. He failed.

Even if he believed, it is moot. Evolution is a fact, regardless whether a god exists or not.

 

[IronWing]

I do not adhere to any religion so I don’t need evidences.

Well then, it looks like you're set.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

Even if he believed, it is moot. Evolution is a fact, regardless whether a god exists or not.

The point is that he approached evolution as a wannabeliever. He tried and tried and tried to rectify the science that he knew to be true with the religion he *wanted* to be true. He, like some people here, wanted to believe that evolution was a tool of god and the more he learned the more he went away from that idea. He was not able to get the two ideas to work in harmony and he stuck with the one that worked: science.

 

[sandorski]

The point is that he approached evolution as a wannabeliever. He tried and tried and tried to rectify the science that he knew to be true with the religion he *wanted* to be true. He, like some people here, wanted to believe that evolution was a tool of god and the more he learned the more he went away from that idea. He was not able to get the two ideas to work in harmony and he stuck with the one that worked: science.

I agree, Darwin drifted from Religion due to what he discovered. Many Scientists did at that time, many people do today once they discover the veracity of Evolution and other Scientific theories. Regardless though, it doesn't matter whether they continued to believe in god(s) or not. Evolution stands on its' own as a fact, supported by mountains of evidence.

 

[GagHalfrunt]

I do not adhere to any religion so I don’t need evidences.

And that is what allows you to believe in fairy tales. I guess your god wants you to look like a fool.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

BZZZ. Wrong. Ask god for a better brain. Darwin WAS devout in early life. As he studied more and learned more he rejected the bible entirely. He wanted there to be a god, he kept looking for evidence of god and tried to discover evidence that god was behind evolution, trying to find an almighty order in nature. He failed.

Nope he didn’t, he renounce his entire theory at his death bed. Sorry but your hero and champion does not not agree with you.

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

And that is what allows you to believe in fairy tales. I guess your god wants you to look like a fool.

I believe in the existence of higher being but I do not worship any such being. Plain and simple.

Has anyone told you that your avatar is an adult version of a maggot?

 

[Thebobo]

Nope he didn’t, he renounce his entire theory at his death bed. Sorry but your hero and champion does not not agree with you.

Well wiki and even christian sites say otherwise.

https://www.icr.org/article/2834/ and Wiki

"Spurious deathbed conversions
Charles Darwin

After Charles Darwin died, rumours spread that he had converted to Christianity on his deathbed. His children denied this occurred.

One famous example is Charles Darwin's deathbed conversion in which it was claimed by Lady Hope that Darwin said: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savoring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."[14] Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957.

Lady Hope's story is not supported by Darwin's children. Darwin's son Francis Darwin accused her of lying, saying that "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply." [14] Darwin's daughter Henrietta Litchfield also called the story a fabrication, saying "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever."[15]"

 

[Thebobo]

I believe in the existence of higher being but I do not worship any such being. Plain and simple.

Has anyone told you that your avatar is an adult version of a maggot?

Blasphemy that is his Noodliness!

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Well wiki and even christian sites say otherwise.

https://www.icr.org/article/2834/ and Wiki

"Spurious deathbed conversions
Charles Darwin

After Charles Darwin died, rumours spread that he had converted to Christianity on his deathbed. His children denied this occurred.

One famous example is Charles Darwin's deathbed conversion in which it was claimed by Lady Hope that Darwin said: "How I wish I had not expressed my theory of evolution as I have done." He went on to say that he would like her to gather a congregation since he "would like to speak to them of Christ Jesus and His salvation, being in a state where he was eagerly savoring the heavenly anticipation of bliss."[14] Lady Hope's story was printed in the Boston Watchman Examiner. The story spread, and the claims were republished as late as October 1955 in the Reformation Review and in the Monthly Record of the Free Church of Scotland in February 1957.

Lady Hope's story is not supported by Darwin's children. Darwin's son Francis Darwin accused her of lying, saying that "Lady Hope's account of my father's views on religion is quite untrue. I have publicly accused her of falsehood, but have not seen any reply." [14] Darwin's daughter Henrietta Litchfield also called the story a fabrication, saying "I was present at his deathbed. Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. The whole story has no foundation whatever."[15]"

thats what atheists warrior snowflakes like to believe

 

[AMDisTheBEST]

Blasphemy that is his Noodliness!

i dont care. i do not adhered to any religion, monotheistic or not.

 

[sandorski]

Nope he didn’t, he renounce his entire theory at his death bed. Sorry but your hero and champion does not not agree with you.

Even if he did, it is moot. His theory of Evolution is correct.

 

[IronWing]

thats what atheists warrior snowflakes like to believe

Buckshot.

 

[pcgeek11]

OK, sansorski misspoke.

He meant "laws," not "facts."

A scientific law is essentially something that is always true and proven to be a fact. We had a scientific renaissance in the 20th century where we realized stating something as a "law" is incredibly arrogant and reckless, as we don't know what we don't know yet. Therefore, any rules that have been observed to be true after testing time and time again become "theories." Having a notion turned into a theory is a pretty big deal. If you find some physical rule that has proven true by multiple peers, and nobody can disprove that notion, it becomes a tool to measure other things.

For instance, we have the Law of Gravity, and this law was established by We've found that gravity attracts mass at an exact proportional rate. We use this law to put satellites into orbit, send spacecraft to other planets, etc. It works every time. Well...ALMOST every time. This law was created in the 17th century. We've since learned about the quantum world, and the Law of Gravity doesn't apply on things that are very tiny. We've also learned that black holes exist, and all gravitational laws break down in them as well. Today, we would have called it the Principle of Gravity, or perhaps the Theory of Gravity on Classical Matter. It's still called a "law" out of tradition, but physicists are very reluctant to call anything a law anymore.

I'm sure he did.

LOL Right.