[C33]

so I was watchin the science channel last night and they had a program on about darwin and evolution and they said that almost half of all americans believe in Creationism over evolution. Spcifically that we were made in gods image, exactly as we look today, and that this happened roughly 10,000 years ago.

this also seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon with it's broadest support in the mid-west and rurual areas... big surprise there.

Are we going backwards as a country? What kind of f*cked up sh*t is this? it's the 21st century already and we're still debating evolution. I think this is just sad.

[deeg]

oddly enought this creation/evolution came up in a recent clubbing trip i went on...i was stunned to find out that some of my friends were creationist's..they excepted that the 7 days bit was way off but went on to say that this was 7 days for "god" not man and so god days where different...
after rofl i got up but they were deadly serious over this.. i knew they
were christians but this was a complete stun....

[GK]

It's sad that there are THAT many ignorant people around.

[scaught]

almost half of american doesn't believe in evolution as well.

[sek929]

Yeah its crap, just goes to show what takes presidence in a family's life, knowlege or religion.....

Taking the time to teach a kid takes too long, tell him the world and everything in it was created by an omnipitent being that will send you to hell if you do anything bad, that'll set him straight.

I hate religion, mostly every one, and the people that take it too seriously.

[wataru]

That makes me sad.

[awaspaas]

Pfft, to hell with reason, logic, evidence, ration, sensibility....

I'M GOING TO CHURCH!

[flatcatch]

So we can derive from this at least half of all Americans are ***ing loonies, but I'd put that figure much higher. That, and what is it now, 66% of Americans are fat (or "healthy-weight-challenged" as it goes. )

[deeg]

Originally posted by flatcatch:
<STRONG>, 66% of Americans are fat (or "healthy-weight-challenged" as it goes. )</STRONG>

isn't that for tax reasons

[ReggieX]

I urge everyone to go over to James Randi's web site and read til your eyes bleed.Randi.org

[GK]

66% of Americans are fat (

BTW, a couple of weeks ago, there was a clinically obese woman on TV discussing health risks of obesity, e.g. diabetes, cardiovascular disease. Well, she said that the correlation between obesity and increased prevalence of aforementioned ailments is NOT due to obesity, but due to a discrimination/conspiracy of health professionals, esp. doctors, against the obese population, which resulted that obese people would get only 2nd rate medications, and not sufficient care by their doctors.



I was stunned by the level of complete ignorance this person demonstrated (on national TV nonetheless). Almost made me throw up.

[mavapa]

Most Americans are not idiots, they are just ignorant. And for that we can blame most of the education establishment, as well as most of the legislators who insist that schools teach their own backward type of religion as science. I blame the education establishment because they don't stand up to their state legislators and tell them they're stupid. That could cost them their meager annual raises, which they don't deserve because they won't stand up for a decent education.

[deeg]

Originally posted by GK:
<STRONG>

Almost made me throw up.</STRONG>

waste of good kilo adding food, i hope you resisted... 66 % and growing

[KellyHogan]

hahahahaha...hohohohohohoho....I'm just waiting for a couple of guys to turn up to give the creationist's argument.

Amazing that the Babylonian, Egyptian and Indian literature had 'evolution' and that mankind had basically derived from various imperfect forms and even animals in the past (which is one of the reasons we have images we call 'Animism' in Egypt and India). Then we 'devolved' into hardline Creationism.

Thousands of years later the world is still a stupid place. Maybe this is evidence why people believe in Creationism. After all, they haven't progressed one bit!!

[jholmes]

Of course in 1902 probably 98% of Americans believed in creationism rather than evolution.

So obviously the concept is still .. um... evolving... here.

[sub-atomic]

Some people want religion to be a science, and some people want science to be a religion. The rest of us just want to be happy.

[ringo]

Just because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist.

Both theories sound like BS to me, and neither can be proven.

[M�lum]

Originally posted by C33:
<STRONG>so I was watchin the science channel last night and they had a program on about darwin and evolution and they said that almost half of all americans believe in Creationism over evolution. Spcifically that we were made in gods image, exactly as we look today, and that this happened roughly 10,000 years ago.

this also seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon with it's broadest support in the mid-west and rurual areas... big surprise there.

Are we going backwards as a country? What kind of f*cked up sh*t is this? it's the 21st century already and we're still debating evolution. I think this is just sad.</STRONG>

It's all because of Television.... But don't feel too bad, it's not just the vast majority of the US population that is ignorant, also the vast majority of the WORLD population is.. I mean, in Italy they voted for Berlusconi as prime-minister, In Israel they voted for Sharon and in many Muslin countries they watch All That Jazzera.

[KellyHogan]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>Just because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist.

Both theories sound like BS to me, and neither can be proven.</STRONG>

When you lift weights and eat more what happens to your body?

[ajprice]

Can't remember where I heard it now, but scientists are saying now that human physiology is changing within a very short time to make the thumb a more important digit than the index finger. The reasoning behind it was the greater use of handheld technology like mobile phones, PDA's, Gameboys and console gamepads. I don't know if it's true (hey, I'm not a real scientist myself, y'know) but it seems reasonable to me.

[ringo]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

When you lift weights and eat more what happens to your body?</STRONG>

Science can take my body apart, examine it, experiment on it.

The universe is not so easily manipulated or observed.

Is it so hard to accept that our knowledge *might* be limited, that we *might* not know the answer to every imaginable question?

If you think science can't be wrong, than what's the difference wetween your science and another's god?

[deeg]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

When you lift weights and eat more what happens to your body?</STRONG>

you become a fat weight lifter ?

[ringo]

Originally posted by ajprice:
<STRONG>Can't remember where I heard it now, but scientists are saying now that human physiology is changing within a very short time to make the thumb a more important digit than the index finger. The reasoning behind it was the greater use of handheld technology like mobile phones, PDA's, Gameboys and console gamepads. I don't know if it's true (hey, I'm not a real scientist myself, y'know) but it seems reasonable to me.</STRONG>

Hee hee. Like using a gameboy makes you more likely to mate successfuly and reproduce.

[sek929]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>If you think science can't be wrong, than what's the difference wetween your science and another's god?</STRONG>

The fact the more and more scientific discoveries can change our views and we will accept and embrance new material and findings whereas those who believe in god ar rather rigid in their beliefs. Any new discoveries or revelation about how Jesus was really a woman, etc... would be diregarded and denounced throughout most major religious communities (that believe in the jesus thing anyways)

[ringo]

Originally posted by sek929:
<STRONG>

The fact the more and more scientific discoveries can change our views and we will accept and embrance new material and findings whereas those who believe in god ar rather rigid in their beliefs. Any new discoveries or revelation about how Jesus was really a woman, etc... would be diregarded and denounced throughout most major religious communities (that believe in the jesus thing anyways)</STRONG>

Exactly, part of science means being able to admit that science can be wrong. Science is a tool, not a religion.

It's as hard for me to believe that a bunch of chemicals exploded, formed gaseous blobs, became planets, developed water, produced single cell creatures, those creatures become other creatures, yadda yadda yadda, I drive my car to work everyday ...

...as it is for me to believe that some thing wanted me to be here so *poof*, I drive my car to work.

I'm not saying throw out science, just that neither has been proven and on a logical level I think they sound equally like horseshit.

[sek929]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>

Exactly, part of science means being able to admit that science can be wrong. Science is a tool, not a religion.

It's as hard for me to believe that a bunch of chemicals exploded, formed gaseous blobs, became planets, developed water, produced single cell creatures, those creatures become other creatures, yadda yadda yadda, I drive my car to work everyday ...

...as it is for me to believe that some thing wanted me to be here so *poof*, I drive my car to work.

I'm not saying throw out science, just that neither has been proven and on a logical level I think they sound equally like horseshit. </STRONG>

Oh I agree, but your talking about two different theories here. Big bang and evolution.

I am almost utterly sure evolution is right, maybe some flaws but the idea is spot on. The Big bang is very questionable, and until we have more facts we can't really say what happened.

Hell maybe god created the universe and let everything just sit around and work its own magic, damned if I know.

But the only thing more absurd than the big bang is Creationism in my mind, maybe I am wrong....only time will tell. Until then I trust and confide in the rigors of science, not some dusty book and a homosexual, petophile spritzing crowds with water.

[driven]

Originally posted by C33:
<STRONG>so I was watchin the science channel last night and they had a program on about darwin and evolution and they said that almost half of all americans believe in Creationism over evolution. Spcifically that we were made in gods image, exactly as we look today, and that this happened roughly 10,000 years ago.

this also seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon with it's broadest support in the mid-west and rurual areas... big surprise there.

Are we going backwards as a country? What kind of f*cked up sh*t is this? it's the 21st century already and we're still debating evolution. I think this is just sad.</STRONG>

I'm not sure why the two theories have to be mutually exclusive from each other.

[deeg]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>


I'm not sure why the two theories have to be mutually exclusive from each other.</STRONG>

so at what point did creation stop and evolution begin... when we were still bangin rocks together ? not much to god if we were made in his image then

[C33]

Originally posted by ajprice:
<STRONG>Can't remember where I heard it now, but scientists are saying now that human physiology is changing within a very short time to make the thumb a more important digit than the index finger. The reasoning behind it was the greater use of handheld technology like mobile phones, PDA's, Gameboys and console gamepads. I don't know if it's true (hey, I'm not a real scientist myself, y'know) but it seems reasonable to me.</STRONG>

I heard the same thing. i think it was on Tech TV. On a similar note, some scientists believe that evolutionary changes can occur quickly in some instances (within a few generations) rather than taking millions of years.

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: C33 ]

[wataru]

Originally posted by C33:
<STRONG>

I heard the same thing. i think it was on Tech TV. On a similar note, some scientists believe that evolutionary changes can occur quickly in some instances (within a few generations) rather than taking millions of years.

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: C33 ]</STRONG>

Yeah, punctuated equilibrium. That's one of the basic subsets of evolution theory.

[Adam Betts]

Originally posted by C33:
<STRONG>I heard the same thing. i think it was on Tech TV. On a similar note, some scientists believe that evolutionary changes can occur quickly in some instances (within a few generations) rather than taking millions of years.</STRONG>

Yeah, similar to technology.. It's expanding way faster than 1980 and beyond. People have to caught up with technology. Isn't it scary?

I respect those people who strongly believe in creationism but it's really sad for them trying to protect something that simply isn't true. "Keep your faith and Jesus will come" What a load of holy bullsh!t!

[CharlesS]

Originally posted by driven:
<STRONG>


I'm not sure why the two theories have to be mutually exclusive from each other.</STRONG>

They're not. Look at something I noticed some time ago:

Genesis 1:20-27

And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven. And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth. And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so. And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Notice something? Life starts in the water. Then come fish, birds, land-dwelling mammals, and finally, man. Sound familiar?

If you accept that 'day' could be symbolic for 'era' or 'epoch' here (I think it says somewhere else in the Bible that to God, a day is the same as a thousand years, or something to that effect), this could very well describe the process of evolution, only adding that God oversaw the process and set the various stages in motion.

Kind of makes the whole debate seem kinda silly, doesn't it? Maybe if we could let science try to figure out *how* things happen, and let religion (or whatever you believe in if you're not religious) figure out *why* things happen, we'd save a lot of wasted time and effort.

[andi*pandi]

And for that we can blame most of the education establishment, as well as most of the legislators who insist that schools teach their own backward type of religion as science. I blame the education establishment because they don't stand up to their state legislators and tell them they're stupid.

um, where you are from, do they really still teach evolution in schools? Up north, I hear the old conservative religious folk grumble that they took religion/creationism OUT, along with prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and all good-thinking moral standards... whiny babies.

[deeg]

Originally posted by CharlesS:
<STRONG>

Notice something? Life starts in the water. Then come fish, birds, land-dwelling mammals, and finally, man. Sound familiar?

.</STRONG>

fair enough but..." And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind"...small timeline lapse here dont you think ? was under the impression that the whales evolved from some species that gave up on the living on land thing as a bad idea...which is correct ? if genesis is wrong then does that not cast doubt on the validity of the rest of the bible ?

[C33]

Originally posted by andi*pandi:
<STRONG>

um, where you are from, do they really still teach evolution in schools? Up north, I hear the old conservative religious folk grumble that they took religion/creationism OUT, along with prayer, the pledge of allegiance, and all good-thinking moral standards... whiny babies.</STRONG>

that's not entirely true. Creationism has been gaining ground in schools lately. Mostly in the bible belt, and mid-west areas of the US, however over the past decade there has been a push by fundamentalist Christians to make Creationism manditory in school curricula, either alongside the teaching of evolution or instead of.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by ajprice:
<STRONG>Can't remember where I heard it now, but scientists are saying now that human physiology is changing within a very short time to make the thumb a more important digit than the index finger. The reasoning behind it was the greater use of handheld technology like mobile phones, PDA's, Gameboys and console gamepads.</STRONG>

Now THAT's funny.

What in the world possible evolutionary advantage could there be to using mobile phones and playing Gameboys?

Mobile phones/PDAs = dying in car accidents.
Gameboys/consoles = too geeky to get out of the house and get a girlfriend.

Either way, these people are not exactly poster children for evolutionary success.

[Patrick]

Originally posted by jholmes:
<STRONG>Of course in 1902 probably 98% of Americans believed in creationism rather than evolution.

So obviously the concept is still .. um... evolving... here.</STRONG>

This is probably the reason. It takes a while for theories to become popular, and for people to become educated. The theory of evolution hasn't been around for that long, when you think about it.

More than half of Americans are probably old enough to have parents who weren't taught about evolution, who thought it was completely ridiculous, and/or have issues with it as it contradicts their religious beliefs. So I can't say I'm surprised to hear that creationism is still popular.

Also, Darwin was from England, so I'm guessing that information disseminated faster in Europe than it did overseas.

[CollinG3G4]

Yeah and the moon landing was faked.

Please........

[deeg]

Originally posted by Patrick:
<STRONG>

More than half of Americans are probably old enough to have parents who weren't taught about evolution, who thought it was completely ridiculous, and/or have issues with it as it contradicts their religious beliefs. So I can't say I'm surprised to hear that creationism is still popular.

</STRONG>

whilest i agree that the theory could take sometine to take hold it does not explain the apparent rise in "creationism"..is it a case of less new worthing events and more channels to fill and so this story gets on the air or is the US retreating from the realities of modern day living into the security of religeon and if so what does that say about the life styles we are living that makes people believe in sections of a book thats over 2000 years old as fact....

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by ajprice:
<STRONG>Can't remember where I heard it now, but scientists are saying now that human physiology is changing within a very short time to make the thumb a more important digit than the index finger. The reasoning behind it was the greater use of handheld technology like mobile phones, PDA's, Gameboys and console gamepads. I don't know if it's true (hey, I'm not a real scientist myself, y'know) but it seems reasonable to me.</STRONG>

This piece isn't about evolution, or punctuated equilibrium, or any of that. It's a mind-bendingly obvious study that says people who grew up playing video games now use their thumbs much more, and with more dexterity more than people from past generations. Wow, and people who are given tennis lessons as youngsters grow up to be much better tennis players than those who had no such training! Who would've thought!

Oh, and there is no such thing as a religious "why". Saying "God did it" is not an answer. Trying to provide an answer based on an unsupported, contradictory set of beliefs doesn't work. At all. Just let it go, people.

[Millennium]

I'd be interested in seeing that survey myself.

Are you sure that the answer was creation excluding evolution? There's also the idea of evolution as creation (the concept of God creating life using evolution), and the idea of God creating an "old universe", and a few others.

My point: just because someone believes in creation doesn't necessarily mean they don't believe in evolution. Depending on exactly what questions were asked and how they were worded, you (or even the people doing the survey) might be misinterpreting the results.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by ringo:
<STRONG>Just because you don't believe in evolution doesn't mean that you're a creationist.

Both theories sound like BS to me, and neither can be proven.</STRONG>

Evolution happens. It is a fact. Whether you believe the current theory on the origin of life or not is another matter entirely, and more a question of history than biology. It is backed fairly well by fossil evidence (at least the idea that life has grown more complex over time). Believe it or not, but breeding of dogs is exactly the same way evolution works, it's only that their breeding and success is dictated by human decisions and actions rather than happenstance.

BlackGRiffen

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by ajprice:
<STRONG>Can't remember where I heard it now, but scientists are saying now that human physiology is changing within a very short time to make the thumb a more important digit than the index finger. The reasoning behind it was the greater use of handheld technology like mobile phones, PDA's, Gameboys and console gamepads. I don't know if it's true (hey, I'm not a real scientist myself, y'know) but it seems reasonable to me.</STRONG>

Problem is that that isn't an evolutionary change. Evolutionary changes require at least one generation ( in the case of multicellular organisms). You see, evolutionary change would require a genetic change in the organism, and it is impossible to organize such in a whole mature organism. That change is a neurological change, on par with learning baseball or changing your mind. Neurologist have literally experimented with monkeys by stimulating, say, two of their digits constantly, and the region of their brain dedicated to processing the sensory information from those digits literally increases in size. Is this an evolutionary change? No.

BlackGriffen

[eroom1369]

...And Noah made room on the Ark for dinosaurs....LOL...I know people that actually believe this!!!

[tommy]

Originally posted by C33:
<STRONG>so I was watchin the science channel last night and they had a program on about darwin and evolution and they said that almost half of all americans believe in Creationism over evolution. Spcifically that we were made in gods image, exactly as we look today, and that this happened roughly 10,000 years ago.

this also seems to be a uniquely American phenomenon with it's broadest support in the mid-west and rurual areas... big surprise there.

Are we going backwards as a country? What kind of f*cked up sh*t is this? it's the 21st century already and we're still debating evolution. I think this is just sad.</STRONG>

Actually, pretty much all of Darwinism has been disproved over the last 2 to 3 decades. Creationism has not. We know much more about the fossil record than Darwin and it doesn't jive with "Origin of the Species." Mutations and natural selection cannot be the driving factor of evolution based on the fossil record. In addition, we know much more about the age of the universe, the time between when traits first appeared in species, the complexity of species. On top of all this, we have a much better handle on probability and statistics. Again, math makes us come to the conclusion that there has not been enough time for evolution as we know it (i.e. mutations, natural selection, Darwinism).

Net, science teaches us that our theories of evolution do not hold up. We as a society have been struggling to match the science to a new theory of evolution. We have not been able to do it. Thus, creationism is all that we have left. Yet still, 1/2 of us believe that science disproves creationism when the truth is that science disproves evolution. IMHO, I believe the truth is a blend of the two theories.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by KellyHogan:
<STRONG>

When you lift weights and eat more what happens to your body?</STRONG>

That would require Lamarckian (is that the name of it? I know it pre-dates Darwinian natural selection) inheritance, which has be disproven many times over. Basically, the argument against it is that correlation does not imply causation: weight-lifters, if they are more likely to have strong babies, it is because the weight lifter was born with a predisposition toward strength. What would be interesting is if there was some mechanism whereby the parent's physiological state had an effect on the genetic structure of their offspring. Such a mechanism has yet to be observed. At any rate, body-building is not evolution. Evolution would be blondes with less melanin getting skin cancer more and at younger ages leading to a drop in their birth rate (dead people cannot reproduce), and thus a drop in blonde kids.

A short, simple way to summarize evolution would be this: unstable things change, stable ones don't. The leap of evolutions is simply that this applies to the overall average genetic code of a population.

BlackGriffen

[Gene Jockey]

Originally posted by tommy:
<STRONG>&lt;snip&gt;
Net, science teaches us that our theories of evolution do not hold up. We as a society have been struggling to match the science to a new theory of evolution. We have not been able to do it. Thus, creationism is all that we have left. &lt;snip&gt;</STRONG>

No, silly rabbit! We don't have creationism left, it was never viable to begin with. Maybe evidence points to evolution, as we know it, being incorrect. Yet you state that creationism has not been proven incorrect. Well, in order to prove something incorrect, one has to show that the evidence supporting the claim is wrong. You can't "prove" an arbitrary belief wrong, as it has no evidence, just a belief.

Go ahead and ask me about the invisible elf that lives on my head. He makes rain. Honest.

[BlackGriffen]

Originally posted by tommy:
<STRONG>

Actually, pretty much all of Darwinism has been disproved over the last 2 to 3 decades. Creationism has not. We know much more about the fossil record than Darwin and it doesn't jive with "Origin of the Species." Mutations and natural selection cannot be the driving factor of evolution based on the fossil record. In addition, we know much more about the age of the universe, the time between when traits first appeared in species, the complexity of species. On top of all this, we have a much better handle on probability and statistics. Again, math makes us come to the conclusion that there has not been enough time for evolution as we know it (i.e. mutations, natural selection, Darwinism).

Net, science teaches us that our theories of evolution do not hold up. We as a society have been struggling to match the science to a new theory of evolution. We have not been able to do it. Thus, creationism is all that we have left. Yet still, 1/2 of us believe that science disproves creationism when the truth is that science disproves evolution. IMHO, I believe the truth is a blend of the two theories.</STRONG>

That's a crock. Anyone who says mutations cannot occur fast enough doesn't understand chaos theory (the basis for punctuated equilibrium). There was also an interesting idea in Scientific American a few months ago, the idea that gene pools actually broaden and diversify during stable periods (building up harmless mutations), and the mutations are brought in to prominence when they provide an advantage. Remember, the only rule is that harmful characteristics are selected against. If the trait doesn't hurt the individual who has it, it can just stick around. If conditions change and start selecting for that trait, inbreeding will take over and start exaggerating the genetic traits of a family line, and evolution will proceed rather rapidly until there are enough individuals in the population to stabilize the genetic pool.

BlackGriffen

[awaspaas]

My concern is the fact that Darwinism isn't allowed to work in the human race anymore! In a hunter/gatherer society, those with, say, poor eyesight, would have a smaller chance of catching food, a smaller chance of reprocing, and therefore over time, only humans with good vision would be around.

But in today's society, genetic defects like myopia have nothing to do with reproduction - therefore by distribution of these genes, the percentage of people with poor vision is increasing in the parts of the world where people have access to eyeglasses, contact lenses, and laser eye surgery.

Apply this to all medical ailments that can be "fixed" by doctors, and it seems to me that the industrialized parts of the world are going to have really dirty gene pools really soon!!

At least until gene therapy gets going, but that opens up a whole new can of worms, like GATTACA. Problem is, I don't see a lot of alternative!!!

[nealconner]

Originally posted by wataru:
<STRONG>

Yeah, punctuated equilibrium. That's one of the basic subsets of evolution theory.</STRONG>

one of my favourite bumper stickers: 'Honk If You Understand Punctuated Equilibrium.'