June 1st, 2012
03:46 PM ET
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
By Dan Merica, CNN
(CNN) - Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years, according to a survey released by Gallup on Friday.
That number has remained unchanged for the past 30 years, since 1982, when Gallup first asked the question on creationism versus evolution. Thirty years ago, 44% of the people who responded said they believed that God created humans as we know them today - only a 2-point difference from 2012.
"Despite the many changes that have taken place in American society and culture over the past 30 years, including new discoveries in biological and social science, there has been virtually no sustained change in Americans' views of the origin of the human species since 1982," wrote Gallup's Frank Newport. "All in all, there is no evidence in this trend of a substantial movement toward a secular viewpoint on human origins."
The second most common view is that humans evolved with God's guidance - a view held by 32% of respondents. The view that humans evolved with no guidance from God was held by 15% of respondents.
Survey: U.S. Protestant pastors reject evolution, split on Earth's age
Not surprisingly, more religious Americans are more likely to be creationists.
Nearly 70% of respondents who attend church every week said that God created humans in their present form, compared with 25% of people who seldom or never attend church.
Among the seldom church-goers, 38% believe that humans evolved with no guidance from God.
The numbers also showed a tendency to follow party lines, with nearly 60% of Republicans identifying as creationists, while 41% of Democrats hold the same beliefs.
Republicans also seem to be more black-and-white about their beliefs, with only 5% responding that humans evolved with some help from God. That number is much lower than the 19% of both independents and Democrats.
According to Newport, a belief in creationism is bucking the majority opinion in the scientific community - that humans evolved over millions of years.
"It would be hard to dispute that most scientists who study humans agree that the species evolved over millions of years, and that relatively few scientists believe that humans began in their current form only 10,000 years ago without the benefit of evolution," writes Newport. "Thus, almost half of Americans today hold a belief ... that is at odds with the preponderance of the scientific literature."
The USA Today/Gallup telephone poll was conducted May 10-13 with a random sample of 1,012 American adults. The sampling error is plus or minus 4 percentage points.
About this blog
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.
I took my kids to the "Museum of Man" which included a series of life-size gorilla to modern man dummies. My 4 school-aged kids didn't buy into the evolution of man theory, saying it was the dumbest thing they'd ever heard of. I have no opinions one way or another, just thought their reaction was interesting.
This is why children go to school. They don't pop out of the womb knowing everything, or anything really. They have to be taught - manners, the alphabet, personal safety, science, math, language, etc. Also children aren't born believing in god. They have to be taught that, too, whether by their parents or by other members of the society in which they live.
Just curious, did you ask them why they thought it was dumb?
actually, and according to many many studies, children are born believing in god, not a specific faith, but in a higher power. they must be forced into the belief of athiesm, since athiesm in not natural at all..
flar – "actually, and according to many many studies, children are born believing in god"
Really? Can you provide a reference to one or more of those studies? I call shenanigans.
@Heather, may I suggest that the corollary of your observation might be "anti-evolution sentiments represent four year-old level thinking".
And as a technical point, humans certainly did not evolve from Gorillas, though we likely have common ancestors.
I'd like to know what single study, let alone numerous ones, demonstrated a newborn believes in a deity. Isn't prevaricating a sin?
Ask a creationist for evidence, and you can expect to hear only dodging and *crickets*...
School age but are they school children?
Somebody hit the snake handling preacher blog with a virus or something. 20 pages of the same comment under different handles in 2 minutes.
saw that.. i wAs like whoa! ha ha, never seen that before.. someone found the little crack in the system..
Haven't you ever seen the cyber wrath of God before? Obviously, the blog was blaspheming the one true religion. Right?
The same crew is hitting the "Southern Baptists reprimand ..." thread now.
I think the real issue is that Evolution/Creationism has become a "line in the sand" - so those who believe in science will never give an inch, and those who believe in creation religion will never give an inch either. No attempts are really made to *explore* the ideas in school - because such attempts would be rejected by both sides (creationists would see it as a disguised attempt to brainwash their kids, and evolutionists would see the same way).
So I guess it shouldn't be surprising that the percentage hasn't really changed... it's just surprising to me that it is so high.
Sadly I don't think you really can *explore* this topic in a public school, unless they are now offering classes on comparative religion.
This topic is symptomatic of the politicization of religion. (Mr. Rove has much to answer for.) So much so, that between 2011 when this survey was last run and today, the spread between people who don't believe in evolution and people who believe God guided evolution actually widened by 14 points.
2011: 40% / 38%
2012: 46% / 32%
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV –
Considering the fact that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences are non-believers, it seems reasonable to conclude that science education, or lack thereof, may play a large role here.
"religion or science"
the false dichotomy that atheists love so much....
Good book for you to read sometime: "The Language of God" by Francis Collins, a pioneering medical geneticist, former director of the Human Genome Project
@Really-O. If you follow the link, to the Gallup report, you will note that they correlated their findings with education level. At the postgraduate level the numbers change to:
25% No evolution
29% Yes evolution, but God guided
42% Yes evolution, NOT God guided
Unsurprsingly, highly educated people believe in evolution – 71 / 25.
It doesn't take a lot of imagination to guess what the results would be if they exclusively surveyed the National Academy of Sciences!
@Chad, what's your point? Do you think all atheists don't recognize that science is also a belief.
I believe the sun will rise tomorrow. It might not but I feel confident, based on the evidence that it appears to have risen every day for about 4.5 billion years.
Science is not "truth". Truth is unknowable. We do the best we can with the measurements we can make and revise our understanding when better measurements are available.
There are old earth Christians, young earth Christians, and in between. It is interesting to consider and discuss the possibilities, but when it comes down to belief in God the age of the earth doesn’t really matter to me. I am not a scientist but I have listened to them and have a very limited understanding of why they think the earth is very old. I believe God is the creator whether he did it in six literal days or a blue billion years.
@Robert Brown, Mr. Brown, would you consider yourself to be one of the 32% of Americans who believe that evolution could be interpreted as God's mechanism for creating man in his image?
This approach seems to be a reasonable combination of a belief in God and acceptance of scientific evidence.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "what's your point? Do you think all atheists don't recognize that science is also a belief."
@Chad "my point is exactly what I said, people create a false dichotomy when they say "either you believe in science or religion"
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "Truth is unknowable."
@Chad "not true at all, Jesus Christ said: ""I am the way, and the truth, and the life;"
Chad, the really big divide, not a dichotomy, is between you and people much smarter than you, and the latter are in the majority.
Even with stupid folk like you, the US will eventually cure itself of its creationism illness. Just a matter of time.
Likely because evolution, is a fact. One can quibble over the theory of how things evolved but not the fact that they do. Creationism, is based on faith. There isn't a shred of empirical evidence to support. I've no issue with those who believe in Creationism. However, I do take issue with those promoting teaching it as a valid theory in opposition to evolution when clearly it is not. Thanks for reading.
Robert Brown, no, really there's not much about Christianity that is interesting, at least, not to smart people. Christianity isn't even very good mythology; it's just a hodge-podge of absurdity and contradiction, with too many contributors to the main text about it.
@Chad, Unlike many here I am not interested in a fatih v. atheism debate. I respect faith and if you have read what I have posted, I do not see that people with a belief in God need to reject science – even evolutionary science. Clearly, 32% of Americans believe in both God and evolution. (I don't understand why this number isn't larger.)
I stand by my statement that "truth is unknowable". No Christian can explain why their God does what he does or permits to happen. It is written off as "God is mysterious and above human comprehension", hence my statement "truth is unknowable".
@Ted, there is no need to abuse people for holding deeply held beliefs.
The problem with your theory is that there is actual evidence to support the reality of evolution. There is not a single shred of proof to support the existence of a god. Only a very stupid society would reject evidence in favor of supersti.tion.
tal. theres plenty of proof of god. its all around.. alll around...
ted. dont you think you should educate yourself on christianity before you use it as a weapon? people who dont respect weapons or learn about them usually end up shooting themselves in the foot..
@tallulah13, whose theory are you talking about?
Respecting that people have a faith does not necessarily mean sharing it.
The tension over evolution would be greatly eased for atheists and believers alike if more people who believed in God were able to accept that evolution could be interpreted as God's plan for the creation of humans.
So how come god's "plan" is so fscked up and requires so many species to die out in horrible ways?
@Denise, there's no point telling a believer in God that there is no God.
Saying, "I reject your reality and want to replace it with mine" is really no different to religious proselytizing, which is in itself objectionable.
The issue around evolution really isn't a belief in God, but the literal interpretation of Genesis. I remain hopeful* that more Christians will eventually see that belief and God and evolution are compatible by a looser interpretation of the words. They are happy to interpret other parts of the bible this way. Why not Genesis?
* I can't explain why I am hopeful. Nothing has changed in 30 years.
@I'm not a GOPer, nor do I play one on TV "I stand by my statement that "truth is unknowable". No Christian can explain why their God does what he does or permits to happen."
=>are you familiar with the whole "fall from eden" thing?
Seriously.. do you have any familiarity with the bible?
Does it surprise you that the devil told Jesus that he was the ruler of this world, and Jesus didnt dispute it?
"the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor. 9 “All this I will give you,” he said, “if you will bow down and worship me.” Matthew 4
Do you know any of the back story of our existence here?
Oh, Chad, please tell us all what it is!!
I'm finding this all painfully amusing.
Science and the Bible don't conflict. Everything about evolution is trying to explain how we got here. People need a way to explain it without God. Ergo, evolution. The big argument between evolutionists and creationists is the interpretation of the same pile of evidence. Everything we observe in nature today is supported by Biblical accounts.
God did make Himself known to the Israelites by guiding through the desert as a burning pillar of fire and by providing food for them every day for forty years. Yet, they still didn't believe and resorted to making a golden calf to worship. People had all the proof they needed and yet they still didn't believe consistently. You all ask for proof of His existence. You still wouldn't believe if He did choose to manifest Himself in a way you say you need because the second He did, you'd have to subject yourselves to Him.
"Everything we observe in nature today is supported by Biblical accounts."
No it's not....the bible account of creation is completely flawed. Christians like yourself argue that they are not in conflict in order to get past your cognitive dissonance.
"No it's not.."
And the evening and the morning were the fifth day. FALSE
Plants came before the sun. FALSE
The moon is a light, FALSE
They are false in the light of evolutionary interpretation. They are not false if Biblical application is used to explain the same evidence.
Well said Bervin!
I think all the Christians should adapt their tests of faith
for the modern age
and show their trust in Jesus's protective hand
by hopping up and down on a land mine.
"They are not false if Biblical application is used to explain the same evidence."
What is 'biblical application'?
And if Chad agrees with you,
Bervin = Chad
Nice logical argument for your response.
@Just Claims, No Truth
Biblical application is explaining what we observe in nature and how we got here based on what is stated in the Bible rather than through the lense of evolutionary interpretation.
– What does evolution have to do with any of the assertions "Just Claims, No Truth" stated are false?
– I'd be interested in how "biblical application" changes the moon from a satellite that reflects the light of the sun into a light itself. Or, perhaps by "biblical application" you mean the reasoning of an ignorant people who didn't know where the sun went at night. Is that what you mean?
"What does evolution have to do with any of the assertions "Just Claims, No Truth" stated are false?"
The entire article is about peoples' beliefs about Creationism vs Evolution. He's making the statement that the lines in the Bible are false. If he rejects what the Bible says, then they are false in his eyes and he will rely on evolutionary explanation to interpret the evidence that we observe in nature as to how we got here. I'm going to assume that he was simply stating his person views on the validity of the Bible.
"I'd be interested in how "biblical application" changes..."
Other than trying to be inflammatory in the second part of your statement, I'm not really following what you are trying to say here.
@Bervin – "I'm not really following what you are trying to say here."
Thank you for your candor.
Bervin, the bible doesn't even agree with itself. Please stop pushing your ancient myths.
"Biblical application is explaining what we observe in nature and how we got here based on what is stated in the Bible rather than through the lense of evolutionary interpretation."
So basically Biblical application is starting with the premise that the bible is already 'correct'. This is therefore a circular argument.
Also creation is not 'evolution' and science therefore does not look at creation through the 'lens of evolution'. Your whole statement is non-sense.
@Just Claims, No Truth
"So basically Biblical application is starting with the premise that the bible is already 'correct'. This is therefore a circular argument."
That statement makes no sense.
"Also creation is not 'evolution' and science therefore does not look at creation through the 'lens of evolution'. Your whole statement is non-sense."
Correct. Creation is not evolution. Evolution is the act of trying to explain how we got here. It is observational science. We can only interpret what we observe because we weren't there when these activities were taking place. We witness mutations all the time. The Bible supports mutations. Evolution relies on trans-mutation to get us from gooey blob to human. The Bible does not support that as it states that God made all of the animals after their own kind. A wolf and a french poodle have "evolved" by mutating but in the end they are still just dogs. The Bible supports that.
"The Bible supports that."
I don't think it does, show me where the bible supports mutation.
and you still have not explained how plants grew before the sun was 'made'.
@Just Claims, No Truth
"The Bible supports that."
"I don't think it does, show me where the bible supports mutation."
I'll refer to my second statement with my comparison to dogs. After Noah landed in the ark and the animals started to migrate and procreate, they changed traits such as having a thicker coat for colder climates and thinner ones for warmer. These are mutations that we observe all the time. The Bible doesn't have language that directly supports it. It also doesn't have language that doesn't. It's the same concept that the Bible doesn't have language that supports or doesn't support nuclear energy.
"and you still have not explained how plants grew before the sun was 'made'."
You only made a statement in your post as to it being "FALSE". It wasn't requested of me to provide any explanation.
Well, as GNAA is currently flooding this blog...looks like it might be time to sign off.
@Just Claims, No Truth – give up on this one...you know you're never going to get a reasonable response. Cheers.
By "reasonable", do you mean one that agrees with your views?
"These are mutations that we observe all the time. The Bible doesn't have language that directly supports it."
1. You said the bible supports it, now you say it just doesn't contradict it.
2. The Noah flood story is contradicted by science and no matter how many times you visit the Ken Ham Creation museum that is not going to change.
3. You asked for an example of the bible contradicting science and I gave you one. Since you have twice now failed to show how plants grew without a sun I am sure you will admit your claim was wrong.
@Bervin – "By "reasonable", do you mean one that agrees with your views?"
No, I mean a response that employs the faculty of reason.
@Just Claims, No Truth
"These are mutations that we observe all the time. The Bible doesn't have language that directly supports it."
"The Noah flood story is contradicted by science and no matter how many times you visit the Ken Ham Creation museum that is not going to change."
What parts exactly? There is evidence all around us (again, observational science) that is easily explained by a global flood. Fish fossils on top of mountains, rapid canyon formation during volcanic eruptions that create layers of rock in days that look just like the Grand Canyon, etc.
"You asked for an example of the bible contradicting science and I gave you one. Since you have twice now failed to show how plants grew without a sun I am sure you will admit your claim was wrong."
Since you've asked so politely, the Bible states that everything was created in 6 days. The word Yom is used to represent the word day here. The word Yom is used as a literal day. The exact same usage of that word in several other places in the Old Testament also represent a literal day. There are other usages of "day" that have different meanings such as "in my father's day". The translated word "day" that we get covers all of those usages. However the original word means a literal 24-hour day. If that's the case, plants were created on day 3 and the Sun was created on day 4. Plants could easily live for 24 hours without sunlight.
Many churches try to fit in the idea of the universe being millions of years old into the Bible because it's more socially acceptable to do so. However, when you read the Bible for what it is, everything was created in 6 literal days. It's sad that so many churches support this so that they can try to make the hot topic of the day fit the Bible.
Well now, I wonder if Chad will give another "Well said Bervin!" for that last post.
Bervin or Chad whatever,
You are a young earth creationist and science and scientists call you and people like you idiots. So yes science and the bible conflict, Just like logic and Bervin conflict.
Bervin or Chad whatever,
You are a young earth creationist and science and scientists call you and people like you id.iots. So yes science and the bible conflict, Just like logic and Bervin conflict.
@Just Claims, No Truth
Our nice discussion just went to name-calling. Thanks.
You have the choice to believe as you do. That fine. I respect that. My arguments are that the evidence(s) we see around us are easily explained by Biblical accounts. You can choose to reject them just as I reject evolutionary interpretation. Viewing the Bible as a historical record is not something that you are willing to do for various reasons that you have voiced often. I'm just stating at the end of the day that the evidence that we have is easily supported by the Biblical interpretation.
At the end of the day your "evidence" is bunk. And I did not call you an id.iot I said science dos which proves your statement that science and the bible is not in conflict is wrong, but for what it's worth I agree that you are an idiot but the good news is you don't have to be, it's a choice.
"At the end of the day your "evidence" is bunk."
I have no evidence of my own. We all have the same evidence that we are trying to explain how it happened. The Grand Canyon is evidence that people try to explain by saying that it took millions of years to erode. I say that Biblical record of the global flood created that canyon in a very short time. Two interpretations of the same evidence.
The difference is, Bervin the Boob, that science can SHOW evidence for such claims. You have none. Not a thing but a book. That's all. No physical proof; no scientific facts. Nothing but your belief.
"The difference is, Bervin the Boob, that science can SHOW evidence for such claims. You have none. Not a thing but a book. That's all. No physical proof; no scientific facts. Nothing but your belief."
What claims? You aren't making sense.
Do you often have difficulty with comprehension, Bervin? It shows. There is no evidence that a flood caused the Grand Canyon to appear in a short time. There is plenty of evidence that shows it occurred over millennia.
Get some help; you're nuts.
"There is no evidence that a flood caused the Grand Canyon to appear in a short time. There is plenty of evidence that shows it occurred over millennia"
I'm not sure you understand what evidence is. The Grand Canyon is just there. It's the evidence. Your view of how it got there was by millions of years of erosion but you weren't there for those millions of years so it's a working theory. My interpretation of how it came to be there is based on a global flood. I wasn't there for that either so I'm basing it on Biblical accounts.
Idiot, one doesn't have to have BEEN there for the act of erosion to see scientific evidence that it occurred and that it happened over the course of millions of years. You have NO evidence of any flood at all.
The Bible is not an 'account' of anything. It's a book of myths.
"You have NO evidence of any flood at all."
Sure I do. The Grand Canyon exists.
Of course it exists, ya moron. It exists because of millions of years of erosion.
"It exists because of millions of years of erosion."
...as your working theory suggests.
You have no working theory of your own, Bervin. That figures, since you have no working cerebrum, either.
You can believe that the world is 6000 years old if you wish, honey, but you're laughable. There is no evidence to support such a belief other than the Bible.
Religion vs Science is comparable to Theft vs Hard Work
Prayer changes things .
Many of us are praying for you – to go away!
Religion is for the simple minded who chose not to think for themselves. The 40 or so percent represended in the statistics of the poll represent the ignorance still thriving in this country who are mislead by their parents, and ultimately the church who instills fear into the hearts and souls of these ignoramuses who know no better. The problem with this country isn't the top 1%, it's the bottom 40% who are clearly, completely out of touch with reality. Religion has faith in things you cannot see, touch, taste or smell, while science formulates theories based on FACTS.
I think people in this survey must have voted several times on this issue- under different names !- I have never met anyone who believed in creationism in my 52 years of living on this planet. The schools I have taught in teach evolution exclusively. To do otherwise would send parents out with torches in the streets! And when I attended Catholic School in the 1970s, evolution was taught exclusively as well. Listen, people, evolutoin is not inconsistent with God!
@sensable christian. You are one of the 32% who are able to accept that evolution is consistent with a belief in God.
Perhaps you can help me. Why does this poll year over year demonstrate that despite all the inconsistencies in the bible that have to be "interpreted", 46% of Americans insist on a literal interpretation of the Genesis account.
You appear to be OK with the idea that "God created man" can be interpreted as an evolutionary process. Why aren't more believers like yourself. I frankly find it bewildering.
@sensable christian, you make an interesting point regarding Catholic teaching on the allegorical nature of Genesis.
Looking at two sets of data:
1. This set of data on evolution?:
46% ... No
32% ... Yes, God guided
15% ... Yes, not God guided
2) Affiliation (Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life):
51.3% ... Protestant
23.9% ... Catholic
03.3% ... Other Christian
04.7% ... Other religions
16.1% ... Unaffiliated
The strong likelihood of a correlation is apparent. Some Protestants, likely mainline demoninations (18.1%) like Lutherans, and Catholics are OK with the notion that evolution is God's mechanism for the development of life. The 46% is made up of fundamentalist Christians.
The northern states should secede from the retards states down south.
And you make the conclusion that there is a north/south bias in this data how exactly?
Not a bad proposal. While there are plenty of enlightened people in the South, there just are too many wingnuts, along with the wingnuts in the North, who just muck up everything. All the right wing evangelicals, and those who believe in the evils of government can relocate to the South and join hands with their fellow states rights fanatics. They'll probably bring back slavery. We should then construct a wall to keep all of them from entering the North. They will attempt to migrate when they realize that they will be little more than indentured servents for the rich/plantation owners. Of course, the North keeps the nukes.
Religious people ruin the world with their ignorance.
How stupid. There have always been psychopaths in the world, it has nothing to do with the religiosity of a culture. In fact, relatively atheistic europe has fewer serial killers than America. Stupid stupid stupid
Man, you are delusional. People kills because they don't fear God? Is this the game you want to play? Because it is likely that you will lose.
How about the catholic inquisition, which TORTURED AND MURDERED with a greater degree of cruelty than most serial killers today. Did they do it out of a lack of fear of god?
Oh thank you Rebel – I knew you would post a magic video, and you did. You like your kool aid very strong!
Do you actually brainwash yourself with that psychotic hate-fest?
Crazy crazy CRAZY!! Seriously crazy.
I think rebel is mocking Jesus, not siding with him; otherwise.. lol...
there is much ignorance in the us. we are a dying superpower because of it.
Reminds me of a dying star. It goes into the bloated red dwarf stage where it gets fat and loses its brightness but still destroys its neighbors in its mindless expansion.
OK, all you religios – where you go wrong in trying to assert your point of view is to try arguing on the basis of the historical and/or scientific record. That is a losing proposition as you can never prevail by arguing such topics. All you have to do is say that you believe what you believe based on some kind of metaphysical "faith." If you would only stop with that your position would not be strong, but it would be unassailable. As it is, you insist on going toe to toe with historical, logical and scientific arguments that only serve to embarrass you and guys like me wet our pants mocking you while you do so.
Yeah, it's humorous how they feel like they're on a level playing field because they read some James Dobson blog.
You are actually onto a crucial paradox – religious people try very hard to supply various forms of evidence, but if there was even the slightest evidence at all, there is no faith. Indeed, their efforts to find evidence prove their faith is flimsy.
Now here is where it gets interesting: None of the disciples had faith; they had direct evidence – miracles, the Son of God is your drinking buddy. If Paul had the experience he claimed, then he did not have faith either – he had evidence. Noah? Evidence. Basically, all of the people revered in the Bible got evidence, and did not have to question or doubt.
They all got into heaven, but none of them had religioous faith. But you must have faith to get into heaven
@The Wild Sorority Girls of Planet Playtex, Ironically around the time of more accurate historical records and scientific exploration, god got really quiet. No more talking snakes, no more talking burning bushes, no more worldwide floods and arks, no more bears attacking children for mocking prophets... Amazing how the more we know, the tinier god becomes.
The Wild Sorority Girls of Planet Playtex,
Every believer I know has had an overwhelming spiritual experience, not all as dramatic as the one Paul had, but a powerful experience nonetheless. If a person believes that there could be a God, they have some faith. To seek God in the first place, you would have to think that he is a possibility or have a tremendous spiritual experience initially. So, faith is real and grows exponentially as a result of the initial spiritual experience. Additional experiences increase the faith more. For the believer these experiences are evidence, although this type of evidence is unacceptable in the court of atheism. They are more interested in verifiable testable types of evidence. I often suggest they test it for themselves. The definition of faith you are using is belief without proof. Believers have all the proof they need.
@Robert Brown, plenty of atheists have had "spiritual experiences" too, but we can refrain from pointing to magical superhero in the sky. There are also plenty of drugs out there that will fulfill the same criteria you have for believing in a god. There are people that believe they don't have cancer when they do. There are people that believe that they are arguing with an imaginary person trying to complicate their lives when no such person exists. There are people that believe that blacks are inferior to whites while this has also proven to be untrue. There are people that believe that they have a refrigerator full of gold buried in their backyard... Luckily we doing base reality on what people "believe." You may have all of the proof you need to satisfy your ego's wish for what the universe around you should be, but I guarantee that it has no bearing whatsoever on reality.
@ reality don't do the black man we " the modern black man has been on this earth for more than 200,000 years thank you!!!!
As noted previously on p. 31.
"The basic timeline of a 4.6 billion year old Earth, with approximate dates:
3.8 billion years of si-mple cells (prokaryotes),
3.4 billion years of stromatolites demonstrating photosynthesis,
2 billion years of complex cells (eukaryotes),
1 billion years of multicellular life,
600 million years of si-mple animals,
570 million years of arthropods (ancestors of insects, arachnids and crustaceans),
550 million years of complex animals,
500 million years of fish and proto-amphibians,
475 million years of land plants,
400 million years of insects and seeds,
360 million years of amphibians,
300 million years of reptiles,
200 million years of ma-mmals,
150 million years of birds,
130 million years of flowers,
65 million years since the non-avian dinosaurs died out,
2.5 million years since the appearance of the genus H-o-mo,
200,000 years of anatomically modern humans,
~60,000 years, the great migration from Africa
25,000 years since the disappearance of Neanderthal traits from the fossil record.
13,000 years since the disappearance of H-o-mo floresiensis from the fossil record."
Some added references:
1..^ Moskowitz, Clara (29 March 2012). "Life's Building Blocks May Have Formed in Dust Around Young Sun". Space.com. Retrieved 30 March 2012.
2.^ Planetary Science Inst-itute page on the Giant Impact Hypothesis. Hartmann and Davis belonged to the PSI. This page also contains several paintings of the impact by Hartmann himself.
3.^ "Because the Moon helps stabilize the tilt of the Earth's rotation, it prevents the Earth from wobbling between climatic extremes. Without the Moon, seasonal shifts would likely outpace even the most adaptable forms of life." Making the Moon Astrobiology Magazine. (URL accessed on August 7, 2010)
Breaking News. More than half DON'T.
Excellent observation, fightening to think that people actually believe in the supernatural. RIP Hitch, you were right about all of it, Religion Poisons Everything. Religion is a plague. Just ignore it if you can.
Technically not. It is split very evenly. According to the survey,
46% do not believe in evolution
47% do believe in evolution (either "guided by God" or not)
7% answered "other/no opinion"
But the point that opinion is split evenly is well made.
Why we are losing the countries edge in science –>>>> "Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years"
Half of us are idiots and ignore blatant facts staring them in the face.
What interests me in this survey is that in the 30 years that Gallup has been asking these questions the results have hardly changed at all.
1982 ... 2012
44% ... 46% ... No, evolution
38% ... 32% ... Yes, evolution, but God guided
09% ... 15% ... Yes, evolution, no involvement from God
This would suggest that there must be other reasons to assert that the US is in decline. Opinion in this matter hasn't really budged in 30 years.
I guess one striking argument against evolutionary theory is just the fact that Jesus Christ did not support that theory.
God once visited the earth in the person of Jesus. Jesus proved his divine sonship by the miracles, which he wrought, when he raised people from the dead, made blind men seeing, lame men going, deaf men hearing, etc.. Jesus was able to cure every malady.
Beside the arrival of Jesus was predicted by the prophets of the Old Testament and the doctrine of Jesus fits well together with the doctrine of the Old Testament. It is simply the same doctrine, only that Jesus revealed more mysteries, which were somewhat hidden in the Old Testament. Furthermore the most holy and acknowledged ascetic of Israel John the Baptist confirmed Jesus' divine sonship.
In contrast, Muhammad, Joseph Smith and other fools rushed into history without any prediction. Their doctrines did not fit together with the doctrine of the Old Testament or God's Chosen People Israel. This is a clear proof that they were fakes and impostors.
I guess the Old Testament, which was The Holy Scripture up to Jesus arrival is the greatest book of history. To a large extent it is connected with the history of Israel. The OT is realy connected with the reality. It is impossible that it could be a forgery.
Today the people of Israel still remember, when they once left Egypt and it is one of their highest festival days. The whole story about the Exodus you can find in the OT. Ain't that striking that a people celebrates an event, which is docu-mented in the Bible. They do not celebrate it, because it is written in the Bible, but because they always celebrated it, since thousands of years. Really astonishing.
Once Israel got the law (for example the ten commandments), which should show them that they are not in a state of health, but outside God's presence. Yet they did not understand that and don't understand that until today. Israel and the whole world needs a redeemer, which is Jesus Christ. We cannot keep the law by our natural strength. If we try that, we get desperated and our sin increases (see Romans 7).
What is the solution for that?
The gospel: When the time had come, God sent his beloved Son Jesus Christ into this world. Jesus had the authority to forgive sins, which he proved by the physical curing of people. All these he did in respect of his death and resurrection.
God delivered Jesus for our sins and raised him from the dead for our justification.
Believe that and get sacramentally baptized. At baptism you die and resurrect with Jesus. You die for the sin and enter Christ. You return into God's presence, who is the source of life and light. He gives you a life for free, which is not in conflict with the law, but fullfills it automatically. If you love God and your neighbour by Christ's power you fullfill all commandments and don't need them anylonger like God himself needs no commandments.
The main reason that Jesus Christ did not support the theory of evolution was that it would not exist fo another 1800 years.
If thare was a God who wanted to make his presence known on earth, wouldn't he just bip in with a cool light show and appear everywhere on Earth and give the same clear message to everyone so that everyone had a fair chance? I mean, God would have to be really stupid to decide that the best way to get the word out was to put one guy in an obscure nowhere in the desert, and make it so most people don't believe he is what he says he is, all the while making sure that the rest of the people in the world won't hear about it for centuries and thus have to be shipped straight to hell?
You are getting bogged down in that logic stuff again, Marianne. Thinking is not healthy for Christians and other living religious dingbats.
Our body is a temple where God and His Kinds do enter and live therein! They live inside us on a scale of absolute smallness and they are the husbandries of all celestial life from plants to insects to fish and even mammals and mankind!
Rainer Braendlein, if you are not from this country, then your lack of grammatical skill is forgiven. If you are, you are a prime example of what happens when knowledge is supplanted with ignorance that then masquerades itself openly as intelligence.
Some brief instruction as to how god failed in his business because of where and when he opened his business:
God started his business in the middle of the world’s largest desert – among a group of illiterate and wandering tribes. God did this in spite of the fact that there were much larger civilizations already thriving in India and China. In both India and China, there were already very large cities and the civilization was already mostly literate in that the populations could read and write.
If god had launched his business in either of these two cultures, he would have gained a much larger global market share and obtained an insurmountable market share vs. Islam as an example. As it is, Islam started +/- 700 years AFTER Christianity and has now overtaken Christianity in global market share. Islam remains the fasted growing organized religious strain in the world. (Atheism, however is the fasted growing segment of the overall religious business landscape). So, not only did god blow a 700 year head-start, he also arranged for the mur_der of his one and only forever son in the middle of the same desert and among the same group of illiterate wandering goat herders for crying out loud. That was a huge mistake on top of the earlier huge mistakes and meant that god sacrificed his Return On Investment (ROI) and eventual market share dominance by this very short-sighted set of decisions. Look where his business is today. It is losing customers faster than it can replace them by acquiring new ones; the business is in disrepute among many of its long-time customers; it is losing actual raw numbers of customers in some parts of the world where it used to be the only option; its customers are being mur_dered in many other parts of the world for simply being his customers – it’s a real mess. So, I would suggest anyone starting a similar new business avoid these mistakes so that the mur_der you planned for your only son and then performed so that you could later use as a recruiting tool/story might actually produce a higher ROI for you than it did for god.
Also, people 2000 years prior were pretty ignorant of science. Disease was rampant. Sanitation was a problem. Capital punishment was torture and nailing people to trees... I doubt very much that Jesus or anyone at that time would have been able to understand the origin of species.
Sir, you have just confirmed to those who read your post and trust me I did not.....that your mentally ill. I never got past the 1st sentence. As soon as you mentioned the fictional character of jesus h. christ, I stopped reading. Have your head read by a psychiartrist.
Do you bible thumpers truly not understand how crazy and insane you sound?
This is what God wants you to know:
"For My thoughts are not your thoughts,
Nor are your ways My ways,” says the Lord.
For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
So are My ways higher than your ways,
And My thoughts than your thoughts."
For thus says the High and Lofty One
Who inhabits eternity, whose name is Holy:
“I dwell in the high and holy place,
With him who has a contrite and humble spirit,
To revive the spirit of the humble,
And to revive the heart of the contrite ones.
For though the LORD be high, yet hath he regard for the lowly: but the haughty he knoweth from afar.
(From Book of Isaiah – The Holy Bible)
Oh, the depth of the riches both of wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and His ways past finding out... He has hidden them from those who are wise in their own eyes, but revealed them to the humble, and those of broken and contrite hearts.... (From the Book of Romans – The Holy Bible)
And you can be sure of that!
"You can be sure of that."
No, Fed. Maybe YOU can be sure of it; I cannot. I simply find nothing remotely believable about the Bible or Christianity. And having somebody quote it does nothing to make it any less unbelievable, especially when that person proceeds to tell me it's "guaranteed".
Tom, some people are just predestined to go to hell. Not that God wants them to go, but because they refuse to believe God's Son and His testimony, they will spend eternity in hell. Why do you not believe in Jesus Christ who came to save you? Why do you refuse to acknowledge that you need Him?
It's not 'refusal', you moron. I can no more summon up belief in the existence of a god than I can in the existence of a giant rabbit that lays eggs.
It's not a matter of choice.
Why do you call me a moron? Because I believe in God?
Why do you think my reason is for believing in God?
I don't care about your reasons, Fed. I call you a moron because you seem to be unable to grasp the concept that belief in something is a choice. It isn't. I have an education. I cannot simply suspend disbelief in some all-powerful being. You're welcome to do as you wish but promising others something you can't deliver is deception.
edit: is not a choice.
It's a mistake to think that people who believe in God are ignorant "simpletons" without education. This is a fallacy that circles among atheists who like to to think of themselves as superior, but it is just a facade! The truth is, many, many people who are highly educated come to realization how absurd it is to believe that complex world we live in has evolved by chance. And I'm talking about highly educated people...... So, I think this is just a cop out for atheists....
Do you ever wonder, maybe it is true that there is life after death?
I don't think it was directed at all people of faith – just those that post nonsense – such as yourself.
Jesus Christ must be a thorn in YOUR side. HE is in satan's also. That's why his aim is to discredit Him of who He is, and he tirelessly labors to build up fortresses in people's minds against Him. And see how you yourself swallowed his lies – hook,line and sinker! He doesn't mind any other religion, they don't threaten him, but he knows that Jesus Christ is the only hope mankind has. So he loves nothing else more then for you to call the Word of God and testimony of Jesus Christ a "nonsense'.
You'll get much reward for "good work" you've done for him!
ONLY FOR THE NEW MEMBERS OF THIS BLOG:
What we do know: (from the fields of astrophysics, nuclear physics, geology and the history of religion)
1. The Sun will burn out in 3-5 billion years so we have a time frame.
2. Asteroids continue to circle us in the nearby asteroid belt.
3. One wayward rock and it is all over in a blast of permanent winter.
4. There are enough nuclear weapons to do the same job.
5. Most contemporary NT exegetes do not believe in the Second Coming so apparently there is no concern about JC coming back on an asteroid or cloud of raptors/rapture.
6. All stars will eventually extinguish as there is a limit to the amount of hydrogen in the universe. When this happens (100 trillion years?), the universe will go dark. If it does not collapse and recycle, the universe will end.
7. Super, dormant volcanoes off the coast of Africa and under Yellowstone Park could explode catalytically at any time ending life on Earth.
Bottom line: our apocalypse will start between now and 3-5 billion CE. The universe apocalypse, 100 trillion years?
Then there is this:
As per National Geographic's Genographic project:
" DNA studies suggest that all humans today descend from a group of African ancestors who about 60,000 years ago began a remarkable journey. Follow the journey from them to you as written in your genes”.
"Adam" is the common male ancestor of every living man. He lived in Africa some 60,000 years ago, which means that all humans lived in Africa at least at that time.
Unlike his Biblical namesake, this Adam was not the only man alive in his era. Rather, he is unique because his descendents are the only ones to survive.
It is important to note that Adam does not literally represent the first human. He is the coalescence point of all the genetic diversity."
Apparently as the new data suggests, we will lose our sun when we collide with the Andromeda galaxy in 4billion years.
Thank you for your post.....excellent.
Total bull sh it hit report abuse on all reality repeat garbage
Religious response: Disagree with me, it's abuse.
Of those that beleive in intelligent design/church goers, curious how many of them beleive Jesus was a blue eyed, brown haired caucasion.
Not any that i know. We assume he looks like a middle eastern Jewish man of the first century. Not black, but not white. Probably brown eyed. Does that answer your question satisfactorily? I don't see why atheists and christians have to have negatively toned exchanges. We are not going to change eachother's points of view by being rude. And maybe changing eachother's point of view is not the point. This is who I am; who are you?
@ holly for you to know the earliest images of Jesus " Yeshua" was him being black. The Bible in fact mostly talks about Black people. Whites just took it and put a hell of a spin on it but still most of it is made up.
thats actually a racial issue..I've heard Jesus was black.But he was born in the middle east making him middle eastern for that time period.
I don't see how it's important tho...just another excuse for racists and people who think their race is superior to any other.Jesus sat with sinners.
Funny how people follow those idiots and believe their lies..
the only thing this Gallup poll proves is that Neanderthals never became extinct.
they are all around us...
You are right, they are. The so called neanderthalls are a group of modern humans with a severe case of rickets. This has been confirmed by disease specialists. They lived under terribly cold, harsh, sunless conditions that a few of their generations had very soft bones.
@ whoever what the hell is a middle east? Your ever think about that? And for the record before we were slaves their were black Popes and the RCC believed in a Black Jesus. Before a pope told Michealago to paint him from black to white in 1505AD.
@ Holly: Are you even sentient?
France, Polland, Italy still worship him as a black man. Once you can come to terms with Jesus being black then you can get out of this hell hold religion.
@ death it was all fine and great when yall had the whole world beliving he was a blond hair blue eyed f@g. Now when a Black Man corrects you im saying were are better than you.... I DON'T BELIEVE IN JESUS!!!!! but their was a man who taught in ROME named YESHUA , and taught what he learned in egypt just like moses, which was another BLACK MAN that i do not believe in.
These people can't stomach a black president. What makes you think they'd be down with black jesus?
Those countries you mention are all predominantly Catholic and they do not worship a black Jesus – unless something drastic happened in the Vatican in the last few hours.
@ Darwin Ghost in public the vatican shows to worship a white Jesus BUT behind closed doors he kisses BLACK MOTHER MARY AND BLACK BABY JESUS. CALLED THE BLACK MADONNA. THESE COUNTRIES NEVER STOPPED WORSHIPPING THE BLACK MADONNA.