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.
Superiority complex is a psychological defense mechanism in which a person's feelings of superiority counter or conceal his or her feelings of inferiority. The term was coined by Alfred Adler (February 7, 1870 – May 28, 1937), as part of his School of Individual psychology. It was introduced in his series of books, including "Understanding Human Nature" and "Social Interest".
"We should not be astonished if in the cases where we see an inferiority [feeling] complex we find a superiority complex more or less hidden. On the other hand, if we inquire into a superiority complex and study its continuity, we can always find a more or less hidden inferiority [feeling] complex."
"If a person is a show-off it is only because he feels inferior, because he does not feel strong enough to compete with others on the useful side of life. That is why he stays on the useless side. He is not in harmony with society. It seems to be a trait of human nature that when individuals – both children and adults – feel weak, they want to solve the problems of life in such a way as to obtain personal superiority without any admixture of social interest. A superiority complex is a second phase. It is a compensation for the inferiority [feeling] complex."[
"The superiority complex is one of the ways which a person with an inferiority complex may use as a method of escape from his difficulties. He assumes that he is superior when he is not, and this false success compensates him for the state of inferiority which he cannot bear. The normal person does not have a superiority complex, he does not even have a sense of superiority. He has the striving to be superior in the sense that we all have ambition to be successful; but so long as this striving is expressed in work it does not lead to false valuations, which are at the root of mental disease.'
It's hard not to feel superior when 46% of your countrymen believe in magic.
And really, you couldn't find anything more current? The dude you're citing DIED in 1937.
we're not the ones that feel superior. atheists believe we all go to the same place when we die - back to the earth.
christians think they'll deserve to be in an exclusive eternity club while non-members get tortured forever and ever.
who feels superior?
The Christian believes the Supreme Eternal Creator of and Master of The Universe made him in that Supreme Being's own image; made the soil, the water, and all the animals of earth all for him to rule over as master and use and enslave and eat, as a sort of mini-God; and that this Supreme Being loves him, listens to his every thought and word, and cares very deeply for him.
The Christian thinks that anybody who does not believe this is an inferior, blind, and unfortunate fool.
The Christian believes all that, and calls it humbleness.
in all seriousness, no insults, try to look at it this way. what if you were born in a society where most of the people were scientologists? it just didn't make sense to you that Xenu was up there watching. almost anyone you talked to though, believed in Xenu. you know it's cr@p, but your family and your co-workers believe.
how would you feel? because you know there is no Xenu and say so, does that mean you feel "superior" to the scientologists?
Scientists have already mapped the entire human genome. They are now finding ways to manipulate it, and maybe successful in the near future. Isn't this "Intelligent Design" ? Doesn't this make "intelligent design" a fact and not a fallacy ?
Not when it comes to anything that happened before this time it doesn't. Obviously. 🙂
We had intelligent design down when we started breeding domestic animals and crops the way we wanted them. Difference is, we "creators" are still the product of good 'ol evolution. No magical eternal existence for us!
Gawd, what an old and boring argument. Let's move on shall we?
Here's an ugly fact about Creationism/Intelligent Design. If you ignore the "God says so" part of their philosophy, their only arguments are either:
A misuse of math that any 1st year statistics student easily refute
A logical fallacy known as an "Argument from Ignorance". It's also known as the "God of the Gaps" argument.
Yep, that's it. Both obviously bogus but the followers of these pieces of pseudo science actually believe them.
Are you calling my lover Chad a liar??? Prepare to die!!!
can you provide examples?
Examples? Of your lovemaking technique?? Oh, Chad (blushing), I couldn't...
obviously my question was for gadflie not Really-O (er.. Rachel)..
Really-O? Oh, I'm devastated. I am not Really-O, Chad. Don't you recognize me?? I mean, after last night, I thought...I mean..I hoped....*sob* Don't you respect me anymore??
Chad, please provide me with any of the arguments that Creationists/ID'ers use and I'll be happy to show you how they fit one or both of these two criteria.
@Gadflie Here's an ugly fact about Creationism/Intelligent Design. If you ignore the "God says so" part of their philosophy, their only arguments are either: A misuse of math that any 1st year statistics student easily refute or A logical fallacy known as an "Argument from Ignorance". It's also known as the "God of the Gaps" argument.
@Chad "do you have examples?"
@Gadflie " please provide me with any of the arguments that Creationists/ID'ers use and I'll be happy to show you how they fit one or both of these two criteria."
@Chad "ahh, em.. I'm confused.. you stated that all ID arguments were logically fallacious..?
I would have thought then that you were familiar with some arguments?
I guess I misunderstood.. I thought you had some familiarity with ID arguments to have made such a statement..
Chard, you're unbelievably arrogant for a dumbazz.
Couldn't find any that didn't fit, could you? Well, here are the two basic arguments that Creationists/ID'ers use.
1) The odds against life forming on it's own (or several other things) are so astronomical that it's practically impossible that this actually happened. This ignores the basic truism that, if you take all the variables into effect, this could be said against ANYTHING. For example, take your own birth. Your father produced about 400 billion sperm cells in his lifetime. Your mother about 400,000 eggs and ovulated about 400 times. You were the result of one specific example of each. So, take that first number and multiply it by the second. Then do that again twice for grandparents, four more times for great grandparents, etc. Do this for as many generations as you think preceded you. The result, per creationist math, is a small fraction of the odds against you being born. Pretty convincing eh? Well, only to those that don't realize that it, like the creationist math arguments, are bogus math.
The other is "Evolution hasn't explained X yet". This is obviously the logical fallacy that I mentioned. Do you need it explained also?
"Ah. em. I'm confused" No, you're just a jerk.
@Gadflie " The odds against life forming on it's own (or several other things) are so astronomical that it's practically impossible that this actually happened. This ignores the basic truism that, if you take all the variables into effect, this could be said against ANYTHING"
=>well, that's quite a coincidence.. that exact issue is dealt with in the very next post on this blog.. see directly below "Chad Could life have spontaneously generated? for the refutation of your "math"..
LOL! Chad, did I use too many big words. It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the odds of something in the past without strictly limiting the variables. For ANYTHING. Or are you saying that you are a mathematical impossibility? In reality, the odds of life arising and you being born are the exact same. 1 to 1.
Oooh, Betcha THAT left a mark... poor Chard.
Ooh! I did leave out the category of one of the Creationist/ID types favorite arguments. That of total ignorance of actual science. This one explains the "It's only a theory" argument.
Hey Chad.. you're a nut christian correct? I see that Nii dude is in that same nutty boat .. what are your opinions on his slant about god?
That's my favorite, Gad!!!
A "nut Christian"? Are there any other kinds?
I know there are; they just don't bother to post here, as they're too busy actually doing the work their Christ commanded. Unlike Chard, who's here to massage his ego.
Come on Chad, please explain to us how you, per Creationist/ID math, were ever possibly born.
I've said it before. I have hope for @chad. I think he's smart enough to get it. He just has to stop accepting the easy answers and dig a little deeper and more importantly, wider. He seems pretty well studied in a very limited spectrum of information. If he could just step out of his comfort zone, broaden his mind a little and accept whatever the evidence points to regardless of personal preference, the truth could become available to him. He's just a little misguided. I for one can empathize as I've been there.
GFN, I sincerely admire your broad-mindedness and tolerance. Have a good night.
Hmm. Did Chard run away?
@Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son, Maybe we just wore him down.
@Gadflie " It is IMPOSSIBLE to determine the odds of something in the past without strictly limiting the variables. For ANYTHING. Or are you saying that you are a mathematical impossibility? In reality, the odds of life arising and you being born are the exact same. 1 to 1."
@Chad: "er.. no.
And that is actually the first time I have ever seen anyone attempt to say that odds of life arising are 1 to 1 😉
So, congrats on that.. I guess that some strange variation on "well, we're here arent we! so that proves it's possible"
please try understanding some real science/math:
For reasons like these, the RNA world hypothesis has been largely abandoned by proponents of abiogenesis in favor of other hypotheses, like the simultaneous development of both proteins and genetic templates or the development of life around undersea vents similar to those currently inhabited by today's extremophiles. But there is one criticism that any abiogenesis hypothesis has difficulty overcoming: time. DNA-based life is thought to have developed on Earth beginning around 3.8 billion years ago, giving pre-cellular life forms about 1 billion years to carry out random processes of encoding useful proteins and assembling them into the precursors of cellular life [source 1="Discovery" 2="News" language=":"][/source]. Critics of abiogenesis say that simply isn't enough time for inorganic matter to become the theorized precellular life. One estimate suggests it would take 10^450 (10 to the 450th power) years for one useful protein to be randomly created [source 1="Klyce" language=":"][/source].
Dr. Harold Blum estimated the probability of just a single protein arising spontaneously from a primordial soup. Equilibrium and the reversibility of biochemical reactions eventually led Blum to state: "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability. This calculation alone presents serious objection to the idea that all living matter and systems are descended from a single protein molecule which was formed as a ‘chance’ act."
In the 1970’s British astronomer Sir Frederick Hoyle set out to calculate the mathematical probability of the spontaneous origin of life from a primordial soup environment. Applying the laws of chemistry, mathematical probability and thermodynamics, he calculated the odds of the spontaneous generation of the simplest known free-living life form on earth – a bacterium.
Hoyle and his associates knew that the smallest conceivable free-living life form needed at least 2,000 independent functional proteins in order to accomplish cellular metabolism and reproduction. Starting with the hypothetical primordial soup he calculated the probability of the spontaneous generation of just the proteins of a single amoebae. He determined that the probability of such an event is one chance in ten to the 40 thousandth power, i.e., 1 in 1040,000. Prior to this project, Hoyle was a believer in the spontaneous generation of life. This project, however, changed his opinion 180 degrees. Hoyle stated: "The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40 thousand naughts [zeros] after it. It is enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence." Hoyle also concluded that the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."
Could life have spontaneously generated?
My apologies for length, but the example is just so good I was compelled to include all of it…
Probability calculations could be made, but I prefer a variation on a much-used analogy. Picture a gorilla (very long arms are needed) at an immense keyboard connected to a word processor. The keyboard contains not only the symbols used in English and European languages but also a huge excess drawn from every other known language and all of the symbol sets stored in a typical computer. The chances for the spontaneous assembly of a replicator in the pool I described above can be compared to those of the gorilla composing, in English, a coherent recipe for the preparation of chili con carne. With similar considerations in mind Gerald F. Joyce of the Scripps Research Institute and Leslie Orgel of the Salk Institute concluded that the spontaneous appearance of RNA chains on the lifeless Earth "would have been a near miracle." I would extend this conclusion to all of the proposed RNA substitutes that I mentioned above.
(Robert Shapiro, "A Simpler Origin for Life," Scientific American, February 12, 2007)
Atheist response to that typically is along the lines of " if you give that gorilla billions of years to do so, without breaks for sleeping, eating, or any other type of rest, but types, nonstop for billions of years, you still find it highly unlikely that it wouldn't arrange the 26 letters in the alphabet into that pattern"
In other words, given enough time, anything can happen, after all it only has to happen once, that's it. Your mere existence, in the here and now with your exact genetic signature is about 10^2685000. With those odds, should I suppose that you shouldn't exist because the odds are against you"
That atheistic logic is displayed very clearly in this example:
So if, after the fact, we observe the particular evolutionary path actually taken and then calculate the a priori probability of its being taken, we will get the minuscule probability that creationists mistakenly attach to the process as a whole. Here’s another example. We have a deck of cards before us. There are almost 10 to the 68th power – a one with 68 zeroes after it – orderings of the 52 cards in the deck. Any of the 52 cards might be first, any of the remaining 51 second, any of the remaining 50 third, and so on. This is a humongous number, but it’s not hard to devise even everyday situations that give rise to much larger numbers. Now if we shuffle this deck of cards for a long time and then examine the particular ordering of the cards that happens to result, we would be justified in concluding that the probability of this particular ordering of the cards having occurred is approximately 1 chance in 10 to the 68th power. This certainly qualifies as minuscule. Still, we would not be justified in concluding that the shuffles could not have possibly resulted in this particular ordering because its a priori probability is so very tiny. Some ordering had to result from the shuffling, and this one did.
(What’s wrong with Creationist Probability — Mathematics Professor John Allen Paulos of Temple University)
Here is an excellent and easily understood refutation of that type of fallacious logic:
His problem lies in the card example. Suppose I have a deck of cards. He is correct in the 1068 combinations of cards (the probability of any 1 combination occurring). But he makes the mistake of applying statistics. Actually, by shuffling and dealing the cards the probability is 1 — it’s a certainty one sequence will occur (one of the 1068 possibilities). Mr. Paulos does understand this, as he says “Some ordering had to result from the shuffling”.
The one in 1068 is the probability of calling out each card — in order — as you turn them up. That’s the correct analogy between cards and evolution. It’s a certainty you will get a sequence. But is it the exact sequence you want? Correct math, wrong application. The probability is 1 you will get a sequence, but much less likely you could correctly call out each card as it’s dealt (This is also sometimes illustrated as a group of monkeys randomly typing out the works of Shakespeare).
The card example illustrates a common mistake in the application of statistics, and statistical mistakes can be difficult to uncover. As already noted, if such improbable events really do happen commonly, they’re not so improbable, are they (by definition)? But since the odds calculation is correct (it’s not an error in math), it must be the application of knowledge.
Let’s turn to Physicist Richard Feynman to explain the faulty reasoning and the professor’s error immediately becomes obvious. For those who might not know, Feynman was a Nobel-prize winning physicist involved in The Manhattan Project, and on the panel investigating the space shuttle Challenger disaster. But perhaps best known for a series of undergraduate lectures captured in the famous “Feynman lectures on Physics”, Feynman had the ability to illustrate complex problems simply.
What came to Feynman by “common sense” were often brilliant twists that perfectly captured the essence of his point. Once, during a public lecture, he was trying to explain why one must not verify an idea using the same data that suggested the idea in the first place. Seeming to wander off the subject, Feynman began talking about license plates. “You know, the most amazing thing happened to me tonight. I was coming here, on the way to the lecture, and I came in through the parking lot. And you won’t believe what happened. I saw a car with the license plate ARW 357. Can you imagine? Of all the millions of license plates in the state, what was the chance that I would see that particular one tonight? Amazing!” A point even many scientists fail to grasp was made clear through Feynman’s remarkable “common sense”. (“The Feynman Lectures on Physics Volume I” , Feynman, Leighton, Sands page xi-xii)
Feynman makes Professor Paulos’ mistake with the cards clear — it’s not an error in math, it’s an error in science. The issue with cards relating to evolution isn’t that any given sequence is wildly improbable, yet a sequence comes up — when dealing cards it’s a statistical certainty a sequence will occur (probability one). The correct example relating to evolution would be to predict each card as it is dealt (probability zero).
**SIGH*** You are a god, Chad!! Marry me and give me your sperm!!!
Thanks for using me as an example and not citing me, very honest of you.....
The other side of your sad attempt to refute my example is that your infer, imply, conclude, etc.. that man was the endgame and that's the only course our history could take. What most scientist will argue (rightly so) is that human beings were not a predetermined species bound to happen, it was the "one of the many random possibility and ones got to happen, and this one did". That's precisely where your logic fails my friend, evolution does not presuppose humanity, but rather, humanity is merely a product, a combination that this one out of all the odds out there occurred. Does that make sense?
I heard a quote to the effect that "it is not yet written that it will always be so", concerning man's supremacy on earth. There is no guarantee we won't go the way of the dinosaurs and I can only imagine that might be a good thing when I see folks like Chard and HS.
Chad, I'm surprised that even you fell for this one. The obvious error is in the last sentence. Do I need to point it out to you?
@Gadflie "Chad, I'm surprised that even you fell for this one. The obvious error is in the last sentence. Do I need to point it out to "you?"
=>please do 😉
@Failure to communicate "Thanks for using me as an example and not citing me, very honest of you....."
@Chad "what is it with atheists and this continual claim of "dishonesty"??
The reason I didnt put your name on it, is I am not interested in being a stalker, or beating up on individuals. The idea is the important thing, not the person.
@Failure to communicate "The other side of your sad attempt to refute my example is that your infer, imply, conclude, etc.. that man was the endgame and that's the only course our history could take. What most scientist will argue (rightly so) is that human beings were not a predetermined species bound to happen, it was the "one of the many random possibility and ones got to happen, and this one did". That's precisely where your logic fails my friend, evolution does not presuppose humanity, but rather, humanity is merely a product, a combination that this one out of all the odds out there occurred. Does that make sense?"
@Chad "that's just a recycled "we're here arent we, so that proves it's possible"
And no, that's a very poor attempt at logic.
please explain to me why life can only exist in its present form. I will give you that so far we only can set our own existence has a rubric for how life occurs, but that most certainly does not mean we're correct. We're carbon based, but life can easily exist in a host of other elemental forms and in far wackier and weirder ways that you and I could probably think up. That's what Gadfly is pointing out and thats what I'm saying. I understand that you want to hide in the "bad logic" world because it comforts you to think you have some ground to stand on, but what Gad is getting at is that trying to calculate the probability of an event that's already happened and not come up with the answer 1:1 doesn't mean the effect can't have happened or shouldn't have happened. Furthermore, what I was trying to show you with my calculation of your odds of existing and so on is simply, the odds were not in your favor by any stretch of the imagination and yet you somehow "beat" the odds (for lack of a better term) so why can you not apply that same thought to this?
Understand Chad that life existing does not have 1 singular path which can not be deviated from in order to propagate. That's why what you've cited is wrong and that's the gigantic hole in your logic.
Chad , you are full of insight, thankyou!!!
Gadflie believes (as he has shown on other threads) that since something has happened calculating the probability that it could have happened is irrelevant, it happened so it's probability is 1.
Let me know if you agree with him or not.
Regarding your "various forms for life", are you attempting to make the argument that there are so many different possibilities of life that the probability of one of those occurring is irrelevant since it can just be one of many?
Gad makes a valid point the chance of something happening after the fact is a 1:1 ratio, the chances of the how are a whole lot larger so I can understand that you can still talk about the high improbability of how an occurrence happened doesn't make it a 1:1 ratio.
As for my "various forms of life" since this is more opinion than support by any sort of data, here's what I mean: There could possibly be nitrogen based life forms, or oxygen based, or hydrogen based, it doesn't need to be just carbon based like us. So far the only thing we think we're sort of sure about is that a planet needs to be in the Goldilocks zone in order to support life and have liquid water. This could also be false, but since we have yet to see life form on Gaseous planets in our solar system nor their rock moons, it's all we have to go on. Then again, in my opinion, that's sort of like going to the ocean, dipping a glass of water in it and then analyzing it and concluding that whales don't exist from that sample.
The reason I bring it up is to expand you mind and way of thinking. To understand that the specialness we feel as being the only sentient life form so far in the universe is false and the complex we've built around it involves having a god that specifically designed us.
@Failure to communicate "Gad makes a valid point the chance of something happening after the fact is a 1:1 ratio"
@Chad "well, either your ability to communicate is deeply flawed, or your understanding of probabilities is.. not sure which
The probability of an event occurring is independent of the event having actually occurred or not.
It's simple, so some reading.
@Failure to communicate " There could possibly be nitrogen based life forms, or oxygen based, or hydrogen based, it doesn't need to be just carbon based like us...."
@Chad "you are making the "there could be so many different forms of life, that the probabilities of any form of life are reasonably good." argument.
The reason you only see that argument on a blog like this is that no scientist would dare make such a ridiculous statement in a debate. Do yourself a favor and google "anthropic principle" or "fine tuning".
That this universe is fine tuned for the capacity to have life forms isnt even argued..
do some reading...
I fail to see what probability has to do with the validation of a god claim or an intelligent designer. The actual probabilities are almost irrelevant, since you are making the claim that there IS a designer, you need to demonstrate that, not give what looks like could be compelling evidence for it.
@HawaiiGuest "I fail to see what probability has to do with the validation of a god claim or an intelligent designer. The actual probabilities are almost irrelevant, since you are making the claim that there IS a designer, you need to demonstrate that, not give what looks like could be compelling evidence for it."
=>the probabilities demonstrate as Hoyle put it: "the probability of the spontaneous generation of a single bacteria, "is about the same as the probability that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard could assemble a 747 from the contents therein."
that's all the probabilities do, they exclude certain avenues from consideration.
So, what other avenues are there? The God of Abraham is the most logical/rational choice.
How is the god of the bible the most rational choice? A book that describes a schizophrenic, sociopathic, jealous, evil god that supposedly "loves us all", as well as innacuracies in simple historicity is your guidebook to rationality? Sorry, but that's just plain stupid.
@HawaiiGuest "A book that describes a schizophrenic, sociopathic, jealous, evil god that supposedly "loves us all", as well as innacuracies in simple historicity is your guidebook to rationality?"
=>1)are you familiar with the bible, or are you just getting info from infidels.org
=>2)name some historical inaccuracies..
It would also be nice if you put forth any kind of actual argument instead of appealing to pseudo-intellectual irrelevancy. Then again putting forth an argument or making an actual assertion would give you a burden of proof, so avoiding that lets you think you've won something.
Lack of geological evidence for a worldwide flood event, lack of evidence for the entire exodus story.
I'm very familiar with the bible, and I haven't been to infidels.org. But what would that matter anyway?
@HawaiiGuest "It would also be nice if you put forth any kind of actual argument instead of appealing to pseudo-intellectual irrelevancy. Then again putting forth an argument or making an actual assertion would give you a burden of proof, so avoiding that lets you think you've won something.
@Chad as you are WELL aware, I have put forth complete arguments many, many times. Bad form of you to imply I havent.
@HawaiiGuest "Lack of geological evidence for a worldwide flood event, lack of evidence for the entire exodus story
@Chad 1. relative paucity of information supporting a historical event of course DOES NOT mean it is inaccurate. Especially when we are talking about the time spans here.
2. Flood: was it global or local? I dont know. When was it? I dont know. Is there evidence, yes, some.
3. Exodus: there is extrabiblical support, google exodus.
How about you put forward the extrabiblical accounts of a mass exodus from egypt in the form of, (biblically) 600,000 people, the parting of a see and the killing of a pharaoh and his army, then the subsequent 40 years of wandering in the desert that supposedly happened. Or how about not dodging actually providing your evidence for a global flood event as it states in the bible?
trying to insult my intelligence isn't going to make you any more right, I mean if we're talking fallacies... The other half of this what are the odds of something happening after it's already happened? 1, do you understand how it works? Before an event the probability can be large or small depending on the variables, but after the fact, once it happens it's one. You can try calculating if it would happen again, but we both know those two events are independent from one another.
The second part about other types of life forms, not an argument, which is why I kept saying it was my opinion and I had no way to back it up, but it's not exactly far fetched. Can you really tell me with complete certainty that a nitrogen life form will never ever in the history of the cosmos ever arise? If you concede that then your probabilities change. Since we don't know nearly enough variables to every actually calculate the odds you keep throwing around, there's another way to nullify your "it's so improbably the only rational explanation is god" approach.
You also still have yet to tell me how a "rational approach" is appealing towards the supernatural. What consti.tutes a supernatural event, how was it attributed to god and could it have happened without a supernatural as.sit or did it defy natural laws?
@Failure to communicate: "after the fact, once it happens it's one"
@Chad " No.. do some reading, nuff said."
@Failure to communicate:" The second part about other types of life forms, not an argument, which is why I kept saying it was my opinion and I had no way to back it up
@Failure to communicate: "You also still have yet to tell me how a "rational approach" is appealing towards the supernatural. What consti.tutes a supernatural event, how was it attributed to god and could it have happened without a supernatural as.sit or did it defy natural laws?"
@Chad "if there is no natural reason, what's left?"
The earliest non-Biblical account of the Exodus is in the writings of the Greek author Hecataeus of Abdera: the Egyptians blame a plague on foreigners and expel them from the country, whereupon Moses, their leader, takes them to Canaan, where he founds the city of Jerusalem. Hecataeus wrote in the late 4th century BC, but the passage is quite possibly an insertion made in the mid-1st century BCE. The most famous is by the Egyptian historian Manetho (3rd century BC), known from two quotations by the 1st century AD Jewish historian Josephus. In the first, Manetho describes the Hyksos, their lowly origins in Asia, their dominion over and expulsion from Egypt, and their subsequent foundation of the city of Jerusalem and its temple. Josephus (not Manetho) identifies the Hyksos with the Jews. In the second story Manetho tells how 80,000 lepers and other "impure people," led by a priest named Osarseph, join forces with the former Hyksos, now living in Jerusalem, to take over Egypt. They wreak havoc until eventually the pharaoh and his son chase them out to the borders of Syria, where Osarseph gives the lepers a law-code and changes his name to Moses. Manetho differs from the other writers in describing his renegades as Egyptians rather than Jews, and in using a name other than Moses for their leader, although the identification of Osarseph with Moses may be a later addition
Do you ever work, Chard?
I can trace all bad things happening to our kids to the end of school prayer
I'll bet. Of course, nothing ELSE occurred since then that could POSSIBLY be a cause of the decline in our educational system, right, dumbazz? Did you ever even GO to high school, you moronic dolt?
Nope, it obviously all started when we changed our national motto to "In God We Trust" and added "Under God" to the pledge.
there have been about 20 other human species. did God screw up a bunch of times?
God still lets us screw up every day. How do you explain that?
ez. there is no god. lol.
As far as I know, creationists don't recognize any other species of H0m0. All those fossils like Lucy were just ancient apes to them.
Tom, Tom, I would love a dollar for every post you make that is nothing more than calling a person "stupid" or "an idiot". At times you have a legitimate point to make, but your constant whining makes you the epitome of the loud mouthed atheist. It makes we atheists all look bad. I wish you would tone it down. You look foolish.
Have to agree. Hate to break ranks, but it does get tiresome.
Because these cretins dont deserve any better.
Oh, gee, how sad am I that you don't love me!!! BOOO HHOOOO! How WILL I survive your disapproval??? Whahahhahha!!!
I shall simply have to kill myself!!
You dolts earned every epithet you've received. Don't like it? Don't read it. Get lost if it offends you. Go somewhere else. Scroll. Scram. Drop dead.
Do you really think I give two craps about your opinion?
These cretins do deserve every vile words aimed right back at them. They've polluted our world for too long and it's about time everyone wakes up to their garbage. Continue onwards and take them down. The internet is the very bastion of freedom to trash these zealot back to their holes.
Oh, please. I have no such intentions. This is simply a pastime for me. Do you really think anyone cares what some moron says here? It's inconsequential in all respects. I couldn't care less what some idiot believes about anything.
It's just a giggle when some little baby whines about how insulting it finds my posts and how terrible a person I must be to post such things. I love seeing little dorks get their panties in a wad over posts on a blog no one even reads. It's a laugh to watch Chad wring himself out over post after post of inanity, cutting and pasting idiocy after idiocy to attempt to show he's got a dick. It cracks me up to see HS getting the vapors because someone she doesn't even know says her God's a sham.
These boobs are a hoot.
Oh I know. XD
I've been around long enough to see all their retarded posts. I find it hilarious that these zealots can never learn from each other to not repeat the same drivel that each one of them has posted before previously.
Quite so, Answer. I have given up any ambition I once had of bothering with cogent argument, fact, or reason. It's more useful and less stressful to simply ridicule the idiots. Can't roll sh!t uphill.
There's an important role for people like @Tom Tom in dealing with insanity. I'm also the first one to call a loon a loon. Respect is earned. If you're being a total nutjob then I think it's important to do everything in ones power to crush the spirit of such a person. Insanity has been allowed a controlling voice for long enough. Religious people have done a pretty c.rap job with their part of the planet, so I think it's time to let people of reason to take over. If you act like a child, you should be treated like a child.
That being said, having a different point of view is welcomed by me and many other atheists. Just have a clear thought process and apply a relative amount effort in your reasoning. Try thinking for yourself for a change. I know you worry that you won't be smart enough unless you're copying the paper of the smarter kid in class, but if you give it time, reasoning is a skill you can hone and perfect. People of different opinion and sharp reasoning skills always have a special place at the adult table amongst atheists. We want to hear from you. We just don't want to be disappointed by you.
Oh no Tom Tom don't listen to this advise...we believers love your red neck logic and name calling, keep going please. Are you the president of the athiest's club???? Please say yes!!!
When people confuse creationism with Intelligent design, they are committing the classic folly of seeing the world in black and white. "Either you believe darwin 100% or you are a religious hack". No sir, we are in the greyscale. Darwin had a point, but maybe it is overstated.
Why the fight against even teaching elements of Intelligent Design (the holes in evolution theory) to students? Because the kool-aid has to be given at a very young age to be effective!
You're a moron.
"God of the Gaps" theory? Is this how you want to go about it?
Don't give the dolt that kind of credit. It's too dumb to breathe.
Of course not, Sir. There's God's work in evolution too. He works his magic in many ways. Some we can explain with our limited senses and abilities, some we cannot. That's what Intelligent design says.
Because intelligent design is made up junk science, thats why.
This is just another attempt by you religious people to justify your mythology.
The catholic church did this same thing when Gallileo wanted to publish his book about his findings that the earth circled the sun and was not the center of the universe. The church hired junk scientists to refute him.
That didn't work, so they did what all good religions did, and silenced him. Had he not been so old he would have fought back, and then the church would have done what all good religions do and just killed him.
Your intelligent design is not intelligent at all. Just another desperate attempt to draw a line in the sand that science will obliterate.
Maybe I shouldn't Tom, but I feel like debunking his thinking. May I start off with a quote:
"God is an ever receding pocket of scientific ignorance." Neil "The Man" DeGrasse Tyson
We use to think that the earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe. We never thought we would be able to go to the moon or even fly across the country. We never thought we would be talking on the internet. If people sat on their hands are waited for God to do it, nothing would have gotten done. We wouldn't know a sliver of what we know now if not through the power of science. Science is the language that unites everything, while religion tends to put us in camps against each other.
So creationism and ID are not the same?
Why do you ignorant fundiots lie?
I teach my kids evolution and the questions about it. Also teach em the limits of human abilities and five senses. Prayer time is sacrosanct at my house.
If an intelligent design proponent has a legitimate argument agaist evolution, try to publish a paper. Subject your views to editorial and perr review. If they pass, they are a welcome addition to academic intercourse. But they never seem to survive editorial and peer review for the simple fact that they are garbage.
Whats, you can do whatever you want with your kids and I respect that you are at least teaching them some kind of evolution, but it's not truly beneficial if you yourself don't understand it fully.
@ WhatsHappening – you most definately are not teaching your kids evolution. You have demonstrated that you don't have a freaking clue about evolution, so what are you teaching?
"Intelligent Design" is not taught in schools because it is not fact. It is a manipulation of the Bible.Belief in God requires faith. Faith is belief without proof.
WhatsHappening, can you point out to me a single "problem" with the theory of evolution that is not either a laughable misuse of statistics or a logical fallacy?
We all know these ID-iots are reading "Of Pandas and People". It was hilarious in the Dover Trials. They'll never add anything useful to science because they never can.
Might as well ask a cat to speak French.
Why not consider the alternative that evolution is God's mechanism to create man in his image?
Many Bible passages cannot be taken literally. They are inconsistent and need to be interpreted. Why not interpret "day" as an aribrary period of time, like a billion years, give or take.
I don't understand why 'young earth' Christians cannot accept the same concepts that 'old earth' Christians are able to. Both can live their lives according to the teachings of Jesus.
@Colin, You forget that it's all a giant conspiracy by the science community to destroy religion and turn everyone gay, while simultaneously paying homage to the illuminati and keeping us away from the gold standard.
Our Const itution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other"
There is no religion without freedom, however, the converse is not true at all. We're a secular nation, b4, and people like you don't seem to get that.
Things are not always as the seem Rick. I do understand that the US is secular. In fact, since the end of WW2, the US has become the 'New Rome' (minus the pagan pantheon of course). The US is the great world superpower, its citizens enjoy the games held in the big stadia, there's the strong central govt, law & order and citizenship are big deals – many of the hallmarks of ancient Rome (also many of the hallmarks of fascism i might add).
b4, I kind of do see us as the New Rome sometimes basically because our laws are based on Roman laws. The big difference is that we don't have official religions like the Roman Empire did, and that is a big reason why our Republic has survived as a republic for this long. Secularism looks to De-centralize power while a state religion does the opposite.
I find myself agreeing with half of your sentence-statements Rick. For example, though i do agree that history demonstrates that state religions attempt to centralize power, i dont see that secularism tends to de-centralize power.
I use as an example, in the US currently we have the liberals as the bulk of secularists and they tend to favor lots of regulatory power coming from DC, whereas the conservatives, Libertarians in particular, favor a smaller, less invasive central govt.
Just my observation.
@b4bigbang, your observation falls apart when you realize that conservatives DO love regulation when it comes to peoples choices about their bodies, drugs, marriage, stem cell research... Seems pretty invasive to me. While the libertarians claim to want an end to all of these things, I find it hard to believe that people actually think that will work. You've seen what the end of bank regulations will bring. You've seen the end of regulating roads and bridges which are falling apart. It's a great fantasy to have. I'm personally an anarchist. But it's stupid to believe that people are actually responsible enough to handle that kind of lifestyle.
46% of Americans don't even have the intelligence to recognize the age of the planet... do you really believe these people are responsible enough to be making adult decisions?
I love Adams, but even he went over the edge now and again. At one point he wanted to arrest everyone who disagreed with him only to find the Supreme Court slapping him down with the Alien and Sedition act. Nobodies perfect.
godfree, i agree with your statement completely regarding the fact that Libertarianism is great in theory but wont work in practice.
I disagree with your reason however.
I believe that history shows that it is wisdom more than scientific doctrine that makes or breaks a nation. A good example would be the former Soviet Union. They never had a decent economy in spite of their modern scientific know-how. They were so enamored of their pet doctrines that they, unlike the more pragmatic Chinese, refused to adjust their economic practice to reality.
They were completely secular, no national debate over religion, age of universe or what-have-you.
The US on the other hand, practices better, wiser, more pragmatic political and economic doctrines, and we are world leaders in most of the benchmarks – political stability, economic power, military, technology, etc, etc.
I do agree with you re the Christian right, however. Their Dominionist doctrine is un-Biblical, repressive and unworkable.
@b4bigbang, I traveled to J.apan 6 years ago. At the time you could get 124¥ for $1. Now, I actually live in Tokyo and when I moved here 5 years ago, $1 = 118¥. After the policies of the Bush and lack of banking regulation, the result is that you can only get 78¥ to the dollar. This does not look at all like a government in its economic superpower prime.
Ja.pan is also one of the many successful secular, democratic govts. While I agree that any govt should rule by wisdom over scientific doctrine (if by scientific doctrine you mean the rules of reason over emotion), I don't think it's fair to say which is better for 2 reasons:
1) Scientific doctrine has never been the driving force of any govt.
2) Name one govt system that has never fallen. You can't because they all fail. Even the great democracy of the US is showing its many flaws the longer it is maintained. It's because ALL human systems are flawed by the nature of humans being flawed. This would mean a govt of scientific doctrine would be equally flawed, but we don't have enough data to do a fair comparison. If we've seen anything from history, it's that dictatorships and monarchies tend to have the longest lifespan.
@godfree: Agree completely with your latest reply.
The god of the Bible was an asshole;
Abraham was an asshole;
Moses was an asshole;
David was an asshole;
Lot was an asshole;
Joshua was an asshole;
Jesus was an asshole;
Solomon was an asshole;
and Paul was an asshole.
The author of Revelation was also, I strongly suspect, an asshole.
What an awesome book to base your life on!
And they were all probably gay too!
Jesus killed the entire worlds population (humans and animals) except Moses and his family, then said "thou shalt not kill"
This is inconsistent with the notion that god is perfect and everything he creates is also perfect. That is unless killing everyone was his plan from the beginning. Either way, it's not very nice.
Ah, that would be Noah. Please keep your myths straight.
Oops, my mistake. Too much wine.
That was Noah's mistake too! 🙂
@Cq, except, unlike Noah, I didn't expose myself to my family 🙂
It has been said: "There are none so blind as those that will not see." I wonder if any of the people who believe absolutely that the current GOD OF ABRAHAM actually exists, is, in fact, the one and only GOD? What about all of the Egyptian, Roman, and Greek gods? What proof do you have that these Gods are false Gods? How do you know that YOUR single God is not False, and the others are the Real McCoy?
Luke 6:27-28 27”But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you, 28Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you.”
But he also said:
Deuteronomy 13:6 – “If your brother, your mother’s son or your son or daughter, or the wife you cherish, or your friend who is as your own soul entice you secretly, saying, let us go and serve other gods … you shall surely kill him; your hand shall be first against him to put him to death”
This looks like either a major inconsistency, or a major flip flop in positions.
There's lots of those inconsistencies, particularly in a new covenant / old covenant context.
Which is why I don't understand why so many Christians seem to base their thinking on old testament passages. Stipluating that the bible is "truth", passages clearly can't be taken literally and have to be interpreted. They are happy to reinterpret the proscriptions on shellfish and pork!
So ... why do Evanglicals tend to want to take Genesis literally must then spurn science to sustain their world view? It they chose to interpret a "day" as an arbitrary length of time, it is straightforward to combine a belief in God with an understanding that evolution is God's mechanism to 'create' man in his image.
Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to S-ex
At some future period not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the sav-age races throughout the world"
And we are surprised with Hitler? Is a an Evolutionary Prophet?
Dude, Hitler also adored Wagner's music. Do you think that discredits Wagner? Should we simply refuse to perform his operas?
Don't even bother to answer. I doubt you could name one of Wagner's operas without going to Google for the info.
too bad hitler was a card carrying catholic. hitler mentions god a lot in mein kampf.
Darwin was a Victorian, and British to boot. They pretty much all would have come off as racist by today's standards. Hell, Helen Keller a good number of decades later would have come off as racist by our modern standards, and so would most, if not all of the great Christian minds of that era, which is why the racial bigotry of the white churches held back civil rights for so long.
"The individual may establish with pain today that with the appearance of Christianity the first spiritual terror entered into the far freer ancient world, but he will not be able to contest the fact that since then the world has been afflicted and dominated by this coercion, and that coercion is broken only by coercion, and terror only by terror." – Adolf Hitler
Adolf's words sound like many of you!!
Reality of Evolutionist
Christianity was a terror, for pagans, Jews, and even other Christians. A lot of people were killed because of Christianity. Even Hitler knew this fact.
Reality, you sound like a person who should be medicated.
EVOLUTION AND ETHICS
by Sir Arthur Keith
The leader of Germany is an evolutionist not only in theory, but, as millions know to their cost, in the rigor of its practice. For him the national "front" of Europe is also the evolutionary "front"; he regards himself, and is regarded, as the incarnation of the will of Germany, the purpose of that will being to guide the evolutionary destiny of its people. He has brought into modern life the tribal and evolutionary mentality of prehistoric times. Hitler has confronted the statesmen of the world with an evolutionary problem of an unprecedented magnitude. What is the world to do with a united aggressive tribe numbering eighty millions!
Hitler was also fond of shirts, boots and mustaches. Shame on the inventors of those items.
Charles Darwin wrote in his work The Descent of Man and Selection in Relation to S-ex:
".. a higher eminence, in whatever he takes up, than can women—whether requiring deep thought, reason, or imagination, or merely the use of the senses and hands. If two lists were made of the most eminent men and women in poetry, painting, sculpture, music (inclusive of both composition and performance), history, science, and philosophy, with half-a-dozen names under each subject, the two lists would not bear comparison. We may also infer, from the law of the deviation from averages, so well illustrated by Mr. Galton, in his work on “Hereditary Genius” that ... the average of mental power in man must be above that of women"
Ken Ham- the world's only living Cro-Magnon.
Ken Ham? – No that was Charles Darwin the Father of Evolution.
Oh, brother. So what? Henry Ford was a virulent anti-Semite. Does that mean no one should drive a Ford today, you moron?
Reality, you're an idiot. Darwin to evolution is like the Model A was to cars. He didn't come up with evolution, he just figured out how it happens. Crack open a book, numbskull.
Rick, you rock. In your face, Reality.
Thanks Tom, but I really feel bad beating up on idiots. Well, unless they deserve it, like in this case.
Harry Knowles is proof of evolution- the first man on earth whose head has evolved into a testicle, with red hair, to boot!
In the movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, Ben Stein demonstrated the folly of evolutionism in his interview with Richard Dawkins.
BEN STEIN: "What do you think is the possibility that Intelligent Design might turn out to be the answer to some issues in genetics or in evolution?"
DAWKINS: "Well, it could come about in the following way. It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
That is precisely what the Raelians say:
Years ago, everybody knew that the earth was flat. Everybody knew that the sun revolved around the earth. Today, everybody knows that life on earth is either the result of random evolution or the work of a supernatural God. Or is it? In "Message from the Designers", Rael presents us with a third option: that all life on earth was created by advanced scientists from another world.
Richard Dawkins and Rael; "clear thinking" kindred spirits!
What are you trying to prove: that so-called Darwinian Evolution is wrong, or that the Genesis "account" of "creation" is correct?
You come off looking like a very muddled and confused idiot. BTW, your adult day-care called to say you've gone over your 1 hour computer limit for the day, and that they're serving cottage cheese and pineapple down the hall in Room 2-B.
Stein asked Dawkins how intelligent design could have happened. Aliens, who were themselves products of evolution on their original home world, could have just as easily seeded life here as we could seed life on an earth-like planet. As it is, there are forms of life here that we could seed on certain moons with water in the solar system so, you see, it's no where near as outlandish as proposing an eternal, super-creator being making the entire universe from somewhere "outside" of it only to become concerned over our mating practices and blending of fabrics.
I'm with Dawkins in feeling like no one has yet been able to point to any "intelligence" in the design. Is it magnificent? Yes. Intelligent? Quite to the contrary, what you find is a series of errors followed by a series of corrections. What we see when we examine things closely are minute alterations on a genetic level intended to overcome some limitation.
Dr. Josef Mengele's evolutionary thinking was in accordance with social Darwinist theories that Adolph Hitler and a number of German academics found appealing. Dr. Joseph Mengele studied under the leading proponents the "unworthy life" branch of evolutionary thought. Dr. Mengele was one of the most notorious individuals associated with Nazi death camps and the Holocaust. Mengele obtained a infamous reputation due to his experiments on twins while at Auschwitz-Birkenau.
Prominent evolutionist and atheist Richard Dawkins stated the following regarding Adolf Hitler in an interview: “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question." The interviewer of Richard Dawkins wrote the following regarding the Richard Dawkins comment about Hitler: "I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point."
In addition to greatly influencing Hitler's Nazism, evolutionary ideas influenced the thinking of the Communists, including Marx, Engels, Vladimir Lenin, and Joseph Stalin. Marx wrote, "Darwin's book is very important and serves me as a basis in natural science for the class struggle in history."
First person to cite Hitler/Mengele/Nazis loses.
Tag. You're it.
The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts 'to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile' (Mein Kampf).
i think someone climbed over the wall at the asylum again. koo-koo!
@Reality of Evolutionist: I feel sorry for your Jewish, black or gay neighbors. Go back to the Fatherland you Deutschbag.
Arbeit macht frei, muthafugga. Arbeit macht frei.
Hitler was also a believer, but unlike you I would never use that point in an argument, simply because it would make me look like an idi0t
Hitler's ideas are as related to Darwin's as Charles Manson's ideas are to Jesus'.
People can fathom movies and DVDS filled with far out sci fi and think nothing about it. But let someone say "God spoke and the world was created" and it freaks them out. SCIENTIFIC DUH!!!
Because your god was a scientifically ignorant putz who got all the science wrong.
T.EDarded, people who possess working brains can watch scifi and fantasy and recognize it for what it is: entertainment.
Idiots like you don't get the difference between entertainment and reality. Poor you.
We're also not making govt policy based on fantasy or raising children to believe that there's a magical sword out there to help them fight dragons.
I should have qualified that we're not making govt policy on our modern day fantasy books. We're still making policies on a 2k year old fantasy book.
I applaud the original poster for realizing that sci fi movies and the religion are the same thing: fiction.
first off, if you are in jr. high school with a severe learning disability and english is not your primary language - i would like to say good attempt.
you're logic is that because people can use their imagination and suspension of disbelief to accept the story in a movie or book as realistic that they should accept that there is a God? is that really your argument?
do the world a favor. stick a fork up your nose and pull out the dried up, bean-sized husk that is your frontal lobe. put it in the garbage disposal. there, you don't have to worry about nasty-wasty old logic giving you a headache anymore.
I don't think people have a problem with "God spoke and the world was created." I think they have a problem with the idea that the God, specifically the (one?) God of the Old Testament "spoke" and created the heaven and earth "in six days" allowing us to immediately see all stars and celestial objects that are billions of light years away, and then engineered it so that some hot, naked chick would meet a talking snake and take a bite of an apple on that God's special tree, which he made abundantly clear was "off limits." As any parent knows, if you tell a child something is off limits, they are bound to be curious and check it out if you don't watch them closely. Even though "Eve" was a fully-formed adult, she was still a child to her environment, having only been born yesterday, as it were, before being exposed to boundaries which would be incomprehensible to any child under 1.5-3 years old.
"[God] puts an apple tree in the middle of [the Garden of Eden] and says, do what you like guys, oh, but don’t eat the apple. Surprise surprise, they eat it and he leaps out from behind a bush shouting “Gotcha.” It wouldn’t have made any difference if they hadn’t eaten it… Because if you’re dealing with somebody who has the sort of mentality which likes leaving hats on the pavement with bricks under them you know perfectly well they won’t give up. They’ll get you in the end."
- Douglas Adams, atheist and author of the Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy books
Booty, that was beautiful. Pure poetry. Poor Doug. I miss him.
BTW, what you are describing is known as an Attractive Nuisance, in legal terminology, Torts.
Sci Fi tends to make better sense. With that said, even the most devoted Trekie or Jedi-wannabe out there doesn't really believe that these worlds actually exist.
Captains Log; Stardate -7,677,000.
The Enterprise is orbiting a class M planet, the third planet from a yellow sun which is about 150 Gm distant. The oceans and landmass of this planet look disturibingly familiar. The ship's chronometers on the Enterprise indicate that we have travelled back far in time, at least 8,400 earth years.
Mr. Spock has reported that while the planet is easily capable of sustaining life, he cannot detect a humanoid presence beyond distributed populations of primates in the forests of this planet.
Mr. Scott transported a small away team conisting of science officer Lt, Adam Blaine and medical officer Ensign Eve Grant. Immediately following their materialization on the planet's surface, the transporter core overloaded ...
Yeah, that Science fiction stuff is just wacky. 🙂