home
RSS
Survey: Nearly half of Americans subscribe to creationist view of human origins
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.

- Dan Merica

Filed under: Belief • Creationism • evolvution

soundoff (3,830 Responses)
  1. Raveyp Rekstenm

    You could certainly see your skills in the paintings you write. The arena hopes for even more passionate writers like you who aren't afraid to say how they believe. Always go after your heart.

    July 25, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  2. Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

    All you brainless xian cr_etins take your single brain cell and go back to your ch_urch before even that gets fried by vomiting tripe all over the CNN forums. Knock it off bozos. Polluting this space with your insane ramblings when you should be putting them up in whatever l_unatic a_sylum you escaped out of. F__k o_f

    June 15, 2012 at 4:42 pm |
  3. Biblical

    * POOF *

    June 15, 2012 at 4:16 pm |
  4. Biblical

    Good point, THEORY

    June 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
  5. THEORY

    Bottom line is – Evolution is just a theory.

    June 14, 2012 at 10:13 pm |
    • ME II

      A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of how the world works.
      Look here for more: http://nationalacademies.org/evolution/Definitions.html

      June 15, 2012 at 11:01 am |
    • THEORY

      yeah yeah.. I have heard this many times. and its OK for scientists to have acrimonious debates about how things work, but when we pick up on those debates and say 'you guys make up your mind, and come back when you are SURE of your idea', we are SLAMMED. Hippocretes.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:06 pm |
    • THEORY

      And.. whatever you say, I wont believe you. It's "the LAW of gravity", "Newton's {1,2,3} LAW of motion" vs

      Newton's THEORY of motion.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:20 pm |
    • ME II

      @THEORY,
      "whatever you say, I wont believe you."

      Well, at least you're honest...

      June 15, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • *facepalm*

      @Theory, do you enjoy being wilfully ignorant. Newton's laws of motion describe the nature of gravity under certain conditions. It does not adequately explain gravity and the laws completely break down when considering very small spaces or when at relativistic speeds. We know a whole lot more about evolution than we do about gravity. But if you want to continue to amuse the rest of us with your completely lack of knowledge of "modern" physics (your concept of physics is dated by about a century), please do so.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:25 pm |
    • AHHH

      @Theory, did you read what you wrote. It's Newton's law of MOTION, not Newton's laws of GRAVITY. And the laws aren't even universal. Were you home schooled?

      June 15, 2012 at 1:27 pm |
    • THEORY

      Ok, AHHH if you want me to not use short hand notation

      Newton's first law of motion : Intertia
      Newton's second law of motion : F = ma
      Newton's third law of motion : equal and opposite reaction

      which I abbreviated as Newton's {1,2,3} law of motion

      No I wasnt homeschooled

      June 15, 2012 at 1:39 pm |
    • Doc Vestibule

      A theory is what one or more hypotheses become once they have been verified and accepted to be true. A theory is an explanation of a set of related observations or events based upon proven hypotheses and verified multiple times by detached groups of researchers. In general, both a scientific theory and a scientific law are accepted to be true by the scientific community as a whole. Both are used to make predictions of events. Both are used to advance technology.
      There are 5 laws in the Theory of Evolution.
      1) Evolution as such.
      This is the understanding that the world is not constant, nor recently created, nor cycling, but is changing; and that the types of enti.ties that live on it also change.
      2) Common descent
      This is the understanding that every group of living enti.ties that we know of on this planet descended from a common ancestor.
      3) Multiplication of species
      This is the understanding that species either split into or bud off other species, often through the geographical isolation of a founder species.
      4) Gradualism
      This is the understanding that changes take place through the gradual change of population rather than the sudden production of new individuals.
      5) Natural selection
      This is the understanding that individuals in every generation are different from one another, or, at least some of them are. In every generation some individuals survive and reproduce better than others. Their genes multiply.

      June 15, 2012 at 4:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Doc, you are wasting your breath on these cretins with their atrophied brains. They cant read. Might as well say all that to your cat. Ha!

      Just curse them out like I do, that's all needed.

      June 15, 2012 at 4:46 pm |
    • a

      a

      June 15, 2012 at 11:10 pm |
    • chejoubert

      What in fact is so ungodly about evolution? Evolution should be viewed is a beautiful tool of creation, God's own invention. People who present 'evolution' as ungodly do not appreciate God's greatness. God created this physical system and placed humans here to experience its amazing and beautiful systems, not defy them by claiming that they are irrelevant and unacceptable.

      June 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
  6. Fallacy Spotting 101

    Recent series of posts by 'Biblical' are mainly cases of the Poisoning the Well fallacy and are of ad hominem nature.

    http://www.fallacyfiles.org/glossary.html

    June 14, 2012 at 7:53 pm |
  7. Biblical

    have you guys heard of e-u-g-e-n-i-c-s? its the scientific 'principle' that underlies the n*zi party in germany. Darwin was one of the heroes of the eugenics movement. Do some research. He was against helping "imbecile, the maimed, and the sick", because it would be "must be highly injurious to the r*ace of man"

    This is the kind of thinking that is the result of evolution taken to its logical extreme. Pretty, huh?

    June 14, 2012 at 7:11 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Good grief, but you're stupid.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:13 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You're going with the premise that evolution doesn't occur because the scientist who advanced it said something untoward?

      You are such a moron it's hard to believe you know how to tie your own shoes.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:16 pm |
    • Biblical

      No Tom, he started a movement and it gathered steam. His sons lead the movement. They were 'admonished' by him to keep up the 'natural selection' and thus create a 'great society'. It's relevant because this is the logical conclusion to which unaided 'natural selection' takes us. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/suppressing_the_truth_about_da001682.html

      June 14, 2012 at 7:20 pm |
    • Biblical

      http://www.discovery.org/a/7251

      I know you are going to jump on me about the source. so i'll say it before. Never mind it's from discovery. Look at the quotes and research and THINK.. what if his dream came true? Is that a society you want to live in?

      June 14, 2012 at 7:22 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You doofus, do you think that denying that evolution occurs in the natural world will make it go away? Do you think that the theory of gravity should be thrown out because it was used to hang people?

      You cannot be for real. No one could be this ignorant.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:24 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      What "dream", you idiot? Darwin's DEAD. The fact is that evolution occurs, has occurred, and will continue to occur. There's no move toward "eugenics" based on Darwin's beliefs, you friggin' nut-case.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:26 pm |
    • Biblical

      what dream?

      in the 2005 article I posted, he writes about how entire "r ** a ** c ** e ** s" will be exterminated and how the "N*word r*ce" is inferior to any other. That was the vile dream.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:32 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And Henry Ford was a vicious anti-Semite. So what? What is it you think this "proves", you mental case?

      June 14, 2012 at 7:46 pm |
    • Biblical

      Darwin played a prime role in bringing about a fateful confusion between cultural and racial differences, conferring new scientific authority and intellectual legitimacy on theories of human inferiority central to eugenics, the most destructive medical movement in history. Without darwin's theory backing it and giving it credibility, this piece of trash theory called e**ug*enics wouldnt have gone anywhere. that's a fact.

      http://commonwealmagazine.org/gentle-darwinians-0

      Mr Quinn is a liberal writer for the liberal commonweal magazine.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:55 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Biblical

      You realize your throwing out a straw man right? Evolutionary biology does not support eugenics in the slightest.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:00 pm |
    • Biblical

      Hawaiiguest, in his book 'descent of man', Mr Darwin explicitly supports e ugenics. My sources prove it.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:03 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      And I can produce sources that say you're wrong, Bibby:
      http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/07/01/darwin-and-eugenics-wrong-again/

      June 14, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      http://www.britannica.com/blogs/2009/02/beyond-darwin-eugenics-social-darwinism-and-the-social-theory-of-the-natural-selection-of-humans/

      June 14, 2012 at 8:09 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Biblical

      You're intentionally talking about two different things. Darwins views have no bearing on the known process of evolutionary biology, and eugenics play no part in that. You're merely attempting, like many have, to discount a well established and supported theory by attacking the man who got the ball rolling on the theory itself.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:19 pm |
    • Biblical

      @ Tom

      in one of the comments on your timanogos link:
      Letter from Charles Darwin to Francis Galton, 1873 (note:
      http://www.galton.org/letters/darwin/correspondence.htm

      “the greatest difficulty, I think, would be in deciding who deserved to be on the register. … Though I see so much difficulty, the object seems a grand one; and you have pointed out the sole feasible, yet I fear utopian, plan of procedure in improving the human race. I should be inclined to trust more … to disseminating and insisting on the importance of the all-important principle of inheritance.”

      Alfred Russel Wallace, ‘Human Selection,’

      The Eclectic Magazine, 1890: “In one of my last conversations with Darwin he expressed himself very gloomily on the future of humanity, on the ground that in our modern civilization natural selection had no play, and the fittest did not survive.”

      June 14, 2012 at 9:11 pm |
    • Biblical

      Comment in your britannica article:

      comment in teh britannica article Tom posted

      The problem is that it was the top-knotch evolution scientists who were promoting eugenics, not third-rate quacks. I mean Darwin Medalists and Nobel Laureates (Sherrington, Medawar.) The very same scientists who gave us “Darwinism” and “the Modern Synthesis” also gave us eugenics.

      So its not only darwin but also bunch of other 'natural selection' people. You see, A leads to B. Patterns of thinking emerge.

      June 14, 2012 at 9:16 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Biblical

      You're equating natural selection (evolutional biology) to eugenics, and you are refusing all statements to the fact that they are two completely different things, as well as continuing to assert that for some reason Darwins thoughts on eugenics would automatically descredit the model of evolution as known today. It's dishonest and asinine.

      June 14, 2012 at 9:21 pm |
    • ME II

      Darwin's evolution described 'natural' selection, in contrast to the artificial animal husbandry of his time.
      There is nothing natural about eugenics, it is human husbandry.

      June 15, 2012 at 11:14 am |
    • Biblical

      @ Me II:

      Darwin in 'Descent of Man', his 2 sons, and many other premier scientists of that age (Medawar, Sherrington to make) explicitly applied 'natural selection' to society and said that if 'inferior r**ces' were allowed to breed then it would be the death of society. They first applied natural selection to animal husbandry and then to society itself.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:02 pm |
    • THEORY

      The point being that these are dangerous ideas, and have lead from A to B to C.. finally landing in Z (e*genics) in the past.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:22 pm |
    • Biblical

      Thanks, THEORY. finally, some who gets it

      June 15, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • ME II

      @Biblical and @THEORY,
      That's called an ad Hominem fallacy. Even if Darwin were a supporter/orginator of eugenics, which I doubt, that says absolutely nothing about the accuracy of the Theory of Evolution.

      Just because atomic theory is used to build the atomic bomb, doesn't make the theory any less true or accurate.

      Science describes how nature works, that's it. It doesn't build bombs nor sterilize people. Ignorance is not the answer.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:58 pm |
    • Biblical

      MeToo, ignorance is not the answer but sure is bliss for brainless cretins like Bibby and asinine inbred morons like Theory

      June 15, 2012 at 4:23 pm |
    • Biblical

      ?????

      Really?

      June 15, 2012 at 4:27 pm |
    • Aubrey

      Good grief, you're an idiot, aren't you?

      For one thing, Darwin died about a century before the Nazi party existed. That drills a hole the size of China in your argument right there.

      Two, eugenics was the Nazi's twisting of evolution and natural selection and a bunch of other things so that they could justify killing off the Jews. Similar to how wingnuts twist the Bible into things it's not so they can justify their own bigotry, such as on the issues of gay marriage and abortion.

      What we must remember is that the Bible was created by MAN. Not God. MAN. It may have been influenced by God or helped along by God, but in the end, it was humans that wrote it, and thus it is flawed, like everything.

      Who is to say that evolution is not God's way of changing man? That it's not God's doing, a tool he uses? Come on now, be reasonable.

      August 28, 2012 at 3:05 am |
  8. Biblical

    Darwin proposed yet another 'theory' in addition to evolution. This was called 'pangenesis'. Something to the effect that each cell will release atomic sized particles and these will come together to form a new organism.

    If this 'theory' was wrong, what does that say about evolution?

    June 14, 2012 at 7:00 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Not a damn thing. The fact that you think it does, though, says a lot about your critical thinking skills.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:17 pm |
    • Biblical

      see http://www.evolutionnews.org/2005/12/suppressing_the_truth_about_da001682.html

      June 14, 2012 at 7:18 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Are you kidding?

      You CAN'T be this stupid and earn enough dough to buy a computer and a pot to pizz in.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:19 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Two thousand five? A 7-year-old piece of crap is the best you can come up with?

      June 14, 2012 at 7:21 pm |
    • Biblical

      Tom, whether its from 5 years ago or yesterday, fact is fact.

      QUIT THE ABUSE. its getting so old. I forgot, its typical of how people like you behave. Ta-duh!

      June 14, 2012 at 7:43 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      No, it isn't. You wouldn't know a scientific fact if it walked up and bit you. Knock if off, bozo.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:45 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      @Biblical

      Wow your original post is a prime example of a non sequitor. Congrats, I think I'll save it and pull it out whenever people ask me what a non sequitor is.

      June 14, 2012 at 7:47 pm |
    • Biblical

      Just that it makes me think : If this 'theory' is wrong, then what other 'theory' by said person is wrong?

      June 14, 2012 at 8:01 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      You don't know what the word "think" means.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:02 pm |
    • HawaiiGuest

      Two different "hypothesis". One hypothesis has graduated to a theory, and the other has been discarded. The accuracy of one has no bearing on the other.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:07 pm |
    • ME II

      Darwin didn't know anything about genetics. However, surprisingly, his Theory of Evolution was nearly dead-on. In other words, he worked out the effects of heredity without knowing the exact mechanism. Pretty brilliant, if you ask me.

      June 15, 2012 at 11:18 am |
    • Biblical

      In my mind, if a dude comes up with one bad idea, I would not trust other ideas he came up with.. maybe its just me

      June 15, 2012 at 1:03 pm |
    • ME II

      @Biblical,
      I'm glad to hear that you have never had a bad idea in your life. Most of are not so lucky, which is why we don't take scientists at their word but peer review their work, reproduce their experiments, and debate their findings.

      Darwin's ideas and the Modern Synthesis that they lead to have been well tested and have never been falsified, so far.
      Luckily, you don't have to trust Darwin's word.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:37 pm |
    • Biblical

      Im not saying I have never had a bad idea. But I've never had the temerity to propose a bad idea to explain broad swaths of things. After all, EXTRAORDINARY IDEAS NEED EXTRAORDINARY PROOFS. If you say man came from Monkeys, I want to be damn sure. and the track record of the proposer is important.

      June 15, 2012 at 1:44 pm |
    • ME II

      @Biblical,
      "After all, EXTRAORDINARY IDEAS NEED EXTRAORDINARY PROOFS."
      Science doesn't deal in "proof," that's math and lawyers. However, there is extraordinary evidence for evolution. see below.

      "If you say man came from Monkeys..."
      No one is saying that. Man and monkeys have a common ancestor; we didn't come from monkeys.

      "....I want to be damn sure. and the track record of the proposer is important."
      In science, the evidence stands on it's own, as it should be. Otherwise it's just a popularity contest.

      There is plenty of evidence for evolution, here are some highlights:
      Fossils such as, tiktaalik, ambulocetus, archeoptyrx, ho.mo habilis, etc.
      Biochemistry such as Cytochrome-C
      Biogeography such as marsupials in Austrailia and the Americas
      Genetics such as Endogenious (sp?) Retrovirus (ERVs), Human Chromosome 2, etc.
      Experiments such as Lenski's e.coli experiment

      June 15, 2012 at 2:09 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Sure hope that future scientists dont find 'Biblical' fossilized because I sure dont want to be represented in their museums by r*tards like it.

      June 15, 2012 at 4:51 pm |
    • Mary Rogers

      I know this is an old post but I will put my in my two cents anyway. The idea that Darwin had some wrong ideas does not automatically make him wrong in everything. Isaac Newton who discovered gravity and at least came up with a rudimentary understanding of it was also an alchemist. Alchemy is the "science" of turning base metals such as lead into gold. Many famous scientists have pursued this and failed. But they also suceeded in many other endevers.

      The fact is that scientists are the risk-takers who are willing to look at things differently. It stands to reason that they can't always be right all the time. None the less the theory of evolution is not based simply on Darwin's ideas. Over a hundred years of research has removed all doubt about it.

      August 28, 2012 at 4:16 am |
  9. Biblical

    All our society's problems can be traced to character issues.

    The solution here is to bring back school prayer, and kids will automatically get a moral fibre, not to speak of good values.

    June 13, 2012 at 10:11 am |
    • mandarax

      Surely this is a joke...

      June 13, 2012 at 10:42 am |
    • Biblical

      NO its not a joke
      take for example
      – No care for fellow human being (CEO takes millions/billions but loots the pension fund and/or lays off thousands)
      – Worst kind of healthcare crisis, with essential care being denied to millions
      – Unborn children being killed by the thousands

      You see, it is 'survival of the fittest', and im an ANIMAL. there is no higher power.

      Pure Darwinism rules, and this is the consequence. If we temper this with reverence for our creator, on the other hand, we just MAY have a different picture.

      June 13, 2012 at 11:26 am |
    • Biblical

      "survival of the fittest" = "I will trample on anybody, anything, anywhere. what is this morality and humanity anyway?"

      June 13, 2012 at 11:28 am |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      My goodness, you're an ignoramus.

      June 13, 2012 at 11:30 am |
    • ME II

      @Biblical,
      I'm still unclear about what "Darwinism" actually is.

      Darwin did, however, introduce the idea of natural selection, which has nothing to do with the things you listed, as they are anything but natural.

      June 13, 2012 at 1:24 pm |
    • Biblical

      It's simple.

      "natural selection" = "survival of the fittest" = "do anything as long as you survive"

      i.e. if you are a CEO, you do activity#1 in my post above. Now, if you were a moral and ethical person (both of which have no place in survival of the fittest) you would not do it.

      June 13, 2012 at 2:57 pm |
    • ME II

      @Biblical,
      First, I don't think there is such a thing as a Darwinist or Darwinism; besides being analogous to a Newtonist or Pasteurist, science now knows much more than Darwin did.
      Second, natural selection does not equate to "survival of the fittest".
      Third, even if one accepts evolution, that has no bearing on personal actions and ethical choices.

      Evolution is a description of how nature works, not human society.

      June 13, 2012 at 3:33 pm |
    • Biblical

      You mean evolution is not "survival of the fittest".

      I guess all of the science i read so far was wrong.

      June 13, 2012 at 6:27 pm |
    • ME II

      @Biblical,
      Spencer, who coined the phrase, and Darwin are generally understood to have meant, as Gould put it, survival of the "better adapted for immediate, local environment". Being, strictly, the strongest does not guarantee survival... just ask the Dinosaurs.

      June 13, 2012 at 8:29 pm |
    • mandarax

      Biblical, it does indeed appear that all the "science" you have read so far is wrong. I suspect you are getting it from religious websites (if you are actually reading anything at all). That's the frustrating thing – people who don't understand just get their information from other people who don't understand and then consider themselves experts.

      No, "survival of the fittest" is not Darwin's term, it is Spencer's. No, natural selection does not mean kill or be killed. No, based on your comments you don't understand any of this at all. There are many, many selective environments in which cooperation is generally the "fittest" behavior. You are living in one.

      June 13, 2012 at 11:22 pm |
    • Primewonk

      You do realize, don't you, that the original court cases to take prayer out of public schools were brought by religious groups? Catholics didn't want their kids saying Protestant prayes, etc.

      Also, you demonstrate incredible ignorance in the science of evolution. Perhaps if you would stop getting your "sciency" sounding information from the "Pastor Dave's" of the world, you wouldn't make these inane posts? The problem is that "Pastor Dave" is a scientific idiot, much like yourself.

      June 14, 2012 at 8:28 am |
  10. bigdawg1

    I agree with Oolon Colluphid's blockbuster trilogy, ‘Where God Went Wrong’, ‘Some More Of God's Greatest Mistakes’, and ‘Who Is This God Person Anyway?’"

    June 12, 2012 at 11:14 pm |
  11. kindness

    MY personal testimony.
    A thought to consider without an ego response

    Accept Jesus christ as your lord and saviour. You never know how soon is too late. Transcend the worldly illusion of enslavement.
    The world denounces truth....

    Accepting Jesus Christ (for me) resulted in something like seeng a new colour. You will see it .....but will not be able to clearly explain it to anyone else..... Its meant to be that way to transend any selfism within you.

    Also... much the world arranges "surrounding dark matter into something to be debated" in such a way that protects/inflates the ego.

    The key is be present and transcend our own desire to physically see evidence. We don't know anyways by defending our own perception of dark matter.

    Currently.... most of us are constructing our own path that suits our sin lifestyle. Were all sinners. Knowing that we are is often an issue. But both christians and non are sinners.

    We don't like to Let go and let god. We want control to some degree. This is what Jesus asks us to do. "Follow me".
    It's the hardest thing to do... but is done by letting the truth of scripture lead you (redemptive revelation)... as I said .

    Try reading corinthians and see if it makes sense to you. Try it without a pre conceived notion of it being a fairy tale.
    See the truth...
    do we do what it says in todays society... is it relevant... so many have not recently read and only hinge their philosophy on what they have heard from som other person...which may have been full of arogance pride or vanity..

    Look closely at the economy ponzi, look at how society idolizes Lust , greed , envy, sloth, pride of life, desire for knowledge, desire for power, desire for revencge,gluttony with food etc .

    Trancsend the temporal world.

    Just think if you can find any truth you can take with you ....in any of these things. When you die your riches go to someone who will spend away your life..... You will be forgotten.... history will repeat iteslf.... the greatest minds knowledge fade or are eventually plagerzed..... your good deeds will be forgotten and only give you a fleeting temporary reward . your learned teachings are forgotten or mutated..... your gold is transfered back to the rullers that rule you through deception. Your grave will grow over . This is truth .

    Trancsend your egoism and free yourself from this dominion of satan. Understand you are a sinner and part of the collective problem of this worldly matrix... Repent.... Repent means knowing (to change) The Holy spirit (within) will convict you beyond what you think you can do by yourself. Grace is given to those who renounce the world. That are" in" the world but not "of " the world.

    Evidence follows faith. Faith does not follow evidence..... Faith above reason in Jesus Christ.

    Faith comes by Reading or Hearing the word of god from the bible . Ask Jesus in faith for dicernment and start reading the new testament... You will be shocked when you lay down your preconceived notions and ....see and hear truth ... see how christ sets an example ... feel the truth....

    Read Ecclesiastes. Read corinthians.

    You cant trancend your own egoism by adapting a world philosophy to suit your needs. Seek the truth in Christ.

    Sell all your cleverness and purchase true bewilderment. You don't get what you want ....you get what you are in christ.

    I promise this has been the truth for me. In Jesus christ .

    Think of what you really have to lose. ...your ego?

    Break the Matrix of illusion that holds your senses captive.

    once you do . you too will have the wisdom of God that comes only through the Holy Spirit. Saved By grace through Faith. Just like seeing a new colour.... can't explain it to a transient caught in the matrix of worldly deception.
    You will also see how the world suppresses this information and distorts it

    You're all smart people . I tell the truth. Its hard to think out of the box when earthly thinking is the box.
    I'ts a personal free experience you can do it free anytime . Don't wait till you are about to die.. START PUTTING YOUR TREASURES WHERE THEY REALLY MATTER >
    Its awsome and It's just between you and Jesus

    my testimony

    Romans 10:9

    "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

    June 12, 2012 at 7:07 pm |
    • Cq

      "Religion is an illusion and it derives its strength from the fact that it falls in with our instinctual desires."
      –Sigmund Freud, New Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis,1933.

      "Religion is comparable to a childhood neurosis."
      –Sigmund Freud, The Future of an Illusion, 1927

      "A religion, even if it calls itself a religion of love, must be hard and unloving to those who do not belong to it."
      –Sigmund Freud, Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego, 1921

      June 13, 2012 at 9:58 am |
  12. clgmm74

    @Gadflie

    I am curious as to why you ask the question in that way? A trap question. No one cared when I made the argument what my position was. Why now?I get the distinct impression you might think I am part of a group. I am not. I have no associations with the groups pushing for creationism.

    June 12, 2012 at 6:50 am |
  13. clgmm74

    @Really-O

    No intent to offend. What is the reason you put forth an argument? I really would like to understand if it's for the debate itself or the outcome?

    June 12, 2012 at 6:34 am |
  14. mandarax

    One good schoolmaster is of more use than a hundred priests.
    Thomas Paine

    June 12, 2012 at 1:03 am |
  15. wayne

    @ Chad

    "what we believe is that it is only thru divine, supernatural intervention that the necessary and coordinated mutations could have occurred that gave rise to the new species."

    Why would God place a block on evolutions ability to come up with new speices on it's own? Wouldn't it be easier to just allow evoution to do that? Do you have any examples of mutations of supernatural origin?

    June 11, 2012 at 3:27 pm |
  16. clgmm74

    @Gadflie

    My argument is that Chad has a "right to question" which doesn't preclude anyone from accepting a contrary theory. People are comprised of different mindsets.

    Algebraically when parameters are given that x can not be equal to zero some accept the parameter and rule given to obtain the result. Some have a need to go beyond the parameter and determine why x can't be equal to zero.

    Statistically people will compute probabilities, apply rules of proportion, and utilize the empirical rule to determine the normality of the sample all without questioning the rules themselves. Is it inconceivable that one can have an understanding of a discipline and still want to know why the rules came into play?

    June 11, 2012 at 1:42 am |
    • Cq

      clgmm74
      I think the problem here concerns the two ways "theory" has been applied in this issue. Creationists tend towards the looser, more common definition applied to such driving questions as "Why did Katy Perry break up with Russell Brand?" To which they might have a "theory", which basically means just a guess based on the speculation people have about their life. These kind of theories are commonly qualified as "wild theories", but that is not the sense of the word that scientists use.

      It's all right to question the scientific method regarding any science, but the science of evolution has been peer reviewed sufficiently. What creationists do is ask technical questions which have no impact on the validity of evolution science, but are impressive enough to the lay public to sound as though they are major problems. In short, creationists are doing a snow job on the Christian public who are generally less informed about real evolution science, and trusting enough in their religious leaders to take them at their word.

      June 11, 2012 at 8:25 am |
    • mandarax

      I would agree very strongly that anyone has the right to question, and it is through rigorous questioning that progress in knowledge is made. But people do not have the right to present false information – at least not in an honest debate. As the old saying goes, people are entitled to their own opinions but not their own facts.

      Anti-evolutionists range from people who are not concerned with evidence at all and who just believe because of faith (who I actually have less of a problem with – they are at least being honest), to people who will try to twist and manipulate some evidence, ignore contrary evidence, and fabricate supportive evidence. These same people purposefully misrepresent the ideas of others (Darwin, Gould, etc) and repeatedly pose questions that have been thoroughly answered. This is not innocent questioning, this is dishonesty with a subversive agenda. This is lying.

      Unfortunately, the average consumer of information is poorly equipped to see through their charade because of the limits of their science education (which was hampered in the first place by religious people fighting to keep evolution out of the classroom). So, it is a real problem and must be addressed head-on. People like Chad are doing their very best to mislead people in order to suppress science education and promote their own religious beliefs.

      June 11, 2012 at 10:32 am |
    • Cq

      mandarax
      It is also important to note that the "average consumer" of creationist information doesn't bother to cross-check what they are handed about evolution because they were taught to trust their religious authorities without question. The Bible they trust without question, and anyone making a powerful enough claim to represent what the Bible says they trust, again, without question. Unfortunately, those people's charismatic quality is often enough to generate that trust, where the conclusions of those more educated in biblical scholarship unfortunately fall by the way side.

      Christians also fall under the fallacy of believing creationism because it's what they want to hear. Despite all the hype about it being a faith-based religion Christians still want the vindication of their beliefs being proven correct. Creationists can't do that, but they can do the next best thing in creating enough distrust in the science to make it plausible to believe that the Genesis account could have literally happened just as the Bible describes. The more a person wants something to be true the easier it is to convince them that it is. It's something that con men have put to use for centuries and it's also what creationists depend upon with their audience.

      June 11, 2012 at 12:19 pm |
    • mandarax

      Right on, Cq. I would add another factor that is even simpler: Creationism is simply easier to comprehend than biological evolution. In creation stories all you need to understand is that God did it, we're not capable of understanding how because it's magic, and things are the way they are because God wanted them that way. Simple, and done. What's for lunch?

      Truly understanding evolutionary biology means having to learn a little about genetics, about population statistics, about time scales, about DNA, about past environments and geological processes and on and on. Each of these are complicated things, and it takes some effort to think outside our little boxes (brains) which are best adapted to understanding small-scale things we can observe directly.

      I think this is part of why creationists can get away with making the claims that they do to the general public. If one hasn't explored these topics, then they don't realize the mountains and mountains of evidence and knowledge that have to be ignored or tossed out in order to dismiss evolution.

      June 11, 2012 at 2:35 pm |
    • Gadflie

      I enjoyed your very carefully worded post. However, I have to note that you never addressed my point. Here it is again for your convenience.

      The"questions" Chad has presented about evolution have all either been logical fallacies or obvious math errors on his part. Every single one.

      So, knowing this, while I understand you "defending" his "right" to question, knowing that I have pointed out the problems with his "questions", do you actually defend think that his questions have any validity at all from an intellectual honesty standpoint?

      June 11, 2012 at 10:36 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @CQ

      I appreciate the humor in the introduction of your post considering the surroundings. The categorical imperative and Kant brought a lot of enlightenment to the world of philosophy. Schools of thought can have multiple connotations. I am not a part of the ID group so I can’t speak for them. I can however, assert that I know the question is being presented throughout some of the higher education systems to assess awareness and opinion. My opinion is that could benefit from the different schools of thought and maybe help us all relate to one another better. Open vs closed in a way. There are incorrect stereotypes associated with the whole of each religion and well incorrect stereotypes associated with all people. The questioning of one’s beliefs for me provided a change in how I saw different people. I had an intial belief about what a specific label was but my ignorance of the reality changed with the study of it. I realized the separation of people although very disctinct invidually is not as large as originally presumed.

      Influence can come from so many sources. The decisions to trust or not to are not mine to make for another.

      I really do hate this on-going debate cause regardless of who wins there will still be losses.

      June 12, 2012 at 5:51 am |
    • clgmm74

      @Mandarax
      My reasoning behind the post is to clarify that while one discipline serves as a building block it’s comprehension is increased through its’ functional role in relation to other disciplines. Biology is a necessary course of study but it still serves as a precursor to the other scientific disciplines. To state that religion is not found within science would be to remove parts from each of these disciplines philosophical, sociological, & psychological. These disciplines relate to one another often in a dependent form. The influences of religion extend beyond the three I have mentioned. To try and remove it would seem to disqualify the contributions made to scientific knowledge and in turn disrupt the entire discipline of science and all that is connected to it. You bring forth a good example of how very different scientists are in the reasoning. Initial set of beliefs, testing, evidence can confirm or change belief. You don’t wonder how the belief became a changed belief? Interesting honestly.

      June 12, 2012 at 6:01 am |
    • Cq

      clgmm74
      Philosophical questions do not belong in the science classroom. I doubt that many professors of philosophy tolerate discussion of student's personal philosophical ideas in the classroom either. Traditionally, that's a matter for students, sometimes in the company of their off-duty professors, to toke out over the weekend.

      Discussions about creation stories would best fit in some Comparative Mythologies course being offered by a Classical Studies department. So, you see, it's not that the Genesis story can't be discussed at a reputable university; it's just that it can't be discussed everywhere.

      June 12, 2012 at 8:24 am |
    • clgmm74

      @Cq

      My assertion was that philosophy and religion should be studied as both subjects can enhance understanding. I didn't state I wanted either studied in a "science" classroom. A study of all disciplines and their influences upon each other doesn't require them to be studied simultaneously.

      June 13, 2012 at 12:34 am |
    • Cq

      clgmm74

      Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned.

      June 13, 2012 at 8:17 am |
    • clgmm74

      @CQ

      Philosophy.... Opposing schools of thought
      Religion....Opposing cultures....
      Science...Opposing theories

      June 14, 2012 at 1:30 am |
  17. Cq

    clgmm74
    But it's not a scientific question, it's a religious one. If there was any evidence that a god had a part in the origins of life and the universe then, OK, but there isn't. You might as well open the floor to the possibility of cartoon characters some place drawing the universe on a wall and having it become real, or some other ridiculous flight of fancy that also isn't supported by the evidence. What is the use of such conjecture?

    We know there is an actual answer to the very origin of live and the universe. There are a lot of traditional creation myths, each with their own loyal supporters. Science is looking for the true answer, not looking to elect the most popular traditional creation myth democratically.

    June 9, 2012 at 6:35 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Cq: You state " it is not a scientific question", it is a religious one. Are you asserting that science doesn't apply to religion? Science is open to all evidence even evidence that is contrary to what we desire it to be. There is hypothesis testing for a reason.

      I believe you have misunderstood my intent. Chad has a right to question someone elses' data as do you. Did you immediately accept evolution with no question or did you study it and make an informed decision?

      June 10, 2012 at 1:38 am |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 – "Are you asserting that science doesn't apply to religion?"

      I do not wish to speak for Cq, but I believe the issue here is not whether science applies to religion (it can), but rather whether or not religion applies to science (it does not). Why does this appear to be so difficult for you to grasp?

      June 10, 2012 at 10:28 am |
    • mandarax

      I think Really-O is absolutely right. Anytime religion makes claims about affecting the physical universe (miracles, prayers, supernatural intervention, creation, etc.) it falls within the testable realm of science. But religion does not have a place in science (except perhaps as an object of study) because it is based on belief rather than testing.

      Science is not a "belief" – it is a process of repeatedly testing ideas against evidence. So scientific results are not a matter of belief so much as acceptance. It is not faith because everything, including the things we currently accept, is continually open to questioning and revision. The is no ultimate Truth, there is a continual search for answers that better explain the evidence all around us. If a magical (religious) explanation ends up explaining the evidence better than all existing models, then so be it. However, it's worth noting that not once – not even once in the entire history of human inquiry – has anything that was believed to be the result of magic turned out to be actually be magic.

      June 10, 2012 at 12:44 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @mandarax – " not once...has anything that was believed to be the result of magic turned out to be actually be magic."

      Except for the magical appearance of fully formed humans 10k-50k years ago. Oh lord, that Chad is a hoot!

      Cheers

      June 10, 2012 at 12:50 pm |
    • Cq

      clgmm74
      I looked into evolution and found that it makes sense. The more I look into it the greater my confidence in it gets. There isn't any more "faith" involved with my confidence in evolution than with my confidence that the earth is a sphere orbiting the sun, both just other "theories" of science, but still...

      Religion, however, works on the premise that some god is actually pulling every string in nature, or at least periodically tinkering in the natural order through miracles and the like. If this happens, it's only logical for science to find for signs of it even accidentally, but there aren't any compelling signs as far as I've discovered. If you want to believe in miracles, good luck charms, astrology, reincarnation, or whatever, go right ahead, but if you want to claim that any of these things jive with what can be proven through science, forget it. These things are all a matter of faith, science isn't.

      June 10, 2012 at 1:43 pm |
    • Gadflie

      clgmm74, Chad has never offered any evidence at all to support creationism/ID. Ever. And, the "questions" he has presented about evolution have all either been logical fallacies or obvious math errors on his part. Every single one.

      June 10, 2012 at 5:26 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Therefore, Chard is a dolt and/or a complete fraud who is either too stupid to present a decent argument or is simply playing here and has no conviction in his idiotic pronouncements.

      June 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-O Making a statement that religion doesn't apply to science is a broad statement. Any discoveries or advances made in science are all due to science would be another broad statement. Are you willing to make that one as well?

      June 11, 2012 at 12:52 am |
    • clgmm74

      @mandarax

      The problem lies in the association you are implying to religion. As if religion consists of only prayer, miracles, the supernatural, and magic. Are you saying there is no practicality in any religion? There are numerous religions which hold numerous ways in which to live and view the world around them.Don't you wonder how people come to believe what they do?

      Initially when one has a limited understanding of the socio-cultural norms of a specific religion or way of life it can appear as something very different from what it is. Viewpoints and sterotypes can change during the study of it. It takes time to cultivate an understanding of how people relate.

      June 11, 2012 at 1:12 am |
    • clgmm74

      @CQ

      I accept that those theories make sense to you. I also accept and understand that some do not wish to expand their experiences to the areas of religion or the areas of faith. I do not accept someone else making a decision about what I should or should not believe to be true. The concern is the precedents and standards that will be set if people continue to cross the line of determining what is true for someone else. There can be far reaching consequences for all people if the precedents take hold and individual freedoms are taken.

      June 11, 2012 at 1:58 am |
    • clgmm74

      @TomTomThePiper'sSon

      I hope that someday people take the time to see past your comments before making presumptions about who you are.

      June 11, 2012 at 2:04 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @clgmm74, Let me get this straight... If you believe your loved one is safe and well, but someone has evidence to the contrary, you don't think someone has the right to convince you otherwise if you believe said loved one is safe? Certainly this is an extreme case, but one could also ask where you draw the line in this philosophical quick sand? If a child wants to believe something that is untrue about the world around them, you feel that responsible adults should just sit back and let this go unquestioned?

      I use these 2 examples because a) believing in fantasies can be harmful to those around you (i.e., abortion clinic bombings, 911, men believing women should be subservient) and b) to people of science, people who exist in the world of fairies and fantasies are like children to us. We do feel a responsibility to educate them in spite of their insistence on remaining ignorant.

      June 11, 2012 at 4:30 am |
    • mandarax

      Clgmm74, I'm not sure that I completely understand your post, but no – I am not implying that prayers, miracles, etc. are the only aspects of religion. I was listing them as examples of ways that religions claim to have effects on the physical world, and thus examples of how religious ideas can be approached scientifically.

      I agree that people have varying relationships with religion and that it can mean very different things to different people, but that doesn't change whether or not the basic tenets are true or false. And don't I wonder how people come to believe what they do? Yes, that's one of the most fascinating questions in this whole debate. There are probably numerous important factors, but it appears objective evidence plays almost no role.

      June 11, 2012 at 10:10 am |
    • Cq

      clgmm74
      I wouldn't go so far as GodFreeNow did in calling believers of creationism "children", but they do exhibit an almost child-like trust in their religious leaders about a subject to which these leaders are not experts. Your average pastor does not have an advanced degree in biology, yet they speak with assumed authority on the subject. I don't believe that I'm being unkind in saying that they are unqualified to do so.

      I am decidedly less generous to self-proclaimed creationists, both the adherents of this strange sub-religion and the people who make their living selling this idea. Usually, I speak out against insulting people of faith, but I see creationists as opportunists preying upon a trusting public. I use to believe that they were just uninformed individuals innocently seeking out answers to their questions, but the degree to which they carefully misrepresent the actual science leads me to no other conclusion than that they are intentionally trying to do so.

      Christians are being lied to by creationists. I cannot make it any clearer, or easier to hear than that. What they represent as evolution and what they say in criticism about it is riddled with outright lies, misrepresentations and propaganda. Maybe most of them believe that the ends somehow justify the means. That, if it takes lying about evolution to defend the image of the Bible as infallible, then it's only a little "white lie" for the "greater good", and that their God would be OK with that, but it's still lying. The Christian public needs to be made aware that they are being sold a lie. They are losing money, resources and respect because of it, making them just as much victims as any who are conned out of their life savings.

      In the end, however, maybe GodFreeNow is correct after all, because many Christians are being treated like children by creationists and they are acting like children in giving their full, unquestioning trust in these people.

      June 11, 2012 at 11:29 am |
    • ME II

      @Cq,
      Well said. Belief in creationism as a result of ignorance is one thing, but willful selling/promoting of it to others as a valid position is something else.

      June 11, 2012 at 11:58 am |
    • mandarax

      Cq, you nailed it. Good post!

      June 11, 2012 at 12:00 pm |
    • Cq

      Thank you, ME II & mandarax

      I think we have to start seeing most creationist Christians as victims of what amounts to a con game. Willing victims, sure, but only in the same way that all victims of cons let their greed for what the con men are selling cloud their better judgment. The more a Christian wants the Bible to be true the more willing they are to accept any argument supporting that, and the less willing they will be to explore the possibility that this argument is possibly faulty.

      Creationists are selling a evolution science that can't be trusted which we know is a fake evolution science. Real evolution science can be trusted as much as any science we have. I'm not saying that science doesn't make the occasional mistake, but we don't judge any science as faulty until it's proven so, and evolution hasn't been. Until it is, it's only logical to accept it as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet.

      June 11, 2012 at 12:37 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 –

      – "Making a statement that religion doesn't apply to science is a broad statement"
      --Yes, it is. It is also a rational and true statement (assuming you understand the nature of science, evidence, and religious faith).

      -"Any discoveries or advances made in science are all due to science would be another broad statement. Are you willing to make that one as well?"
      --Yes. All "discoveries or advances made in science" are necessarily "due to science". Your statement is tautologous.

      Again, you seem to be on the cusp of understanding all of this...I'm not sure what is holding you back...dogma perhaps?

      June 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @Cq –

      Well done.

      June 11, 2012 at 1:01 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 – regarding your "I accept that those theories make sense to you."

      While my primary intent is not to offend, your post is nonsense. Truth is not subjective. You are enti.tled to your own opinions (and beliefs). You are not enti.tled to your own facts.

      June 11, 2012 at 1:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 –

      Sorry, "regarding your "I accept that those theories make sense to you." should have read, 'regarding your "I accept that those theories make sense to you" post addressed to Cq.'

      June 11, 2012 at 1:28 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Godfreenow

      I consider equity to apply to all when statinghe/she has the right to question as I stated previously. Which in terms of a child I would not take the right to question away. If I did how would it be genuine?

      June 12, 2012 at 6:18 am |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-O

      It is not subjective due to the difference is in the application of it. Throughout my posts I have consistently held the position that each individual can define, question, determine, and choose what is or is not right for them. I have reinforced being objective in the following ways: Primary examples were Allowance, acceptance, understanding, acknowledgement, and encouragement of beliefs, experiences, & viewpoints that differ from my own. Secondary examples were through promotion of equity towards all groups regardless of our differences including a lack of inference to the whole. Followed this example with the illustration of uniform standards and stated my understanding of an individual’s experience whose belief was in direct contradiction to my own without placing my belief superior to his lack of belief. Although we can have an infinite discussion on the variances of truth, theory, and application it will only show my approach and mindset is one of practicality based in scientific knowledge.
      Onto to data I apply data perhaps in a different way than you. Data is discrete, continuous, ~ and sometimes inter-relatable. My approach to measurement is not always the same as it depends upon what I am measuring; the distribution of the data, my original Ho, or in some cases the need to omit the frequency. I sometimes even use multiple models at the same time to determine the most accurate picture of the data I am measuring. Individuals found in the discipline often use different approaches depending upon his/her mindset.

      June 12, 2012 at 6:28 am |
    • Really-O?

      clgmm74 – regarding your "It is not subjective due to the difference is in the application of it" post.

      I'm sorry, but I'm really unable to derive the intent and meaning of your post. Perhaps it would help if you made your point(s) with simple declarative sentences.

      June 12, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-O

      My post was presented in a simple way. When you have true knowledge in a discipline you should be able to recognize and understand how theories relate. For example CQ tested me in a previous post to determine if I recognized the use of a Kantian perspective without providing the direct label of Kant but providing enough context to enable recognition of the concept. This type of testing helps provide CQ an estimate of my actual knowledge in philosophy. Do you see where I'm headed with this?

      June 13, 2012 at 12:56 am |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 – regarding "Do you see where I'm headed with this?"

      What I see is that you have very poor writing skills (which is the reason I asked you if English is not your first language...you never answered). In my post of June 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm I gave two concise answers to questions you asked in a previous post – your response was an incoherent ramble. If you think poorly constructed run-on sentences somehow make your writing appear erudite and "philosophical", you are mistaken. Clear communication is a hallmark of a sound mind. See where I'm headed with this?

      June 13, 2012 at 11:07 am |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 –
      Upon further review I realize your post is in response to my – "Truth is not subjective. You are enti.tled to your own opinions (and beliefs). You are not enti.tled to your own facts" – post. That said, it is still an incoherent ramble and my previous post still applies.

      June 13, 2012 at 11:17 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @@clgmm74, Also trying and failing to understand well enough to give a response. Sorry.

      June 13, 2012 at 11:55 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-0

      I suggest verifying what I have written from someone you trust who has immense knowledge in theory and its' application to science. Make sure to include your post with your two concise answers for examination.

      June 14, 2012 at 12:50 am |
    • clgmm74

      @Godfreenow

      Copy the post and verify it with someone you know and respect. If you can show me how I am wrong with the use of science, I will admit it outright and apologize sincerely. I am not afraid to have my arguments openly scrutinized by those in the scientific community.

      June 14, 2012 at 1:13 am |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 –

      If I distributed your posts to a freshman English class (or science...or philosophy)I would expect a round of laughter. So, you have "immense knowledge in theory and its' (" its' "...really?) application to science", but can't compose a proper sentence...I call BS! You're an idiot.

      June 14, 2012 at 12:21 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-O

      Within the content of my posts I often utilize symbols to infer different things. The argument presented was for the specific purpose of demonstration of knowledge of various relationships found in scientific theory. I disagree with the concept of presenting an argument from a point of view that I have not explored myself. There are reasons behind the individual thought process and apparently our approaches differ greatly.

      June 16, 2012 at 6:16 am |
  18. mandarax

    Sayeth Chad: "It is your failure to understand what Gould was saying, and what the difference is in the "transitional forms" definiton between phyletic gradualism and punctuated equilibrium. In other words, I HAVE NEVER DONE WHAT GOULD CASTIGATED THEISTS FOR."

    Also sayeth Chad: 'As for supernatural vs natural processes, I also believe that the origin of life, and the development of more and more complex life forms on earth in the stages reflected in the fossil record, is the direct result of supernatural intervention (it's called "punctuated equilibrium" )'

    So, on one had Chad insists that he has never misrepresented Gould, but on the other he claims that the supernatural explanation of the development of life is CALLED puncuated equilibrium! O Chad, what a tangled web you weave.

    June 9, 2012 at 3:58 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @mandarax –

      Well played sir!

      June 9, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Really-O?

      ...or madam (do not wish to offend).

      June 9, 2012 at 4:01 pm |
    • Chad

      Do you know what "punctuated equilibrium" is?
      Do you know what "allopatric speciation" is?
      Do you know what "phyletic gradualism" is.
      Do you know what Darwin considered a "transitional form" and what Gould considers a "transitional form"?
      Can you explain what Gould castigated theists for when quoting him?

      serious, question: without any ability to answer any of those questions, what makes you think you can attempt to find a contradiction in two of my statements when those statements contain those terms?

      June 9, 2012 at 4:18 pm |
    • mandarax

      Well Chad, to honestly answer your question: what makes me think I have the ability to understand those terms which you misuse, and what makes me think I understand the contradiction in your quotes, is the same things that make the state university where I teach and do research think I am qualified to teach BIOL 463. Take it up with the Board of Regents or the Dean of Arts and Sciences if you are convinced I am not qualified to understand those terms.

      I would always prefer make my arguments based on logic and evidence rather than authority, but if you prefer qualifications and authority I can put it this way: my PhD-level science education and my decades of professional teaching, research, publication, conferences, and collaboration with colleagues in Geology, Biology, and Anthropology qualifies me to identify your arguments as absolute bullshit of the highest order.

      June 9, 2012 at 4:36 pm |
    • Observer

      @Chad-
      Do you know what "punctuated equilibrium" is?
      Do you know what "allopatric speciation" is?
      Do you know what "phyletic gradualism" is.
      Do you know what Darwin considered a "transitional form" and what Gould considers a "transitional form"?
      Can you explain what Gould castigated theists for when quoting him?

      @Mandy-I am a PHD.

      June 9, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • Observer

      Mandy's post Translation-Chad all you need to know about me is I am a PHD.Period
      I shall now engage you with a wordy/ lengthy response which has no relevance whatsover to the original questions posed by you.

      Ha Ha Ha I am a PHD 😉

      June 9, 2012 at 4:54 pm |
    • mandarax

      I'm sorry, Chad-posing-as-Observer, apparently I didn't answer the first 5 questions. The answers are each yes.

      June 9, 2012 at 4:56 pm |
    • Chad

      @mandarax "I'm sorry, Chad-posing-as-Observer, apparently I didn't answer the first 5 questions. The answers are each yes"

      =>I'll call you on that 😉

      Explain what Gould was so mad at Creationists for.
      Specifically.
      what kind of creationist was he mad at? Theistic evolutionists, or special creationist?

      explain 😉

      and.. "I could, but I dont want to",
      is just lame

      June 9, 2012 at 5:52 pm |
    • mandarax

      Then call me lame. You're dishonest and a waste of effort.

      June 9, 2012 at 5:56 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      So Chard's posting as Observer now? And pretending to have a PhD?

      June 9, 2012 at 6:00 pm |
    • Chad

      @mandarax "Then call me lame. You're dishonest and a waste of effort."

      =>that doesnt make sense, it's inconsistent..
      If you knew, it would take less time to type it out in response than it took for you to type out the post that started this thread.
      Demonstrating that you knew would lend some measure of credibility to you.

      as it is, your post demonstrates you dont, and your refusal to look it up and get educated is just weird.. What's the downside to learning?

      June 9, 2012 at 6:10 pm |
    • Rachel

      Oh, Chad, you make me hot! l)

      June 9, 2012 at 6:13 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-O

      My response to yours on previous page:

      When you choose to apply a standard of misrepresentation in relation to science, you must do so on all sides. When you fail to do so where are you ethically on a scientific scale? I am all for clearing up the misrepresentations of science in an equitable manner.

      Just to be clear "your side" is your projection of what you believe it to be or who you believe I am (in terms of side). I am accountable for my own actions and my own choices. I do not stand with any group except the one which includes all groups. There has to be an equity for people regardless of what belief, collection of beliefs, or non-belief they hold. A promotion of equity for all groups. My belief is my belief. Your lack of belief or difference in belief belongs to you and you alone.

      June 10, 2012 at 2:32 am |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 –

      First: My "your side" comment was with reference to the imprecise way in which you used the term "data" in your post. So, "your side" (those who misuse the term) should, for sake of clarity, learn what "data" means when used in the sciences.
      Second: You are enti.tled to your own opinions. You are not enti.tled to your own facts.
      Third: Not everything is simply a "belief".

      June 10, 2012 at 10:16 am |
    • Gadflie

      Chad, I have two questions for you.
      1) Do you have any evidence actually supporting Creationism/ID? If so, please present it.
      2) Do you have any arguments against Evolution that are not either a logical fallacy or an obvious misuse of statistics? If so, please present it.

      June 10, 2012 at 5:29 pm |
    • Chad

      @Gadflie "Do you have any evidence actually supporting Creationism/ID? If so, please present it."
      @Chad "origin of the unverse, fine tuning of the universe, origin of life on earth, the empty tomb, the belief by the disciples that they had met a resurrected Christ"

      =======
      @Gadflie "Do you have any arguments against Evolution that are not either a logical fallacy or an obvious misuse of statistics? If so, please present it."
      @Chad " I have no arguments against theistic evolution whatsoever.

      June 10, 2012 at 9:03 pm |
    • Rachel

      OOooohhhhhh, CHAAAADDDD! I looove it when you post idiotic drivel!!! It's SUCH a turn on!!! I could orgasm right now!!!

      June 10, 2012 at 9:06 pm |
    • Rachel Jacobs

      @Chad-Your knowledge and intellect is way too superior for these dullards that are attempting to respond to your posts. You are doing a fantastic job in sifting through the drivel and sticking to the argument.
      Kudos!
      🙂

      June 10, 2012 at 9:25 pm |
    • Gadflie

      @Gadflie "Do you have any evidence actually supporting Creationism/ID? If so, please present it."
      @Chad "origin of the unverse, fine tuning of the universe, origin of life on earth, the empty tomb, the belief by the disciples that they had met a resurrected Christ"
      @Gadfie, There is no evidence of any supernatural anything in the origin of the universe, or any fine-tuning for that matter. Both of which are just logical fallacies. There is no actual scientific evidence of the "empty tomb", only third hand accounts. Same with the disciples acccounts.

      =======
      @Gadflie "Do you have any arguments against Evolution that are not either a logical fallacy or an obvious misuse of statistics? If so, please present it."
      @Chad " I have no arguments against theistic evolution whatsoever.
      @Gadflie, there is obviously no evidence at all that there was any "theist" anything involved with evolution. So, please present any arguments that you have against non-theistic evolution. Or any evidence for theistic evolution that is neither a logical fallacy or an obvious misuse of statistics.

      June 10, 2012 at 10:30 pm |
    • clgmm74

      @Really-0

      You do realize that you have just reinforced my point about the standards of misrepresentation. You focused on my use of the word "data" and claim it to be incorrect. Mandarax used it in the same way, yet you fail to apply the same standard. Why would you fail to apply that standard to that poster? What's reasoning behind that action?

      Data is often dependent on what is measured. My use of the word data was relative to the context in which it was presented. The poster referred to often uses the term data as a reference to what he is questioning. If I were speaking of myself in that post data would have been utilized in an entirely different manner and it would have still been a correct useage of the word.

      Your post reiterates your presumption of who I am except now you have included knowledge on a scientific level? I believe the best way to prove ones' scope of knowledge is through example. Exploring all of the scientific areas of study will be a good way to test your presumption of what my scope of knowledge entails.

      Opinions and knowledge, two different things are they not? Anyone can state an opinion on a subject, posess limited if any knowledge on the subject and still profess to having studied it.

      Rather than take the route of expansion on the areas the word belief affects, let's explore your application of it. You state "Not everything is simply a belief" In what way ? Is there a preference in how or what you relate the word?

      A belief is not simple when you look at its' effects. The words "my belief" in the context in which I have used it above is personal to me. I individually believe it to be true. My use of the words "collection of beliefs and non-belief" is a reference to what someone else believes to be true. I do not expect the collective to define it the same way or even for the same reason.

      June 11, 2012 at 12:41 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Chad, I would still like a simple yes or no answer to my question... Do you believe that all living things share a common ancestor?

      June 11, 2012 at 4:39 am |
    • Chad

      This is basically what I believe:

      While BioLogos accepts evolution, it emphatically rejects evolutionism, the atheistic worldview that so often accompanies the acceptance of biological evolution in public discourse. Proponents of evolutionism believe every aspect of life will one day be explained with evolutionary theory. In this way it is a subset of scientism, the broader view that the only real truth is that which can be discovered by science. These positions are commonly held by materialists (also called philosophical naturalists) who deny the existence of the supernatural.
      The BioLogos view celebrates God as creator. It is sometimes called Theistic Evolution or Evolutionary Creation. Theism is the belief in a God who cares for and interacts with creation. Theism is different than deism, which is the belief in a distant, uninvolved creator who is often little more than the sum total of the laws of physics. Theistic Evolution, therefore, is the belief that evolution is how God created life.
      Because the term evolution is sometimes associated with atheism, a better term for the belief in a God who chose to create the world by way of evolution is BioLogos. BioLogos comes from the Greek words bios (life) and logos (word), referring to John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.”

      June 11, 2012 at 11:59 am |
    • Chad

      @Gadfie "There is no evidence of any supernatural anything in the origin of the universe
      @Chad "big bang requires a force external to our universe/time/space to have been the trigger

      @Gadfie,"or any fine-tuning for that matter"
      @Chad "Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".[2] He also states that "... 'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently ..."[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, e.g., the anthropic principle along with multiple universes.

      @Gadfie "There is no actual scientific evidence of the "empty tomb", only third hand accounts. Same with the disciples acccounts."
      @Chad "many of those disciples were actually there.. so that makes them first hand 😉

      June 11, 2012 at 12:04 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @clgmm74 – regarding your post at June 11, 2012 at 12:41 am

      I'll do my best to keep this short and to the point.

      If mandarax (or anyone else) misused "data" or any other term, my response would be the same, "for [the] sake of clarity, learn what "data" means when used in the sciences." Fair enough?

      I don't know how many times I need to say this to be clear, but...
      ...Truth is not subjective. You are enti.tled to your own opinions (and beliefs). You are not enti.tled to your own facts.

      Finally, and my genuine intent is not to offend, is English not your primary language? I only ask because much of what you write is unclear to me and I want to be sure I give you all lati.tude deserved.

      June 11, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Hey folks, will you look at that? Chad-Rachel has adopted the surname "Jacobs". Rachel Jacobs...nice and biblical.

      June 11, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • ME II

      I appreciate the references to BioLogos. I had always as.sumed that they were the generic Theistic Evolutionists, that generally believe that God caused and/or used evolution to create life, which, I don't think, undermines any of the science behind TOE. In other words a God of the gaps belief, in my opinion, which I don't think is "wrong" per se, as we don't "know".

      The posting of BioLogos, however, made me rethink this position as it seemed to be creating an "evolutionism" strawman to tear down. That is until I looked at the BioLogos site and found the following:

      "To summarize, BioLogos differs from the ID movement in three respects:
      1.We are skeptical about the ability of biological science to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer (whom we take to be the God of the Bible), while ID advocates are confident.
      2.We find unconvincing those attempts by ID theorists to scientifically confirm God’s activity in natural history, while ID theorists believe they have sufficiently demonstrated it.
      3.We see no biblical reason to view natural processes (including natural selection) as having removed God from the process of creation. It is all God’s and it is all intelligently designed. Those in the ID movement for the most part reject some or all of the major conclusions of evolutionary theory."

      This was a relief, in that with these differences they seem to be taken an immanently reasonably approach. Specifically, "We are skeptical about the ability of biological science to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer..." seems to be an entirely rational. way of approaching the subject.

      So, while I disagree with their religious belief, I don't have to disagree with their views on science.

      Peace...

      June 11, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • ME II

      Need to fire my proofreader.
      "...they seem to be taken an immanently reasonably approach. "
      should be
      "...they seem to be taking an eminently reasonable approach. "

      June 11, 2012 at 3:22 pm |
    • Chad

      @ME II " From BioLogos: We are skeptical about the ability of biological science to prove the existence of an Intelligent Designer (whom we take to be the God of the Bible), while ID advocates are confident."
      @Chad "As long as you understand precisely what they are talking about when they say that.
      Do you?
      Hint: it refers to what is essentially the crux of the difference between BioLogo's and "special creation"...

      =========
      @ME II "We find unconvincing those attempts by ID theorists to scientifically confirm God’s activity in natural history, while ID theorists believe they have sufficiently demonstrated it."
      @Chad "I completely disagree with BioLogo's here, God has definitely left his thumbprints everywhere in natural history as I have repeatedly stated in my points about the the utter improbability of all of those necessary related mutations occurring at precisely the correct time to produce a fossil record that reflects stasis and rapid growth.
      See for example The Design Inference William Dembsky, his statistical analysis inferring a designer is super.

      June 11, 2012 at 4:35 pm |
    • mandarax

      At the risk of engaging Chad again, I would point out that those statements do not appear to be in line with the arguments he puts forward at all. I'm not interested in getting into a debate about this, but I would suggest looking back over Chad's arguments and see if they are consistent with (1) not arguing that God can be proven, (2) not asserting that God is evident in natural history, (3) not denying the major conclusions of evolutionary science. These last two in particular seem particularly at odds with Chad's posts.

      June 11, 2012 at 4:41 pm |
    • ME II

      @mandarax,
      Agreed, I suspect this is similar to the 'I agree with Gould, except for the part about him not attributing it to God directly' ploy (paraphrased, of course).

      June 11, 2012 at 4:49 pm |
    • Chad

      @mandarax "...These last two in particular seem particularly at odds with Chad's posts."
      @chad "appears you didnt read my last post in this thread?

      June 11, 2012 at 4:57 pm |
    • mandarax

      Chad, I didn't see yours until I posted mine. I see that you acknowledge that difference.

      June 11, 2012 at 5:12 pm |
    • Gadflie

      @Gadfie "There is no evidence of any supernatural anything in the origin of the universe
      @Chad "big bang requires a force external to our universe/time/space to have been the trigger
      @Gadflie, really? Present your evidence for this? Modern physics has found no such evidence.

      @Gadfie,"or any fine-tuning for that matter"
      @Chad "Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that "There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ‘fine-tuned' for life".[2] However he continues "...the conclusion is not so much that the Universe is fine-tuned for life; rather it is fine-tuned for the building blocks and environments that life requires".[2] He also states that "... 'anthropic' reasoning fails to distinguish between minimally biophilic universes, in which life is permitted, but only marginally possible, and optimally biophilic universes, in which life flourishes because biogenesis occurs frequently ..."[2] Among scientists who find the evidence persuasive, a variety of natural explanations have been proposed, e.g., the anthropic principle along with multiple universes.
      @Gadflie. You are putting the chicken before the egg here kid. Life evolved to fit our universe. It evolved to fit the "settings" that already existed in our universe. Pretending that this means that the universe was somehow tuned for life is just that, pretending. If the universe had been different, and a different type of life, one incompatible with our current universe had evolved to fit that one, your argument for that universe would be the same, and just as invalid.

      @Gadfie "There is no actual scientific evidence of the "empty tomb", only third hand accounts. Same with the disciples acccounts."
      @Chad "many of those disciples were actually there.. so that makes them first hand 😉
      @Gadflie, "Really? Not a single one of them left any record of this at all. Every record we have of that is at least third hand." We have more "valid" first hand witness reports of Joseph Smith's find than we do of this supposed tomb.

      June 11, 2012 at 10:43 pm |
    • Chad

      @Gadfie "There is no evidence of any supernatural anything in the origin of the universe
      @Chad "big bang requires a force external to our universe/time/space to have been the trigger
      @Gadflie, really? Present your evidence for this? Modern physics has found no such evidence.
      @Chad “Evidence for” is different that “requirement of”.
      The requirement for an external force is certainly established, I assume you are not arguing my point.
      You twisted it around to say that no evidence of the super natural has been found (which was not the point I was making, I was commenting only that there is a super-natural trigger requirement)

      The only question in modern cosmology at this point is infinite multi-verse regression (logically impossible) vs ex-nihilo creation (the only remaining solution). Since ex-nihilo is by definition triggered by an entity external, it is “super”-natural. Now, that doesn’t mean it’s the God of Abraham, it could be the FSM, but God is the only rational choice on the table thus far.

      =========================
      @Gadflie. You are putting the chicken before the egg here kid. Life evolved to fit our universe. It evolved to fit the "settings" that already existed in our universe. Pretending that this means that the universe was somehow tuned for life is just that, pretending. If the universe had been different, and a different type of life, one incompatible with our current universe had evolved to fit that one, your argument for that universe would be the same, and just as invalid.
      @Chad “I have seen that argument before.. basically it says that “well, however the universe would have turned out, life would have evolved. The reason leading atheist scientists do not use that logic when debating whether or not the universe is fine-tuned (rather they posit naturalistic causes for the fine-tuning), is because it reflects a basic misunderstanding of what fine-tuning is. Read up on some fine tuning research.
      See for example the leading ATHEIST sites discussion of fine tuning, they don’t argue that the universe is fine tuned, they just argue that fine tuning doesn’t argue for a designer.
      http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robin_collins/design.html#inference

      ============
      @Gadfie "There is no actual scientific evidence of the "empty tomb", only third hand accounts. Same with the disciples acccounts."
      @Chad "many of those disciples were actually there.. so that makes them first hand
      @Gadflie, "Really? Not a single one of them left any record of this at all. Every record we have of that is at least third hand."
      @Chad “John: first hand, Matthew: first hand; Luke: second hand; Mark: probably first hand; Paul: second hand; Peter: first hand;
      What records are you considering third hand??

      June 12, 2012 at 2:17 pm |
    • ME II

      @Chad
      “John: first hand, Matthew: first hand; Luke: second hand; Mark: probably first hand; Paul: second hand; Peter: first hand;
      What records are you considering third hand??"

      I'll probably regret this but, do you have evidence that these people wrote or dictated the gospels and/or the NT?

      June 13, 2012 at 10:13 am |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Chad, So I can take your cut and paste answer to mean simply "no" you do not believe we all share a common ancestor?

      June 14, 2012 at 12:08 am |
  19. Chad

    Couple points:
    Humans (known taxonomically as Homo sapiens,[3][4] Latin for "wise man" or "knowing man")[5] are the only living species in the Homo genus. Anatomically modern humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, reaching full behavioral modernity around 50,000 years ago

    50k years ago, certainly not far from the 10k years in the survey.

    ----
    "Forty-six percent of Americans believe that God created humans in their present form at one point within the past 10,000 years"
    I wonder what the % would be if the question would have been phrased "do you believe that the first humans materialized out of thin air and started walking around?"

    ---

    Then the Lord God formed a man[c] from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2

    By the sweat of your brow
    you will eat your food
    until you return to the ground,
    since from it you were taken;
    for dust you are
    and to dust you will return.

    June 9, 2012 at 12:12 pm |
    • Really-O?

      For the life of me I can't derive the intent of Chad's post.

      June 9, 2012 at 12:49 pm |
    • mandarax

      Me neither, but if 10k and 50k mean the same thing to him (hey, it's only a difference of 500%!) then I would like to do some money trading with him. Hey Chad, how about I trade you a ten dollar bill for fifty dollars? And since what you are really rationalizing is that 200k is about the same as 10k (a difference of two orders of magnitude), how bout we just round that up and I will trade you a ten-spot for 200 dollars?

      June 9, 2012 at 1:53 pm |
    • Tom, Tom, the Piper's Son

      Chard is a dolt.

      June 9, 2012 at 1:55 pm |
    • Chad

      @mandarax "...if 10k and 50k mean the same thing to him (hey, it's only a difference of 500%!) then I would like to do some money trading with him. Hey Chad, how about I trade you a ten dollar bill for fifty dollars? And since what you are really rationalizing is that 200k is about the same as 10k (a difference of two orders of magnitude), how bout we just round that up and I will trade you a ten-spot for 200 dollars?"

      @Chad "in context:
      age of the earth: 4.54 billion years
      10k is 0.0002202% of 4.54b
      50k is 0.0011013% of 4.54b

      a difference of .00089%
      so, I will trade you 1.00089 dollars for your 1 dollar.

      as you can seen in the grand scheme of things, the difference is extremely small.

      If any of you did any investigation at all (which I know you dont) into the way Jewish genealogies are telescoped, you would agree that the creation of Adam 50k years ago is certainly within rational and reasonable biblical chronologies..

      June 9, 2012 at 2:05 pm |
    • Really-O?

      Oh my...there's some more of that Chad's idiotic dishonesty (conflating age of the earth and human evolution). I wonder if mandarax was fooled...ya think?

      June 9, 2012 at 2:26 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @mandarax –

      One also has to wonder how Chad reconciles his "magic appearance of humans 50kya" with the fact that recent research has identified H. neanderthalensis DNA in the H. sapiens genome. Hmmm?

      June 9, 2012 at 2:45 pm |
    • mandarax

      True, Really-O. There are so so many things that have to be rationalized away to reconcile Chad's views with actual observations of the world. I suspect that's why he has to continually change his arguments (as he did with the numbers game above), misrepresent others, or assert absolute falsehoods in the process of making his claims.

      June 9, 2012 at 3:02 pm |
    • Really-O?

      @mandarax –

      Yup...that Chad's a piece of work.

      June 9, 2012 at 3:16 pm |
    • Rachel

      Chad-Yet again another great post! 🙂 Kudos! Bravo!
      Your reasoning skills and some other believers here are far far superior to these atheists .

      June 9, 2012 at 4:07 pm |
    • Sim34

      Rachel
      Are you a clean sock puppet, or a dirty one?

      It's really obvious! 🙂

      June 9, 2012 at 6:14 pm |
    • Rachel

      Oh, I'm a DIRTY, DIRTY little girl. I love me some of the Chad-meat. 😉

      June 9, 2012 at 6:16 pm |
    • Sim34

      Chad
      "I will trade you 1.00089 dollars for your 1 dollar. "
      Is that what the Canadian $ is worth now?

      Also, don't those 40%, believe that the whole universe is about 10,000 years old?

      Fail!

      June 9, 2012 at 6:19 pm |
    • Sim34

      Rachel
      WOW!!! That is lonely! 🙂

      June 9, 2012 at 6:21 pm |
    • Primewonk

      " I wonder what the % would be if the question would have been phrased "do you believe that the first humans materialized out of thin air and started walking around?"

      Chad, that's exactly what you stupid, ignorant, fundiots believe. It certainly isn't anything g science says.

      June 10, 2012 at 9:22 pm |
    • GodFreeNow

      @Really-O? and @mandarax, Again, I suspect he's being intentionally obfuscatory or just obtuse. This to me implies that he must know well the weaknesses of his argument so he has to keep up this whack-a-mole game.

      June 11, 2012 at 4:45 am |
    • Primewonk

      All fields of science advance by questioning the dominant views. However, those questions must be rooted in science. That is where the fundiots fail.

      "If we evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" is not a valid question. It isn't valid because it's rooted in stupid lies. It isn't valid because it shows they have chosen to be ignorant.

      "Where is the missing link?" is not a valid question in the manner they ask it. I always first ask themto dedine missing link, and include the scientific site they get it from. They always refuse. No, instead they want to see a "Half-man, half-banana, with wings and gills". It again is a question built on stupid lies.

      "If evolution is true, why did Darwin recant on his death-bed?" is not a valid question, again because it is based on lies.

      Perhaps if the fundiot creationists didn't base their "objections" on lies, they wouldn't be mocked?

      June 11, 2012 at 8:45 am |
  20. Troll

    r
    e
    a
    l
    l
    y

    June 9, 2012 at 10:22 am |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43
Advertisement
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.