Do 6 Out of 10 Americans Really Not Believe In Evolution?

i started reading it then somebody called me.

reply to post by Lateralus51


Then why pretend like you have? Rather dishonest don't you think *though I do appreciate the honesty when I asked if you had*?

But I must comment that lateralus was a awesome album. You do realise what the lyrics say right?


[edit on 25-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

that story is kind of crazy. but even if we do have souls or spirits that doesnt mean there is a god. the idea of god is so ridiculous. he gives us freewill but if we dont do what he wants we get tortured for eternity, im sure. its called fearmongering.

reply to post by Lateralus51


Um I think you are confusing the concept a deity with the spin that organized religion puts on it. Simple fact of the matter that the Christian conception of a judgemental god is not the only one in existance.

[edit on 25-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Solomons

Yes good point - Also Evolution makes no claim about "creation". It explains how we got from our ancestral animals to what are now. Those who think "evolution is false therefore creation happened" are completely and utterly wrong. Evolution is not "random", religious folk try and make it sound as if there is no direction or initiative behind natural selection, but it's rather apparent for all to see.
For the sake of argument, if evolution was false *which it is not - it's proven fact* that does not mean creation occurred. There are other possibilities that are more realistic than "fairy-god-mother-being made us from his/her essence".

reply to post by bl4ke360


Your Comments are True, but here is something to ponder on...

Read Very, Very, Carefully and Understand what is written below....

But does Consciousness, also called LIFE, Awareness, or Mind, Live in the body ???

Or does Consciousness, look into the Universe from outside and experiences All through the Brain ???

Is The Brain, merely a Decoder/Encoder, between LIFE (Mind, Awareness or Consciousness) and a Program, in other words The Environment including the body, Earth and Universe ???

With out LIFE, also called Awareness, Consciousness or Mind, Nothing at All would even know, the Universe or anything else for that matter Exists !!!

No matter what humankind imagines, theorises or just believes, for even the Laws of Physics to even exist, LIFE called Awareness, Consciousness or Mind would have to precede all other things otherwise nothing at all would have happened!

Is your Body Aware of Your Conscious Entity, or is Your Conscious Entity, Aware of the Body and Environmental Experience ???

If The "Nothing" was Not Aware of its existence, then Nothing at all would be Aware of The "Nothing" being "Something", which is of Course, is "Nothing".

So in a very Peculiar way, "Nothing is "Something".

Otherwise, how would you recognise Nothing ???

Often we say "There is Nothing in there !!!"

Or "There is Nothing on the Paper !!!" etc.

So you see, We can Detect "Nothing", so therefore "Nothing" can, and Does exist !!!

But for Nothing to exist in a way it can be detected, or for us to be Aware of, requires Area or Volume, and Awareness !!!

So the Boundaries of "Nothing" is Dimensional, whether the area or Volume, is Manifest, or is only Conceptual !!!

This means that "Nothing", also has Shape or Dimension, Controlled by the shape of its boundaries.

We also often say, "It contains "Nothing !!!"

How does Something Contain "Nothing", if "Nothing" Exists ???

So Nothing has always Existed so All has Come from Nothing which is in Fact, Something !!!

It is Indeed a Strange World the Universe and All exists In.....

When Humankind Recognises, The Component "Nothing" and researches and discovers its True Entity, Then All the Human made Mysteries, Shall Disappear and The Truth Shall become Known, in its True Context !!!

[edit on 26-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by makinho21


Both sides are guilty of claiming one idea cancels out the other as your post shows, seeing as to how you hold blame to them. But, "evolution" and "creation" could both have happend or even perhaps "evolution" is the way the "creator" creates. Just a thought. And it's my opinion is crap like the both sides pushing this crap as they are is what creates the BS of 6 out of 10 Americans not believing evolution. In a nutshell all the BS attached to it makes them go with the side they stick to normally.


[edit on 26-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by makinho21


I am Not a Religious person, in the sense most would identify with.

And I do Not follow after any Religion of Humankind !!!

You Wrote Quote:-

Evolution is not "random", religious folk try and make it sound as if there is no direction or initiative behind natural selection, but it's rather apparent for all to see.

Not questioning your Reasoning, but perhaps you can throw some Light on this, and tell me how The Laws of Physics Evolved, and how Volume and Awareness evolved.

Without Awareness (Life), Nothing at All, would be even Aware, or Conscious of a Universe or Anything else for that Matter.

I don't Question Evolution, but Rather I question humankind's understanding, of The True Location, and cause including, the Rules or Laws That Govern Evolution....

[edit on 26-7-2009 by The Matrix Traveller]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


However, I am not the one defining creation and saying it occurred without presenting evidence for it. I am responding to such a claim and explaining there is no evidence to support such it. I am saying evolution is a fact. [edit] However I never claim evolution "cancels" creation out. I don't think they are connected to be honest. like I said, people confuse evolution and think it is an attempt to explain the origins of our planet and how life started - but it's not at all.
Sure some form of creation could have occurred - but which one? Directed panspermia is a form of creation that could of occurred, and it fits in nicely with evolution...but there isn't much evidence for it. I would consider it much more plausible than the other forms of creation theory though. Plus, for the most part, the "creation" most people are referring to is "divine" and godly, I think we can agree on that.
This is getting off topic though -
For a supposedly advanced nation, which boasts leading scientific research and experimentation, for the majority of Americans to reject or somehow dispute evolution - that is pathetic. I don't really know what else to say. I suppose I can throw evolution out the window and claim my copy of the Silmarillion offers a completely valid version of how our universe came to be, but I doubt many people would take me seriously.
It would be no different than what religious creationists are claiming though.

In response to Matrix's comment - if you would simply write your bit without having to swirl it in "mystique" and metaphorical poetry, I could attempt to respond to you. Unfortunately, I haven't got a clue what you asked me...


[edit on 27-7-2009 by makinho21]

reply to post by makinho21


I would have thought my comments and questions, were very simple to say the least, and straight to the point.

There is No mystery !

It is Humankind that produces the Mystery !

reply to post by makinho21


You know. I would have believed you had you not at the end contradicted yourself so thoroughly. You make a claim to stance that is simular to mine then you say this:

I suppose I can throw evolution out the window and claim my copy of the Silmarillion offers a completely valid version of how our universe came to be, but I doubt many people would take me seriously.
It would be no different than what religious creationists are claiming though.

Simple fact is we do not know how the universe or even life started. Could it have been random chance? Yes, undoubtably so. Could it have been some being you would call "supernatural"? Yes, also undoubtably so, unfortunately you like more than a few others demonize a concept called religion *which is largely a specialised definition to lump several things together and call it religion* so you apply deep criticism of ideas attached to said concept. Have you ever looked critically at the Big Bang Theory and seen all the obvious dishonest BS conflations they take to keep a starting point they have no real proof for while observation proves them wrong time and time again? I mean, for all we know we may not have truly existed five seconds ago with all the memories of the past being fabrication. We are all human, we simply do not know and both sides need to just friggin agree to disagree. Minus the criticism, politics and games.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Kaytagg

For me, the downfall of science is marked by the Manhattan Project.

If science ever was working in the service of the public good, the development and deployment of the a-bomb, in secret and with disregard to the long-term effects and moral implications of these actions, brought that fantasy to an end.

To be sure, we owe a lot to science. But scientists, like military people and many others, can be used by some of the major players on this planet for purposes and activities that most of us would find quite despicable.

On the science side of the theory of evolution, there has been a considerable body of new data that the people who have a vested interest in evolution have failed to take seriously.

On the religious side of evolution, I suppose there will always be religious opposition to the idea. You're not going to get past that, especially with all the new data that contradicts a strict interpretation of evolution.

But evolution is only ONE of many weak spots in "modern" scientific theory. You can evaluate this for yourself by researching all the work that insiders are talking about on internet sites that are still being portrayed as "bad science" or "fringe" in the mainstream media.

I for one am happy that so few people take "science" seriously any more. But the problem is that many have just lost interest. In other words, science's failure to keep up has resulted in a huge PR problem for it. And there is no other non-religious source of basic data about life stepping in to take its place. So we are left with a huge segment of the population that considers it has no reliable source of true and factual data about aspects of life that are beyond our ability to comprehend without the work of science.

If science wants to redeem itself in the eyes of the public, it will have to start being more honest with us, and more willing to openly work in areas currently considered "fringe." Other major public institutions, including religion itself, are in a similar situation. They have all become enmeshed in the web of moral failure that is so aptly symbolized by the now iconic mushroom cloud.

reply to post by l_e_cox


Not just the a bomb. Any weaponized technology really if you think about it. But I wouldn't tell people not to take science seriously, just realise it's limitations and our limitations are the same. It would save us from ourselves no matter how much pretend some otherwise.

[edit on 27-7-2009 by Watcher-In-The-Shadows]

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


How do I contradict myself - I was explaining that is exactly what religious people do: they think by disproving evolution it somehow means their idea of creation is true. For sake of argument, let's say evolution is false - ok present me with facts and evidence that support creationism. As I said before, even if evolution was false (which it is not) that does not mean life was created. By the way, the beginning of life as a scientific theory is actually called abiogenesis and it is not the same thing as evolution.
Why religious people seem determined to "disprove" evolution I don't know - it doesn't mean their religious view falls on its face. The lack of evidence for these religious claims is a whole separate matter.
And ofcourse, to sum up your point, you must end by using some convoluted foggy speech about life and existence - as if that somehow backs up your argument.
Also - the big bang is a fact in the sense that the universe is expanding outwards (we have observed this). It is logical to extrapolate backwards to a point where everything first started expanding outwards. As I am not a physicist or an astronomer, my knowledge of the inner workings and mechanisms behind it - the laws which govern our ability to extrapolate - are not known to me.
Again, you seem to only see things in "absolute truth" and this red herring of "we can't know for sure", which tells me you are attempting to defend something that is rather unjustified and indefensible.

reply to post by Watcher-In-The-Shadows


What you wrote...
Quote:-

Could it have been random chance? Yes, undoubtably so. Could it have been some being you would call "supernatural"? Yes, also undoubtably so, unfortunately you like more than a few others demonize a concept called religion *which is largely a specialised definition to lump several things together and call it religion* so you apply deep criticism of ideas attached to said concept. Have you ever looked critically at the Big Bang Theory and seen all the obvious dishonest BS conflations they take to keep a starting point they have no real proof for while observation proves them wrong time and time again? I mean, for all we know we may not have truly existed five seconds ago with all the memories of the past being fabrication. We are all human, we simply do not know and both sides need to just friggin agree to disagree. Minus the criticism, politics and games.

Is so close to the TRUTH I don't think you could be any Closer than this.

I look forward to reading more of your comments in the future...

reply to post by makinho21


You contradict yourself by saying that evolution and "creation" can exist simultaniously then turning around and claiming that one must put aside evolution to accept "creation". Just in case you are in any doubt as to what the word contradiction means:

1: act or an instance of contradicting
2 a: a proposition, statement, or phrase that asserts or implies both the truth and falsity of something b: a statement or phrase whose parts contradict each other
3 a: logical incongruity b: a situation in which inherent factors, actions, or propositions are inconsistent or contrary to one another

SOURCE:[email protected]
Even going as far as using a small variation of the tired analogy including a mentioning of the works of JR Tolkien *"The Lord of the Rings" is the one I see most commonly used*

And perhaps if certain atheists didn't use an inflated conception of evolution as a refutation of a belief in a higher power perhaps there would not be such silly large scale attempts to refute evolution by their opposition. But then again the whole thing is silly at best and holding us back as a species.

As for the rest of your ad hom silliness I will make just one or two comments,
1) Just because you decide to refuse to understand what I am saying does not mean that it's hard to understand. The tactics of obfuscation, distortion and wanton misintrepretation shows themselves to be central to your response to anyone who disagrees *not to mention out and out childish ad hom attack*. I did not attack you after all, you on the other hand respond with insult.
2) You have really got to be kidding me? Are you sure you are paying attention??? My arguments have and always been against absolutism and so is the response in which you delusionally declare that I am a believer in some sort of "absolute truth" and my statements are just a red herring. So, I ask you to put up or shut up. How, pray tell, do you get that idea?

P.s.: Observation does not back up the Big Bang. You do not know ciritical thinking entails right? But I digress.

Originally posted by Watcher-In-The-Shadows
reply to post by makinho21

 

P.s.: Observation does not back up the Big Bang. You do not know ciritical thinking entails right? But I digress.

You lost me with that last assertion. It is incorrect.

Big Bang is actually a response to observations that could not be explained by the previous mainstream idea of an eternal universe. Two new hypotheses were advanced to solve the problem: the Big Bang model and Steady State model.

Observation has defeated Steady State: for example, it predicts that quasars and radio-galaxies should exist everywhere, but they do not. Furthermore, the Steady State explanation for the cosmic microwave background radiation is unconvincing at best.

Observation has supported Big Bang: for example, it predicts that quasars and radio-galaxies should exist only at great distances (i.e. distant past) which matches observation perfectly. Furthermore, the remnant cosmic microwave background radiation is strong evidence for the Big Bang.

perhaps your "SCIENCE" can show and actually PROVE that evolution is correct? aahh thats right your missing BIG MAJOR pieces huh?
yea but according to you SCIENCE explains all. OP remembers a section in his earth science book in high school and suddenly he knows all
pfftt

reply to post by DASFEX


Consider the following four theoretical questions

1) Could an elephant jump over the moon?

2) Could a man balance seven live snakes perfectly straight up on the end of his nose while riding a unicycle blind folded with his hands behind his back for one full hour?

3) Could a blind man, drunk as a skunk having no fingers build a perfect house of cards, from a shuffled pack, in perfect suits, while on the deck of a ship, in the middle a hurricane, without instructions?

4) Could a single celled life form begin by happenstance from ammonia, methane and water?

RESPONSE:
I see what you're getting at, but that's when you think that we are the absolute goal of 13.8 billion years of things happening.

The real way to see it would be someone taking a deck of cards and throwing them up in the air and letting them land wherever they may land. That's where we're at right now.

We are not special, we are not "supposed" to be here--we just are. At this moment in time, we are here; we weren't here before, and we won't be here for long.

Creationists always go to the "i'm supposed to believe that if you threw all the pieces of a watch into a windstorm and gave it enough time, it would form a watch?" argument, but the way it works is that however the watch pieces end up, that's where we are today. There was no plan. Just things happening. And we're not that perfect--we're one of the more flawed organisms on this planet, and soon enough we'll all be gone, and some other animals can take over as top predator.

[edit on 29-9-2009 by askew]