Survey Results: Origins and Evolution, page 3

privacy

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 5 6 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 82 times

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:37 PM by Morg234

Overall good results, however puzzling it is that in the last question only 15.9% of those surveyed selected the right answer. Must do better.

And yes, it is the "right" answer. Come on now, this isn't 1862. There's no excuse today.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:37 PM by Fiberx

I am finally encouraged by one of these polls!

The European contegent is leading the way in the intellectual awakening to science but we Americans are starting to move towards the light in eber greater numbers now.

/applause

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:39 PM by Tarzan the apeman.

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

Well it is called the theroy of evolution, it, like god is based on ones own faith and belief. All I know for myself is that the numbers dont add up. Math is truly a funny thing.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:44 PM by Sundowner

reply to post by SkepticOverlord

What I find interesting is the very last graph.

I think that it brings up an interesting point...how many of you feel this way? I personally think it could be true. We would all do well to remember that ther are "believers" on both sides of the aisle. (If you know what i mean...)

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:44 PM by Violetshy

I personally enjoy all forms of opinions. Its helped me broaden my own thoughts and strengthen my own ideas. I'm glad there are both sides to challenge my mind!

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:47 PM by deanx

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
reply to post by ChaoticOrder

In deed i am, its actually incredible that so many people here who are supposed to be "Anti-illuminati" actually believe in the theory of a 33rd degree freemason.

Can you provide any evidence that Charles Darwin was in fact a 33 degree Freemason? Thanks in advance.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:47 PM by MollyStewart

You're trying to tell us how to deny ignorance and you believe in the young earth theory? Interesting.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I have to interject here for a moment and please excuse me for doing so. It is my understanding that the age of the earth cannot be accurately measured. Scientists/geologists have come up with their best "guesstimations" and carbon dating is not accurate. There is simply no real way to be sure the earth was formed millions or billions of years ago especially whilst taking into consideration cataclysmic global events which also tends to change the geology of the earth in relatively short periods of time. I've said it before and voted the same way, that science does not preclude God's existence, it merely has yet to catch up. History is subjective and is always written with the authors or contractors bias and is also unreliable. As for Darwin's theory, it is still a theory, whether they teach it in schools or not and even he had sincere doubts about it.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:51 PM by spikey

Originally posted by Timing
reply to post by spikey

I also see what you are getting at, but part of the fun of debating is not to diminish your position with "I think" and "In my opinion" as it weakens your stance and makes you look unsure of yourself and position.

There are probably other purposes for it too.

I see what you mean and agreed, if tactical advantage is the only goal of a poster.

If being totally honest, i think it can actually strengthen one's position, as it implies humility and acknowledgement that nothing is certain and we all make mistakes or get things wrong, even a lifetime of believing in a theory can be wrong, and often is.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:52 PM by Xcalibur254

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

First off I would like to see your evidence that Darwin was a 33rd Degree Mason, let alone a Mason at all. His name appears on no rolls from the period. Second, it's not even relevant that if he was a Mason or not. I'm not going to get into the whole Freemasonry is an arm of Illuminati argument here, but I will bring up the fact that whether or not he was or wasn't a Mason has no bearing on the legitimacy of his theory. We have had over 150 years since Darwin originally presented his theory. Since that time no peer-reviewed articles have been published that disprove the theory of evolution. In fact we have only found more evidence to support it. So, unless you're also suggesting that every biologist, not to mention geologist and palaeontologist, are 33rd degree Masons your argument has no basis whatsoever.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:52 PM by kykweer

What's the difference between agree and strongly agree?

Surely you either agree or don't. Yes or no.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:53 PM by RevelationGeneration

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
I was personally one of the minority that voted for young earth creation, since i believe fully in the biblical accounts of the bible, but i already knew there was a high majority of atheist's here so this poll only confirmed it for me.

First, which of the two creation stories told in Genesis do you believe to be the correct account?

Sorry but Genesis two is not a retelling of Genesis one.

Genesis 1 is the account of the creation of the universe and life on planet earth as it happened in chronological sequence. Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation of the events that occurred at the end of the sixth creation day - when God created human beings. Genesis one provides virtually no details about the creation of human beings (other than the idea that humans were created in the image of God).

Originally posted by mister.old.school

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
I was personally one of the minority that voted for young earth creation, since i believe fully in the biblical accounts of the bible, but i already knew there was a high majority of atheist's here so this poll only confirmed it for me.

Second, how was the human race propagated if Adam and Eve only had two sons?

GENESIS 5:3-5

3 And Adam lived on for a hundred and thirty years. Then he became father to a son in his likeness, in his image, and called his name Seth. 4 And the days of Adam after his fathering Seth came to be eight hundred years. Meanwhile he became father to sons and daughters. 5 So all the days of Adam that he lived amounted to nine hundred and thirty years and he died.

As you can see from this Scripture he also had daughters. No offence to your self but if people read The Bible then they would also know this too, he did not only have two Sons.

I hope that this helps you out.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:53 PM by mister.old.school

Originally posted by Tarzan the apeman.
Well it is called the theroy of evolution,

A purposeful semantic obfuscation by an apparently very vocal and vehement minority.

Your statement is incorrect. It's "called" the science of biological evolution.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:54 PM by Josonic

Originally posted by kykweer
What's the difference between agree and strongly agree?

Surely you either agree or don't. Yes or no.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:55 PM by spikey

Originally posted by MollyStewart

You're trying to tell us how to deny ignorance and you believe in the young earth theory? Interesting.

reply to post by ChaoticOrder

I have to interject here for a moment and please excuse me for doing so. It is my understanding that the age of the earth cannot be accurately measured. Scientists/geologists have come up with their best "guesstimations" and carbon dating is not accurate. There is simply no real way to be sure the earth was formed millions or billions of years ago especially whilst taking into consideration cataclysmic global events which also tends to change the geology of the earth in relatively short periods of time. I've said it before and voted the same way, that science does not preclude God's existence, it merely has yet to catch up. History is subjective and is always written with the authors or contractors bias and is also unreliable. As for Darwin's theory, it is still a theory, whether they teach it in schools or not and even he had sincere doubts about it.

I think the point was that it's been scientifically estimated to be 'at least' 4 Billion years old, and nowhere near 6,000 years old (give or take a century or two).

This is based on rocks spewed from the bowels of our planet during volcanic eruptions etc, that prove the Earth is much, much older than some religious folk claim it to be.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:56 PM by SaturnFX

Originally posted by Inquisitive1
reply to post by SkepticOverlord

I took the survey, but responded to every question with the answer "Neutral". It's the only suitable answer when you don't know, and finding out is next to impossible.

You are allowed to have an opinion about things you don't fully know.

For instance...you don't know matter of factly that your mother loves you, but you can be of the opinion that she does overall

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:56 PM by myselfaswell

Before I answer your question I will highlight the obvious nature of your post.

You claim to be a tolerant individual yet in the second line of your post you question whether or not I am a religious bigot. Get your hand off it.

The outcome of the survey as it stands at the moment indicates to me that there is obviously a broad base of opinion. That opinion seems to me to understand that there is little definition in the argument and pretty much all options are open, with the exception of the obvious.

The point is that nothing in the universe is certain for us at the moment, except the sky is blue and grass is green, for most people.

Again, is there any chance of getting the results of member / non member stats.

Cheers

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 05:59 PM by mister.old.school

Originally posted by RevelationGeneration
Genesis 2 is simply an expanded explanation

In the first story, Man and Woman were created simultaneously after the animals. In the second story, Woman was made from Man, before the animals.

As you can see from this Scripture he also had daughters.

I am aware of the scripture, having previously been a student in a seminary institution. My question was leading.

So, we should accept that the propagation of man relied upon an act that was a severe sin of that era?

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 06:00 PM by Xcalibur254

reply to post by MollyStewart

The way the Earth has been dated precludes a lot of what you claim. First off carbon dating is not used. Due to the rate at which carbon decays it is only an accurate dating method up to 60,000 years. On top of that the study that claims carbon dating is inconsistent has never been replicated. Even if it had I believe the differences only amounted to about .001%. In other words even if carbon dating worked to date the Earth the inconsistencies would not caused a 6,000 year Earth to be dated at 4.54 billion years.

Now on to how the Earth is actually dated. First radiometric dating is performed on rocks from Earth. This is to give us a low end of possible ages. In other words the Earth cannot be younger than the oldest rocks. This gave us a year of around 4.3 billion years. Now the next step was to date objects that would have formed around the same time as the Earth. Since we can't really date the other planets we must look to meteors. So far every meteor that has been dated has produced an age of 4.5 - 4.6 billion years with most right around 4.54 billion years.

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 06:00 PM by qonone

Originally posted by GmoS719

I figured more people would lean towards creation.
hmmm.
I'll pray for the world today.

Applause

To be honest, i knew the results was going to be a bit shocking (to me) but this was more than expected. Well, each for oneself

Originally posted by Vitchilo
ATSers are not religious loonies who believe in made up stories created by organized religion so they could make a buck and get power.

Sorry to burst your bubble.

Yeah, just so stands that many of us loons believe in a Supreme and not the greed of those whom you identify the rest of us with. Wake up.

*And from contributor like yourself i expect more than the usual organized religion response. You should know very very very well that many followers of The Supreme do not support any organized religion.

edit on 8/29/2011 by qonone because:

reply posted on 29-8-2011 @ 06:02 PM by spikey

reply to post by RevelationGeneration

So, correct me if i'm wrong, but basically what you're saying here is that you believe all human life is the result of an incestuous interbreeding of Adam's children?

Isn't that sort of thing frowned upon by the church? I know homosexual paedophilia is fairly popular among quite a few priests, but i had no idea incest was too.

Doesn't surprise me, i have to say.