Poll: Evolution rejected by most in survey, Full story at http://www.physorg.com/news7500.html

Hum. Swimmers question also goes out to Insyght

Sigh. So because you haven't personally flown to the sun to confirm it is a massive fusion reactor containing mainly hydrogen -> Element Abundance
(percentage of total
number of atoms) Abundance
(percentage of total
mass)
Hydrogen 91.2 71.0
Helium 8.7 27.1
Oxygen 0.078 0.97
Carbon 0.043 0.40
Nitrogen 0.0088 0.096
Silicon 0.0045 0.099
Magnesium 0.0038 0.076
Neon 0.0035 0.058
Iron 0.0030 0.14
Sulfur 0.0015 0.040
...you cannot say, so it is equally likely the Sun is a bronze mirror hauled on the back of a chariot, driven by a huge dung beetle?
OK, I know it is an overly labored analogy, but it is no less insane than your statement - and a statement I have seen over and over again; I don't know the answer, therefore, no-one knows the answer.
There are and have been millions of people who have dedicated their lives to advancing our knowledge. This information is constantly updated. This is the way we learn. This is how we avoid sliding back into the dark ages. The Theory of Evolution says nothing about the origins of life, it describes how species change and give rise to new species. If it was dead wrong, PEER REVIEW would take it apart. It's subtleties are also constantly under review. Whether IDers get it or not, right now scientists are disputing aspects of it - the role of sex in evolution for example, has generated papers in the last 2 years. It doesn't answer all questions (very few theories do), but make no mistake, this is how science is done. Jerry Duke can continue to do the forum equivalent of soap box sermonizing 'til he is blue in the face - it won't change one little thing - until he submits his hysterical "creation proof" for PEER REVIEW, it means as little as my post will to him. Go on Jerry, send your proof to a mathematics journal. I dare you.

It's the reason they reject evolution! They reject it because of their religious beliefs! I have yet to see anyone reject evolution that did not have an ulterior motive (a belief in god, a competing theory...) they may reject certain elements of the theory, but still support the main ideals of evolution! This does not mean they don't exist... just that I have never encountered them!

OMG you are quoting Behe! You have no credability at all! He has MANY ulterior motives and yes, you are correct, he is a nut job!

Krreagan

Oy Jerry! I think you need to copy and paste that there cross and massive chunk o' fancy colored text. The first umpteen times didn't convert me, but I think this next one will! Go on! After all, what have you got to lose? Your credibility?

How many of these people in the survey, better yet the nation, care how they get their technology, for most people science is not something they participate in every day

what does it matter what people believe about things that happened long ago if they no longer effect us now?

the way I see it, arguing about the past is unnecessary, it is studying the universe as we see it now that matters, and the application of such that is technology, the "need" to know how one's ancestors came to be is an artifact of the mind

this means that any discussion on such is inherently philosophical and thus not truely scientific

not that philosophical discussions are bad, in fact, I tend to like them

This thread got very, very silly, very quickly.

Before anything else, I would like to tell a quick story. Mahatma Gandhi is one of the most respected leaders of modern history. A Hindu, Ghandi nevertheless admired Jesus and often quoted from the Sermon on the Mount. Once when the missionary E. Stanley Jones met with Ghandi he asked him, "Mr. Ghandi, though you quote the words of Christ often, why is that you appear to so adamantly reject becoming his follower?"

Ghandi replied, "Oh, I don't reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It's just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ."


The bible says a lot of things, and I find it dangerous that Christians pick and choose what they want to believe for their agendas. The whole book is allegorical. And Ghandi was right, Jesus was a good fellow. We should all learn something from his actions and teachings. What we shouldn't do is take the bible literally. Adam didn't stand there and name every creature in the world (yes it says that he did in genesis). You could take that literally ... but that would be silly. Take it for what it really is, an attempt to describe the world as best they could. Even better, take it as an allegory itself, and believe that we want to learn, we want to name all the creatures in the world. Do not take it literally, it was never written to be pertinent in today's era.

Every should take the teachings of Jesus to heart. I am an atheist, and I believe that. But, do take heed to what Ghandi reminded us of … be like him, too many Christians are not like him at all.

Also, it is dangerous to not believe in evolution. Evolution is a cornerstone of biology. It is also one of the simplest pieces of science. If we are all arguing over something so rudamentary, won't we all turn our kids off to science? ... We already are turning them off to it these days, why not give them anotehr reason to become anything but scientists ...

I finally want to remind everyone of something, many adaptations over a long period of time, which we have observed in beings ... look at bacteria, or the bird flu ... will result in a new species. Many mutations result in a new species, it is just that simple. Evolution proof right there.

This is shameful. God didn't create humankind, but vice versa. We created a god/gods in our own image. Creationism is a preposterous, infantile and totally mistaken belief, keep it at home.

Thank you ReligionPoisonsEverything. It has poisoned so many that this poll shows the results of mass indoctrination. A similar poll in Europe showed much higher results favoring evolution. They get it, why can't we? The only people who can deny evolution are the dogmatically brainwashed ignoramuses who can't or won't understand the science behind it. In all the intervening time since Darwin's masterwork was published in 1859, not a single contradictory paper has been published in any peer-reviewed scientific journal. All science, all newly discovered fossils and every new species discovered since then have all corroborated the FACTS of evolution. Why can't people see that? Darwin was more infallible than the Pope! The church put Galileo under house arrest as an old man for his science when it contradicted church dogma. The Pope had to apologize for that and other church transgressions. Darwin had no similar recantations! Long live science!

I THINK SCIENCE HAS OFFENDED RELIGION IN ITS ARROGANCE TO KNOW IT ALL. IT EVEN CLAIMS THAT IT WILL KNOW EVERYTHING SHORTLY. THAT IT WILL BE OVER SOON. THIS COULDN'T BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH.

MITCH RAEMSCH -- LIGHT LOVE --

You are right as what you say could not be further from the truth. Science admits it does not know everything and the more it finds out, the more there is to know. It has never claimed that it will know everything shortly. Why did you not attribute this quote to Einstein since you are fond of putting your lies into his mouth? Religion comes from a position of extreme ignorance and has no facts to support it. It is a fairy tale for gullible and stupid people, notably in America.

Religion has its uses. Unfortunately those people who can be "psychologically imprinted" far outnumber those of us who cannot be imprinted. Therefore, as the population expands in a voting society, the control of government causes inflation that is followed by a dictatorship. The function of a dictator is to kill off this excess population. These peasant type people are used by religious leaders to rule society. In mythology the chief god can be found in the "black hole". Regarding "Christ", there are two of them. The Christ of Moses was born in 1500 BC at that time when the Earth was bombarded by ice and rocks from the tail of the comet Venus before Venus was captured by the Sun and became a planet. The second Christ was born on 1 AD and crucified because he claimed to be the King of the Jews. Thus, the Romans considered him a trouble maker.
The first Christ believed in the enjoyment of physical love, whereas the second Christ taught people to multiply maximally because society was so close to starvation and lacked the nitrates in their diet needed to grow tall. Thus, the Catholic Church decreed that the peasants would be given fish to eat once a week.
As far as Elohim (God Almighty) is concerned, He is trying to build better people to populate the world. To do this He must kill off the weak and encourage the strong to reproduce. Those people who refuse to believe in science also refuse to apply scientific knowledge to prevent disease.

Christ comes from the Greek Christos meaning King. Who was Moses' King, when Moses was alive? I don't remember reading anything about this in the bible? There was certainly no account either of Earth being bombarded by ice or rocks in the bible, in any tales of the time or in the geological record.

Venus is a planet and not a comet. The stability of it's orbit now suggests that it has been there for many millions of years at least rather than just being captured. Venus has no water on it, so no ice. Being almost Earth sized, it would not lose mass if it moved out of it's orbit like a real comet would, which is sometimes just a loose conglomeration of ice, dust, rocks, dust, etc. Venus is a solid body. It has a dense atmosphere, about ninety times as dense as Earth's atmosphere and a surface temperature of around 400.C. Both suggest it has been where it now is for millions of years rather than wandering around the solar system.

People have always eaten fish where it is possible to catch them. People who have never left their village are not going to trek maybe fifty miles to the sea to catch fish because men in frocks told them to. God is trying nothing since he has been missing since the old testament when he continually interferred in Men's affairs. In the old testament, God killed off people regardless of strength of weakness with a tyranny which would have disgraced Nazi Germany.

Science and religion are not compatible. Those who follow the bible properly are creationists who are anti-science because it proves that their religion is wrong.

I like Thomas Lee Taylor's use of the phrase, "psychologically imprinted." I have been using indoctrinated and brainwashed, but maybe I could also use "scientifically challenged" to refer to those religious nuts who deny the obvious truths and overwhelming evidence for evolution! How else could ANY habitue of planet earth in the 21st century reject such a thoroughly documented scientific FACT.

And now for something completely different!