In the USA, 48% reject evolution, 34% of college graduades are Biblical creationists

[Sophie 378]

Shall we have a poll? Or hunt down a definition?

 

[Quiet Sound]

Oddly enough, I'm most ... angry? Upset? Offended? ... anyway, displeased, about this quote from the article in OP:
So, one in four people think that the only way to be moral is to be religious? I find that extremely insulting.

It really is. Just wait until you encounter that in person, in a context that forces you to bite your tongue.

 

[Phlegmak]

Shall we have a poll? Or hunt down a definition?

I generally don't like using Wiki to prove my points, but it supports what I said. BLAM!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_algae

That is, it'll support what I said until one of you edits it.

 

[Phlegmak]

It really is. Just wait until you encounter that in person, in a context that forces you to bite your tongue.

You're right; it's extremely insulting, just like Sophie said.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Maybe I can help with this microscopic plant thing.

First, in Genesis 1 the Bible specifies seed bearing plants and trees bearing seeds and fruit as the first living things on the planet.

Secondly, the Bible states the Earth was created before the Sun and all other stars. It also says the above-mentioned plants came before life in the oceans.

 

[Bill3000]

You're right; it's extremely insulting, just like Sophie said.

Is it really more insulting than the President saying that atheists arn't citizens because "We are One Nation Under God?"

 

[Sophie 378]

It really is.

This opinion really is extremely insulting, or being religious really is the only way to be moral?

Just wait until you encounter that in person, in a context that forces you to bite your tongue.

I already have encountered this many times in the UK, in school assemblies. Anyone caught making any noise during assembly was sent to the headmistress for a shouting-at, and given an hour's detention after school.

 

[Lotus49]

Hmm, I guess this just shows how atypical of a demographic CFC OT is.

With most, it's all just an act - I figured that out long ago (prior to this ID being created). This just happens to be a place where it's 'in style' to express a certain point of view. So, if you feel like venting in that direction, might as well do it here. But, lack of covinction is the main consistent trait I've found here. That, and the fact that there are so many natural followers out there that don't think for themselves (everywhere, mind you).

As for the topic at hand... ah, 'polls'...

 

[Jerrymander]

There's no proof of God whatsoever.
Much less of him actually doing anything.

 

[Quiet Sound]

This opinion really is extremely insulting, or being religious really is the only way to be moral?

I've been an atheist going on 8 years now. Part of becoming one was thinking about the sentiment that religion is the source of morality and realizing the implication it carries, namely that religious persons are not genuinely moral but merely obeying an arbitrary carrot and stick system of might-makes-right ethics. So, in short, I meant that the opinion is insulting.


/edit

Is it really more insulting than the President saying that atheists arn't citizens because "We are One Nation Under God?"

I was going to say that last I had heard that was unconfirmed but looking at the website of the journalist who originally made the claim I found the following:

Wednesday, February 4, 2004
Today, I contacted the Bush Presidential Library in College Station, Texas. I asked if there was any chance that such documents [of the conversation] could possibly exist; if they did exist, was there any chance that the documents would be stored at the Bush Presidential Library; if the documents did exist and were housed at the Bush Library, what was the chance that they could find such documents amongst the millions of items in their collection; and if they could find the documents, could I please obtain a copy?

A team of archivists went to work on the matter right away. Within a couple of hours, they had found the documents. They are archived as Item # CF01193-002. They'd be glad to send me a copy, but I'd have to send in an FOI (Freedom of Information Act) request. Due to a backlog of requests, it would take about two years for them to get the documents to me.

I have begun the process of obtaining copies. In the meantime, if you're ever in Texas, stop by the Bush Library and maybe you can see those documents for yourself.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think that the Americans on this board should be horrified at these numbers. There is a serious lack of scientific literacy in the American population, and many executives and economists are concerned that this will hurt America's competitiveness.

While it's correct that this belief might not be indicative of problems elsewhere, you can understand why the population has a serious distrust of science; they disagree with the majority of museums that their dollars pay for.

ouch.

 

[Lotus49]

Black and white - one extreme or the other... to me both camps demonstrate a lack of respectable depth in their thinking. A simplistic mind seeks & is content to be occupied with simple answers; too timid or unable to capacitate leaving that comfort zone, to explore on it's own.

Bascially, anyone that selects purely 'evolution', or 'creation', is -hopefully- not using their full intellectual capacity. As for the debate between the two camps, it's unimpressive. It's as if neither is willing to give ground, and concede the possiblity that the real truth might be a combination of the two. In one camp, their hearts are closed... in the other, their minds. Again - unimpressive.

 

[Phlegmak]

I think that the Americans on this board should be horrified at these numbers. There is a serious lack of scientific literacy in the American population, and many executives and economists are concerned that this will hurt America's competitiveness.

While it's correct that this belief might not be indicative of problems elsewhere, you can understand why the population has a serious distrust of science; they disagree with the majority of museums that their dollars pay for.

ouch.

Judging by things like Conservapedia and Kent Hovind, for a long time, we'll be dealing with people who want to take science backwards.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

Black and white - one extreme or the other... to me both camps demonstrate a lack of respectable depth in their thinking. A simplistic mind seeks & is content to be occupied with simple answers; too timid or unable to capacitate leaving that comfort zone, to explore on it's own.

Bascially, anyone that selects purely 'evolution', or 'creation', is -hopefully- not using their full intellectual capacity. As for the debate between the two camps, it's unimpressive. It's as if neither is willing to give ground, and concede the possiblity that the real truth might be a combination of the two. In one camp, their hearts are closed... in the other, their minds. Again - unimpressive.

Well, I have to admit that most people that believe in evolution do so for the same reason creationists believe in biblical creation. I experience similar things in the CFC forums all the time and I think "I agree with your conclusion but I don't agree with your logic."

 

[bhsup]

First, I want to apologize for the whole "algae <> plant" thing. All I really meant was that if forced to try to pigeonhole algae into plant or animal, it would be closer to a plant, generating energy via photosynthesis and whatnot.

I wrote a bit of a post deconstructing how off Genesis 1 is from natural history, but I got fatigued.

In what way does it actually fit natural history? I can't see a single creation event that is shown in the right order relative to the others.

Whether the guy is right or not in the details, it's an interesting read, speaking of "Age of the Universe" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

The calculations come out to be as follows:

• The first of the Biblical days lasted 24 hours, viewed from the “beginning of time perspective.” But the duration from our perspective was 8 billion years.
• The second day, from the Bible’s perspective lasted 24 hours. From our perspective it lasted half of the previous day, 4 billion years.
• The third day also lasted half of the previous day, 2 billion years.
• The fourth day -- one billion years.
• The fifth day -- one-half billion years.
• The sixth day -- one-quarter billion years.

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

 

[Bill3000]

When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?

Of course, the funny thing is that is incorrect - the current estimated age of the universe is 13.7 BY.

 

[Sophie 378]

Whether the guy is right or not in the details, it's an interesting read, speaking of "Age of the Universe" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.
[/SIZE][/FONT]

Any votes from our more knowledgable members (TLC? Carlos? Perf? et al?) whether those "days" bear any relation our current models of cosmology, geology and biology?

 

[Pounder]

So what day are we in now and how long is it going to last?

 

[Lotus49]

First of all, I read my Bible every day, now let me speak on this 'six days' discussion:

Six "PHASES" - Use some common sense. The Bible was primarly written to be a guide as to how people should live their lives (by the word of God). Granted, there are plenty of bonafide historical references throughout... but keep in mind that it was not meant to be a history of the natural sciences for the earth & the universe.

When it says "forty days" (someone was in the desert), or "40 years" (they wandered), etc.... that is simply so that the (mostly uneducated) masses of people for whom this book was meant to guide, would have a general idea/rough concept of 'how long' something went on for.

So... here's the book, the guide for how the masses of God's people are supposed to live their lives - His word, their guide. Would it really make sense to start off, talking about the technical scientific details of how exactly every rock was created, right down to the atomic structure? No - "six days" was merely used to strike people so they would be impressed by God's power to create all things, and then quickly move on to the part that applies to humans...

And the fact that I even have to lay this out there like that, doesn't imply that I'm massively impressed with the intellects of whom I'm speaking. No offense. Some things should just be naturally common sensical - if indeed you are... "so wise", with all answers. Of course, you're not going to get everything from any book. Some things can only be come to be understood in other ways (i.e. using your own mind, and keeping it open).

So, here we have two groups - one says they believe in God, and that He created everything in six days - literally. The other, may or may not believe in God, but they stand by what has been discovered by science, and ridicule the "guide for the masses's" brief explanation which mentions God creating the universe. ....And they just go back and forth. Like a bunch of kids. The only thing that changes from birth, 'til death - is the size of their clothes.

"O unbelieving generation," Jesus replied, "how long shall I stay with you? How long shall I put up with you?

-I relate to that, nearly every moment.

 

[Quiet Sound]

Whether the guy is right or not in the details, it's an interesting read, speaking of "Age of the Universe" by Dr. Gerald Schroeder.

"When you add up the Six Days, you get the age of the universe at 15 and 3/4 billion years. The same as modern cosmology. Is it by chance?"

From where does he get these numbers? They do not appear in the Bible.